[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1344547405' post='4967916']
For the record, I like Microsoft - I'm just not in favor of how they sometimes through around their weight. Had it been like this originally (buying software primarily through, or only through, the OS owners stores), I wouldn't complain, but doing it after the fact makes me aware of the freedom we currently have as consumers and as developers, and how much we could potentially be harmed by such a move.

And as much as we might dislike the idea the general public want them and if MS had stayed out of having an app store it really would be their end which puts them in a very hard place as they need the app stores yet people see it as a 'removal of freedom' despite the fact freedom isn't being removed.[/quote]
Freedom isn't boolean 'true' or 'false'. Options and opportunities will get narrowed down if smaller digital stores fail, and the ability to avoid one store or another gets reduced when if store grows to a dominant size and starts throwing around it's weight.

A few days ago Valve announced the availabilty of "normal" applications on Steam. When Newell said that he doesn't like Microsoft's new direction he simply didn't like the competition.

Microsoft has already been part of the competition, as a console holder (mainstream games), a provider XBox Live Arcade or whatever (digital download of indie games), PC games (Games for Windows Live).

Valve has also had competition from Impulse, bought by GameStop (largest Brick and Mortar game store), and from Origin (One of the largest mainstream game publishers), and Amazon.com (largest web retailer of generic merchandise), and also from other minor sources like Good Old Games and the sporadic Humble Indie Bundle. Valve has worked hard to stay ahead, and have actively encouraged (at least publicly) competition, and never (unlike every other store in existence) has required or requested exclusivity deals, as far as I know. Valve has stayed ahead of the competition by offering good deals for developers, good deals for the consumer, and

Valve is frustrated that Microsoft is now coming and forcing their store to be the first store customers see on Windows, in the same way Microsoft complained about Google listing Google's services above Microsoft's in search results (I'm not making a comment about whether Google was 'in the wrong' or 'in the right', I'm just pointing out Microsoft is doing the same thing they found it reasonable to complain about).

To just dismiss all of that with a hand wave of, "Oh they're just crying because they don't want any competition", is a ridiculous reflex surface-level response ignoring Valve's history and Microsoft's history. Of course they don't want competition, they're a business! But that's not what Valve is complaining about - they aren't crying over competition, but unfaircompetition from a quasi-monopoly with a history of using unfair competition to gain dominance. Sure, they'd love to complain about competition in general, but they don't because they aren't stupid. But yes, they are complaining about unfair competition.

As someone who is neither ignorant, nor lazy, I download and purchase all my tablet software through the official app store (Google Play) for my device. nVidia has an app store. Lenovo has an app store. Amazon has an app store, <Tablet Vendor X has an app store> etc... I don't care. There are nice games, books, and other things exclusive to other app stores. I won't buy them. I even nuked the alternate app stores on tablets I gave away as gifts, because they are a pain in the ass.

I don't mean 'ignorant' as an insult, nor was I calling anyone here ignorant (just so we're clear). I mean ignorant not as 'stupid' (lack of intelligence), but as a 'lack of knowledge'. Many people were 'ignorant' that there even was an alternative to Internet Explorer. Many people will be equally ignorant that there is even an alternative to Microsoft Windows. There will be plenty of people who know and understand, and can make a valid choice between two or more competitive services... the problem is, when the masses don't understand that there even is a choice, they are forced to put up with poor service, and that service doesn't have to actively innovate or improve because there is no competitive threat (just a bunch of minor threats), because it has dominance through ignorance instead of through being a better service (and having to continually improving to make sure it stays the best service from year to year).

As for laziness, I myself am pretty lazy - let me tell you how this would work with me: Ignoring Windows 8's new metro interface for a second, imagine if the Windows Store is integrated into the Windows 7 Start panel. I click the start button, and right under 'Control panel' I have 'Download applications'.
- I'm aware that a better service exists (this requires knowledge most consumers don't have) - Most consumers will be lost here.
- I have to download and install the service (this requires effort?, albeit only a little) - A consumers lost few here.
- When downloading, "Oh no, this might contain a virus! Are you super-duper sure you want to download it?", says my Microsoft Branded web browser. This creates uncertainty and fear in the consumer. - Some consumers lost here.
- When installing the store, "Oh no, this might contain a virus! Are you super-duper sure you want to install it?", says my Microsoft Branded operating system and virus protection software. More uncertainty and fear. - Some consumers lost here.
- Finally, every time I want to play or install a game, I have to click the Steam, wait for it to load, click the game, wait for it to load. Eventually, there will be large publicity around a game I want to play, and then multiple games I want to play, that Microsoft has (using their bulk market share from all the consumers lost in the previous steps) signed exclusive deals with. When enough games that I want have become exclusive to Microsoft, I'll eventually crack, and visit Microsoft's store. - Some non-ignorant consumers lost here due to exclusivity.
- Because Microsoft's store is always in front of my face, whether I want it or not, and because there is less clicks required to get there, and now I already have one foot inside the door, I'll gradually use it more and more out of laziness. - More non-ignorant consumers lost here due to always-present convenience.
But even if I hold firm, trying to 'vote with my dollar', all the consumers lost from all the other steps (which is the majority of the consumers) reward Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior making it worthwhile to Microsoft.

The only difference between app store A and B is who gets the 20%. So there is no need to support 50 of them as a user.[/quote]
But there is every need for 5 different services to be supported 100% by a share of the users, rather than 1 service to be supported by 90% of all the users. That need is called 'competition'.

Again, I'm not under some delusion that this is the end of indie game development.
I know that Microsoft isn't blocking access to native applications and web downloads.
Nor am I under the delusion that this is the end of competition or even of Steam.
I'm not under the delusion that, 'Oh teh noes, Micro$ux is going to rule the wrold!' (unlike most people, I actually liked Vista and some (not all) of Microsoft's products).
I'm not under the delusion that Microsoft will have digital sales in a stranglehold forever.
I'm not afraid that game developers won't be able to sell their games.

I'm just afraid that there is the potential ([size=2]not a certainty!) that this will hinder progress ([size=2]not bring everything to a crashing halt!) and innovation for the next 4 or 5 years ([size=2]not forever!), in the same way people complain Microsoft did with Internet Explorer after the first browser wars and before the second - but I was too young then, so I am not familiar with that 'war' first-hand.

Maybe it's an irrational fear, but hopefully I explained in a logical way my thought process and my reasoning behind why I don't like what Microsoft is doing. Once more: I'm not against Microsoft having a digital store... they've already had two unsuccessful ones (Games for Windows Live, and Microsoft Store) and one that is arguably only successful because it's the only option for that console (Xbox Live Marketplace). I'm against Microsoft using their dominant position as the Windows platform holder to, again, make up for areas where they have a lack of quality services or products.

So before you dismiss my, or Valve's, or Blizzard's, or Mojang's, or anyone else's statements as nerdrage or Valve-fanboyism or hyper conspiracy-theory delusions, above I've listed my reasons in as clear a way as I can (though as usual, I suffer from being over verbose ) - my worries might end up being wrong, but they aren't irrational. There may be flaws in my logic or train of thought, which hopefully there is! But my worries are not without logic or without thought - so don't let your responses be without logic or thought either.

Microsoft's move won't directly harm me as a (hopefully soon-to-be in spring 2013) indie developer, and won't directly harm me as a consumer. But the long term effects might harm me as a developer and as a consumer, not by directly taking something from me, but by reducing the potential growth of profits (for the developers) and innovation and progress of services (for the consumers).

Honestly, do you trust Microsoft to be primary source of innovation for digital downloads over the next 7 years or so? Their past history has alot of 'no's and only a few 'yes's. Valve's has plenty of 'yes's.
Do you trust Microsoft to be the doorkeeper of the success of indie games? Their past history has plenty of 'no's and only a few 'yes's. Valve's has plenty of 'yes's.
Do you trust Microsoft? Truly? I don't, despite liking alot of their products. They are too big, and too far removed from their customer. Too silo-effected also, to properly support smaller developers or users.

Valve isn't benevolent, but they understand their business depends on their relationship with both the consumers and the developers (large and small), so they have thrived with both.
Microsoft also isn't benevolent, but they understand their business depends on dominating a market almost entirely, and then cutting deals with large corporations, and so they have historically made choices not beneficial with the consumer or the small developer, but only larger developers.

Microsoft also has a history of trying to force their way to a dominant market share and either:
A) Achieving the market share and stagnating for several years until competition catches up.
B) Not achieving market share, and abandoning the market or leaving their product / service to decay without support.

I don't support Microsoft's Windows Store initiative. Clearly I must be a naive and blind Valve fan-boy who's too short-sighted and who resists change.

It's not the end of the world, but that doesn't mean it benefits the world either. I'm not suggesting you support Steam blindly, I'm just suggesting that you actively resist Microsoft's attempt to force it's way into the market that it already has proven it sucks at, and instead let the market continue to duke it out on an even footing to the benefit of both consumers and developers.

Go support Impulse (GameStop) or Origin (EA) if you don't like the dominant market share that Steam (Valve) currently has. Or buy your games digitally from Amazon.com, or Good Old Games, or one of the other 50-odd digital download stores that aren't as well known. Just don't support unfair business practices, as they tend to bite both the consumer and the developer in the butt.

I don't mean 'ignorant' as an insult, nor was I calling anyone here ignorant (just so we're clear). I mean ignorant not as 'stupid' (lack of intelligence), but as a 'lack of knowledge'. Many people were 'ignorant' that there even was an alternative to Internet Explorer.[/quote]
This kind of assumes the market would be saturated without microsoft making an app store.

Not to say it's ideal, but IE being installed on every computer had a huge impact on the rapid growth of the internet. Who's to say what benefits we'll get with an app market that size?

We'll obviously get to the point where the market becomes that size, but would you rather wait 5-10 years for a single digital store for PCs with 150 million users or have that next year?

There's a lot to be said for this being a market that suits an oligopoly better (for everyone) than perfect competition. Perfect competition is not always the best model for every market. In many cases it results in the market as a whole being less successful; cases such as power companies, cable/satellite providers, and isps come to mind. Granted that's dealt with differently all over, but their rarely done in any sort of perfect competition.

If Microsoft bundles their own <anything> with the OS it immediatly becomes very hard to compete in that segment of the market even if you have a better product. (This is not good),

If Apple bundles their own <anything> with their OS its pretty much irrelevant.[/quote]
I'm not so sure. A lot of people bring up bundled apps as a reason for people to buy apple products, and many of them are of lesser quality to other apps. Apple even takes active steps to ban higher quality apps that compete with their own.

I mean from a market perspective, Apple doesn't have enough marketshare for their actions to be devastating to the competetion

Your ford example is fairly irrelevant, Ford doesn't have 90% of the car market and tires, engines, etc are required for a car to work, If they had 90% of the market and tried to use that to take over the drive-thru market then we'd have a similar situation and a similar problem (and quite a few governments would step in and stop it from happening)
[/quote]

I don't think so. From a consumer perspective, an internet browser is pretty essential to the functionality of the computer. Just like tires, you more than likely need tires/browser to get access to unprovided tires/browsers without having access to another car/computer. Access to a digital storefront will be just as important to core functionality as the market shifts to digital distribution.