

Ask YC: why doesn't Microsoft have a Windows App Store? - petervandijck

You could sell your apps through it. Or does that not make sense? And if not, why does the iPhone appstore make sense?
======
jawngee
Because software distribution through physical retail channels was well
established before the internet became mainstream.

And before Microsoft could get their head around the opps on the internet,
Tucows, CNET, et al. had the leg up in online application distribution -
though they left monetization up to the end developer.

Digital River used to be a digital download online marketplace, but they cut
their "app store" out and now focus solely on e-commerce.

------
itgoon
If nothing else, anti-trust concerns could be enough to put a damper on
things.

Then, there's a host of liability concerns ("Microsoft said it was okay").

That said, I think there is, and has been, plenty of room for improving
application management in the Windows space.

One of the things that I appreciate about Ubuntu/CentOS is that I don't have
to look for apps, nor even worry if I'm getting the correct version (usually
:) ) I just select it, wait, and then start using it.

Windows really needs this kind of simplicity. It's too big a chunk of work for
me to pull off (negotiating with Redmond would be an effort, all by itself),
but coming up with a Windows "distribution" would be really cool. Something
reasonably well-tested, with a means of easily selecting and installing apps
which have also been tested.

(Edited to fix an incomplete sentence)

------
jteo
The iPhone app store is Apple's beachhead into mobile computing in general,
the iPhone the first of many such mobile platforms. App store developers get
rich, and Apple's platform becomes more popular and attractive to users. It
has worked well so far.

Microsoft already owns the majority of the desktop space. Why would it need an
App store? The returns on investment would be insufficient to justify any
investment.

------
nreece
Windows Marketplace? <http://www.windowsmarketplace.com>

~~~
rythie
Looks like they have abandoned that idea.

Edit: It no longer sells non-Microsoft software was what I meant.

~~~
aneesh
Windows Marketplace used to sell third-party apps until 2008. Now it basically
just points to store.microsoft.com

------
dchest
There were a lot of discussions in shareware community about Windows
Marketplace, and how it would push every non-Digital River/eSellerate (they
were payment providers in Marketplace) registration service out of business
back in the days when Vista was known as Longhorn. People were preparing for
crazy code signing "Design for Windows"-like schemes, because it seemed like
Marketplace would be as big as AppStore today.

Well, Windows Marketplace failed. (I think there's still an icon for it in
Windows Start menu?)

------
sidmitra
I think a free market approach, accidently perhaps, worked for Windows. I
don't like the idea of a central authority sanctioning any apps. Apple store
has problems of its own. I don't use any Apple products, but i hear people
complaining everyday how a certain app was pulled or rejected but iFart made
it. I don't side with monopoly on this issue.

The idea of a central update place for all your apps still sounds
appealing(like Ubuntu) though.

------
pg
One reason is that it would be hard to ensure no bad stuff slipped in with the
free apps. But Baseshield solved that problem by building a vm the apps live
in.

<http://baseshield.com>

------
rythie
It would put other companies that sell software out of business. They really
want people like Amazon to be on there side otherwise they might stop selling
Windows software and start pushing Mac. In addition Microsoft probably
wouldn't ship applications that they saw as serious competitors and would get
a lot of legal hassle.

Apple's iPhone store only makes sense in the sense that it is simple for users
to get software. In the long term I think it's anti-competitive and stupid,
since there should be a Amazon store and various other stores that compete
with each other. Currently applications on the iPhone are fairly small and low
value - if they move the platform to big devices like a 10inch tablet, Apple
TV with more sophisticated applications, then it will have to open up.

------
halo
As I've previously posted, they did
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=618707>):

Microsoft included Digital Locker with Vista allowing you to purchase
applications from 3rd parties via Windows Marketplace, but it has since
shutdown, presumably due to lack of popularity.

------
whacked_new
Lots of conjectures flying around here with or without basis.

This site says they will have one:

[http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/news/show/91276/steve-
ballme...](http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/news/show/91276/steve-ballmer-
confirms-windows-mobile-app-store-in-the-works.html)

------
mr_cheese
Also, why doesn't Apple have an app store for Mac software? That would be
pretty cool (of course they'd still have to allow people to download/buy the
traditional way -- the Mac App Store would be optional)

------
cellis
Fear not, young padawan! (I firmly believe that) An xbox mobile is
coming...There is already an XNA marketplace which will segue nicely into this
venture. Brush up on your C#.

------
access_denied
The appstore makes sense for Apple, because...

\- quality control for end-users. Like when Nintendo started with the NES.

\- cutting the middle-man out of app marketing - good for third-party
developers.

Microsoft does not care for neither party. Microsofts strategy with
DOS/Windows was always about tight-knit contracts with OEMs.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Apple hasn't cut out the middle-man so much as replacing him by ... Apple
itself. They have become the super middle-man, not just for marketing but for
distribution and conflict resolution and what have you.

~~~
gtufano
You are somewhat right, but there are two faces in Apple being the super
middle-man: 1) the good fact that it is "fair". The underdogs leave to them
the same amount of money of the big brasses (30%). Any application starts the
same, and you don't need special marketing effort to start up. At least, not
the same effort you should have to start from scratch. You can use your time
to have a better application, not to market it better. And I REALLY like this
one. 2) the fact that they have the "last word" on what goes into the AppStore
definitely stinks. No need to add to this. I can understand how this happens,
but it stinks.

The fact is that me (and many thousand other) still prefer the reason (1) to
the reason (2) and this is the success of AppStore.

Returning to "why Microsoft don't have it": because they don't need the indie
developer and they will not upset the bigger brands to help a new market
develops. The competitor of Apple in the mobile space are trying to start
their store (Nokia, RIM)... if Apple can start the AppStore for OS X (and it
have the same success, things I don't know if possible), we will, probably,
see the Microsoft Store for Windows... otherwise I don't think so...

~~~
trezor
_1) the good fact that it is "fair"._

I guess this is why Google maps got a "go" despite using undocumented APIs the
_regular_ developers of the AppStore are not allowed to use?

It's not a as level playing field as you think.

~~~
philwelch
Google Maps are included with the iPhone, they're not a third party app. I'm
sure if you could convince Apple to bundle your app with every iPhone you
would get to use undocumented API's, too.

------
trezor
Because, just like Mac users, Linux* users and users everywhere which has a
full rich user-interface, not a minimal mobile interface, they like to be able
to get applications from any source, not just one central location.

While the Apple AppStore no doubt is successful, Apple has most definitely
proven just how bad that idea works out in practice, and how trying to control
it effectively leads to inconsistent censorship leading developers to either
hold back on ideas or spend programming effort which could have been spent
making their applications better, to make sure it complies with the store-
policies. I can just picture updates & security updates lagging behind 2
months because the application needs reapproval.

No thanks. I'll just google, download a setup.exe and run the app thank you
very much.

Now you might argue "How would you know that this download is safe and
properly QAed?". That could be a fair point. But given how badly Apple has
handled the AppStore with its rather limited set of applications, imagine if
Microsoft were all of a sudden tasked to deal with the entire back-catalog of
Windows software out there.

Do you honestly believe that could be reasonably QAed without Microsoft
spending millions, millions and more millions in the process? And if they
didn't people wouldn't bother using the store, since "I find all the software
I need with google, and nothing with this AppStore thing".

Microsoft is making a pretty good move doing nothing here.

* Yes I know about package-management, repositories, etc etc. That still doesn't cut the need to custom compile applications from various non-official sources every now and then.

~~~
graemep
Non-geek Linux users do not custom compile stuff. They do download packages or
binaries with installers, or perhaps add a repo, but then, as you point out,
an MS app store would not rule out downloading or purchasing elsewhere.

I agree with your other points.

It would also be very difficult to set up the deals with enough other vendors
for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine many of them not being happy relying on
a single channel.

Also, the presence of software on CDs in shops is good marketing for MS - a
major objection to MacOS and Linux is "I cannot buy software for it in the
shops around here".

If they excluded open source, it would reduce what is available. If they
include it, they would give a message that they do not want to about free (in
both senses) software.

------
TweedHeads
They sell software, they don't want anybody else to profit from that.

Greed? or plain stupidity?

------
drhowarddrfine
1) Requires creative thinking. 2) Microsoft can't make money off it. 3) You
can't compete with Microsoft. 4) Microsoft isn't in the business of helping
you make money.

