So you are saying that now that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers and easier/better tools that can and will probably let us write a "Metro" game or application for PC's, Laptops, Tablets and maybe Phones and Consoles, should not ask for money?
You also just answered that yourself, "I think it's Windows that stands out as the only platform that doesn't really have a standard download place, leaving us to the mercy of places like download.com filling the void.". So, isn't this Metro developer subscription model a benefit? One more way to be seen, no? You are hating on it simply because its Microsoft. Apple, charges also AND you "need" to use their hardware to develop for them! If things have not changed.
I haven't expressed hatred here. I dislike and have criticised Apple's IOS model too, and would worry for it to become the norm. So it's not true that I'm singling out MS.
And no I'm not saying "that Microsoft has created a better reach for developers", much of my last post, in agreement with Antheus, was disputing this idea. Pay money for the privilege of writing software?
I have no problem with a standard download place, nor do I have any problem with a paid for one that people can optionally use.
"The Mac Developer Program annual fee is $99, and in local currency where available."
And to develop on Android there is a one time fee, which is or was like $25.
And also, all "app stores" take a cut of your sales. Amazon, Facebook, Steam, Google, iTunes and now finally, Windows will. What about the other ones like Intels app store? And the rest that I'm not even aware off? I'm sure they do.
Not relevant - with all those, you are free to distribute where you like. You don't have to pay anything to develop for a device that you own. You don't have to pay a penny to distribute free apps for Windows. The issue is also more control than cost. And Intel's AppUp Centre? I took one look at that, wasn't convinced that the traffic would be worth the effort of even uploading, and chose
not to use it.
Individuals shouldn't have to pay money to write software for free. Companies with their own established distribution methods shouldn't be required to go through one company. 30% cut may or may not be a good buy - but the choice of distribution should be up to those in the market, not enforced by technology as a monopoly. And one company shouldn't get to decide what software I as a user can run on my device.
(And to be honest, there is a matter of scale - if VS full version only cost $25, people would be far less bothered I imagine. Android is also free itself, so the $25 could be seen as a charge for a developer version, which is less than the normal cost of Windows. But that's irrelevant anyway, since it's not true you have to pay that to develop for an Android device, it's just that most people choose
to. If MS opened a Metro download site, with a one off cost for $25, that wasn't required and enforced by the hardware, you wouldn't get any criticism from me.)
But because its Microsoft, you find it "wrong". The last big company to incorporate it.
The only company currently with this model is Apple, and even then only for IOS. (Possibly it's true for consoles too, but it's hardly true that MS are the "last big" company to do this, when most download sites don't exert this kind of control at all; and I don't want general purpose software distribution to be like it is for games consoles.) I criticise Apple with IOS far more than MS, so it's a straw man to say I only criticise becaue it's MS.
Or you can just do the usual desktop app and ignore the "Stores" and "MetroStuff" and use the current tech, API's and Platform that will be still supported for the next 10 years like Diablo 3, WoW and Minecraft have been doing, heard does games sold alot. >.>
Exactly, that's my point, that non-Metro is still important. I still use "stores", but I can choose to distribute where I like.
Granting a monopoly to MS on software distribution will be better for everyone? I'm sure they'd love you to believe it. It'll be great for MS, with the 30% cut, and the annual $99 on top.
No, the MS Store will have a monopoly on Metro apps; just like the App Store has one on iOS and the Play store does on Android.
Android software doesn't have to be distributed through Google Play (Google have a strong advantage, but I have no problem with that - if say download.com had become the de facto place to distribute software, then good luck to them. The point is that the monopoly of the download sites for Apple IOS - and MS Metro - is enforced by the hardware, and they can get away with doing what they like.)
True that MS is only doing this for Metro, but then that's on topic for the VS 11 Express only supporting Metro. As the Ars article says, free development on Windows from MS is no longer possible. By all means argue that as a good thing if you like.
Also I was referring to way2lazy2care's paradigm shift - I was curious if he thought it would be a good thing if done for all Windows software? And if not, why is there a difference?
You can continue to develop and sell your non-Metro apps via other means, no one is stopping you there but they won't be getting on a tablet any time soon
Yes that is what people's criticisms are. "But Officer, Apple are speeding too" not being much of a defence.
You can get software onto an x86 tablet fine, and it can be optimised for touchscreen UI and run fullscreen, which I have already done for my games, but it won't behave as a Metro application, meaning it won't integrate properly (e.g., all of the appliations using this method will appear lumped onto the "desktop" screen, rather than having their own screen). Which is bad for user experience. So I wonder if that's going to harm the experience of Windows on tablets.
And before anyone misunderstands, I love the idea of what Windows 8 is doing. That's all the more reason I worry about these ideas flying around about "most things should be Metro full screen" or "Let's drop non-Metro from VS Express" or "MS having an enforced-by-technology monopoly on software distribution for Metro is fine; Apple do it too".
(Indeed, one of the points I've made for years is that, whilst I can choose not to use IOS, them doing it will make it easier for MS to get away with it, and look, people here explicitly making that very argument.)
@BeanDog : Yes, the type-from-start-menu works fine in Windows 8, and is something I love since Windows 7 (or Vista?). And I do like the start menu on Windows 8 - I think this is something that works well on both desktops/laptops and tablets/phones, since you can both click a tile, and type. And here, taking up the full screen seems reasonable to me.
Edited by mdwh, 31 May 2012 - 09:06 AM.