Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Dumps 1,500 Apps From Its Windows Store

redletterdave writes: Microsoft announced on its Windows blog Wednesday that it's removed more than 1,500 apps from its Windows Store in a bid to clean up the store and restore trust with Windows 8 and Windows Phone users. Microsoft's new certification process, in particular, asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app," more accurate categories, and differentiated icons to ensure apps aren't confused with one another. Microsoft reached out to developers with apps that violated its policies; some agreed to make changes to their software, while those who were "less receptive" saw their apps removed from the Windows Store. That might be just the beginning.

126 comments

  1. Google needs to clean up search by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google needs to clean up misleading apps in their search and stop malware instead of profiting from it.

    Look at the ads for Firefox.

    http://i.imgur.com/piER06h.png

    It's the same for other apps, like Skype etc.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Windows XP
      I think there's a bigger problem here.

    2. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      What? Nobody even _said_ Windows XP, nor was it in the linked screenshot anywhere. I looked twice. WTF are you talking about?

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    3. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome does not look like this on Windows 7.

    4. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome does not have a Windows XP skin when you're using Windows 7.

    5. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems they don't have that problem when it comes to their own browser.

      http://i.imgur.com/OBOK5jG.png

    6. Re:Google needs to clean up search by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      If you want to be a good citizen, submit feedback to Google using their Adwords feedback page.
      I also did a search for "Firefox" and got a different scammer. I just submitted a feedback form for it. The scammer I saw also used the trademarked Firefox logo, but don't even mention that because you can't report that unless you represent the trademark holder. Just select that they are a counterfeit site and mention the scamware/malware aspect.

      Naturally, Google should be able to use common sense and filter this out themselves. This is the problem with a fully automated world.

    7. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it looks like that on Windows 8.

    8. Re: Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does, smartass(es), when you've got an edition of W7 where Aero is unavailable (like Starter or Home editions) or when Aero is otherwise disabled.

    9. Re:Google needs to clean up search by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I'm on Windows 7 right now and that's almost exactly how my Chrome looks. The only difference is that my title bar has very slight transparency.

    10. Re:Google needs to clean up search by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.

      And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?

    11. Re:Google needs to clean up search by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are aware that there is nothing either illegal, or contrary to the GPL, in repackaging a browser, right? Its expressly in the GPL that you can do so.

      And since it isnt illegal, on what grounds would google tamper with the search results? I thought we got up in arms when they do that at the request of celebs and whatnot. Or is it just because this is YOUR google search pet peeve, so its ok to mess with the results?

      1) This is about the ads, not the organic search results.
      2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel
      3) Google does not need any grounds to tamper with even organic search results.

      --
      This space for rent.
    12. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel

      Question: can I repackage Firefox binaries and distribute it along with my other files? I made a php application and wanna make it a turnkey WAMP stack. It will be called "MyCool PHP App" and the word Firefox won't appear anywhere.

    13. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make Windows 7 look the same as Windows XP.

    14. Re:Google needs to clean up search by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel

      Technically Mozilla has its own license on Firefox which required that change. The Mozilla Public License is described as "hybrid BSD and GPL."

      If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    15. Re:Google needs to clean up search by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?

      What if one of the extensions sends all browsing activity and form submission data to another server?
      Why would Firefox want to be associated with that?

      --
      This space for rent.
    16. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      I just wrote a longer response to your post and Chrome ate it (bah)

      Basically I think you are wrong about (2), but having just read up on the reasons for IceWeasel rebranding, it would seem that Mozilla does not agree with me.

      Isn't it true that the Advertising Clause in original BSD license was the one and only thing separating it from GPL and making it incompatible? The advertising clause, which does nothing other than assert the rights and protections that are already granted by Trademark law...

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    17. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow this:

      http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-aero-on-windows-vista/

      I'm sure Chrome will look like that for you on Windows 7 then.

    18. Re:Google needs to clean up search by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You can disable Aero, which will result in most properly designed software to start looking like it looks on XP.

      Just right click on desktop, choose "personalize" and then select "windows classic" theme.

    19. Re:Google needs to clean up search by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The original BSD advertising clause required that a notice go in all advertisements, which goes beyond trademark law. The license without that clause is compatible with pretty much everything (including the GPL).

      Trademark law recognizes trademarks, and controls when they can be used. It doesn't put any restrictions on any activity that doesn't use somebody's trademark, such as legitimately using somebody else's code. The idea is that, when somebody uses FireFox, they can assume that this is something the Mozilla Foundation considers their browser. Stick to FireFox and you can rely on it as much as you can rely on Mozilla. You could regard it as formalized anti-fraud law, in that it prevents somebody from illicitly benefiting from or trashing somebody else's reputation.

      The whole IceWeasel affair looked to me very reasonable in itself. Debian wanted a FireFox-based browser, and they got one. Mozilla didn't want to be directly associated with it after Debian did whatever to it, and they weren't. What's wrong with that? Other than all the ranting.

      While trademarks are usually considered intellectual property, they are actually good for the general public. They don't stop anybody from doing anything other than misrepresenting the origin of something.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Walled Gardener by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're going to have a walled garden, you might as well tend it!

    1. Re:Walled Gardener by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Thank you Microsoft for doing it. :)

    2. Re:Walled Gardener by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      They're still doing a piss poor Job of Tending it.

      Searched for 7zip and openoffice on the app store, got fake apps that directs you to a site full of scam ads. Can't get it to show up in the html5 web store though, so I guess it's a start.

      if you have windows 8, go to the store and report them. it's the only way MS will act on this.

  3. *Restore*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Restore trust? Shouldn't it be *there* in the first place to restore it?

    1. Re:*Restore*? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, as far as windows Store goes, things went from empty to spamfilled with no golden era of sorta useful in between.

    2. Re:*Restore*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, perhaps, answers my long-held question of "why doesnt windows make a software repository": you cant just create a repository and wish for a community to appear.

  4. Walled garbage approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is what you get when you let your vendor decide what you can and can't install, what you can and can't offer. Apple and their ilk started this cancer and everyone else has hopped onto the bandwagon.

    1. Re:Walled garbage approach by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should crowdsource this. Simply mark new apps as being in a probationary period and give downloaders the option of tagging the app as misleading, malware, abuse of permissions, etc. It would greatly help their human staff find the bad apples quickly. Of course the same goes for Google and Apple.

    2. Re:Walled garbage approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and no one would ever organize an army of sockpuppets to abuse that at all ever.

    3. Re:Walled garbage approach by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Didn't say it was perfect, but it's an idea worth implementing.

    4. Re:Walled garbage approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and no one would ever organize an army of sockpuppets to abuse that at all ever.

      It would still be useful.

    5. Re:Walled garbage approach by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They should crowdsource this. Simply mark new apps as being in a probationary period and give downloaders the option of tagging the app as misleading, malware, abuse of permissions, etc. It would greatly help their human staff find the bad apples quickly. Of course the same goes for Google and Apple.

      The problem comes when the apps are ported.

      Say I make ACoolApp on iOS, and it's so good, someone makes an Android version. Call it "AndroidCoolApp". Now much richer from iOS sales, I decide to try my hand at Android development, and port it to Android. Now what?

      ACoolApp for Android is technically "duplicate" of AndroidCoolApp, but that was a duplicate of ACoolApp to begin with.

      It's happened a few times. And while it's true there are a few intentionally deceptive (search 1Password and find the REAL one), there are also plenty where both apps are legitimately developed - someone sees a cool app on the other platform, the developer is "taking too long" and release their own.

      And that's the real problem - how do you properly draw the line between apps that are legitimate but happen to be similar because one inspired the other, and apps that are pure scamware and trying to undermine the original developer?

      Hell, what if you make a flappy bird derivative that has some neat twists in it? Does your app no longer exist because of all the others? (And face it, most people would download the app, run it for two seconds and then mark it duplicate without trying to play it).

    6. Re:Walled garbage approach by jbolden · · Score: 1

      And that's the real problem - how do you properly draw the line between apps that are legitimate but happen to be similar because one inspired the other, and apps that are pure scamware and trying to undermine the original developer?

      That's what trademarks are for.

  5. I didnt even know that they had that many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    !!!

  6. X - 1500 = Y? by kimgkimg · · Score: 0

    So that leave like what, 5 apps in that app store now? Seems like that's a bit of a disservice to the developers who put their time and money into developing the apps. Why not put in a voting mechanism so that the apps are still there, but less popular instead of arbitrarily deleting them?

    1. Re:X - 1500 = Y? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Being that X is low. Is exactly why they should be deleted.
      The voting method isn't that good for low values of X. Because there are plenty of gaps that will make even low voted scammer apps get high on placement. If the App store doesn't have Angry Birds a search for it may mean Disgruntled birds will show up.

      As stated. Microsoft did try to get developers to change to avoid the confusion, many did, some didn't those who didn't... Why? Probably because you were up to no good with your app already.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:X - 1500 = Y? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in this case a little good PR is worth more to Microsoft than a vanishingly small amount of revenue?

    3. Re:X - 1500 = Y? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      If the App store doesn't have Angry Birds a search for it may mean Disgruntled birds will show up.

      I'm holding out for Mildly Irked in an Ironic Post-Modern-Sort-of-Way Birds.

      That would be cool. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:X - 1500 = Y? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about I am trying to fly through a "wind farm" birds?

  7. Wow, fifteen hundred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In related news, New York City has finally taken action on their pigeon overpopulation problem, trapping and removing a whopping 1500 pigeons from the city!

    1. Re:Wow, fifteen hundred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too true! One of the most frustrating things I found when running the free 8.1 public preview was that it would not allow you to uninstall or delete that useless store full of malware and other overpriced junk. Short of dumping the preview of course. We Gparted ways.

      Truthfully, the whole "modern" UIs with a store thing is just stepping up the dangers and potentially infinitely more frustrating then the other preinstalled crap from the OEMs.

  8. They won't by mystikkman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't fix it. They make a ton of money from those ads, make Windows slow down and look bad so they can push heavily locked down Chromebooks that techies seem to sing the praise of.

    I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

    I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.

    1. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

      Microsoft hate might be a partial explanation, but there are others.

      There already exist free and open desktop platforms that work well. No need to recommend Windows 8.
      And if someone actually wants a locked down platform, why not recommend the ones that work the best, rather than Windows RT or Windows Phone?

    2. Re:They won't by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

      I guess it's more about Microsoft hate and the desire to bring them down than software freedom.

      You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support.

      And, really, for many of us this whole "software freedom" thing is a little overplayed.

      I've always found Stallman to be a bit of a crank, and the vast majority of people hear this stuff, and they think of teenagers spouting Marxist theory because the school cafeteria switched from Coke to Pepsi ... it becomes a little tired and melodramatic.

      I'd wager that 99% of all people will never audit their IP stack, recompile their browser, or otherwise want any involvement in this stuff. They want the latest cool thing, and not some near approximation of it which comes in a kit.

      What they want is a tool to get the stuff done they need/want to, and they want it with as little hair pulling as possible.

      And, really, let's be honest here ... Windows is no more (or less) open than Apple, and in the places where they're more open, they're trying to be less, just like Apple. Everybody wants their own walled garden.

      Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

      So, if my Mom was looking for a tablet ... I'm going to find her one which suits her needs and will work for her, and I am never going to say "ZOMG, but this software is teh free".

      Because my Mom already rolls her eyes at the rest of my loony rants, and doesn't give a damn about software freedom.

      So, if you want to know why people aren't doing this, it's because when someone starts screaming "viva la revolucion" over software freedom, people roll their eyes and try to get distance from you.

      Don't get me wrong, I likes me some Open Source software. But, have I built an entire ideology around it? Hell no.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for that (if I weren't an AC).

      I've known Stallman for about 30 years. He sounded exactly like that to me when I first met him, and honestly, still does most of the time.

      But, much to my surprise, I've decided that he was right about a lot of stuff.

      I still think he's a horrible person, tho. But not all wrong.

    4. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Chromebooks being absolutely ideal for people who already use google services and only want browser access? The chromebook gives them exactly what they want, but unlike a windows laptop it's effectively self-maintaining in a completely unobtrusive way.

    5. Re:They won't by sensei+moreh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never had a problem setting my Linux Mint search provider to Google, or DuckDuckGo, or Wikipedia (I haven't tried the others. Click on the down-arrow in the search window, select "Manage Search Engines ...", then click on the "Get more search engines ..." link. Google should be one of your choices.

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    6. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been running Mint in a VM for a week or two for torrents - it's been nothing but a mess despite me doing nothing more than opening Firefox and the default, pre-installed torrent client. The damn thing even lost the taskbar yesterday. Linux is far from ready for primetime on the desktop. Windows just works vs Linux being a pain in the ass to even keep running.

    7. Re:They won't by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      From their own page, right now:

      Linux Mint recommends the following search engines:
      Engine Preserves your privacy Funds Linux Mint Description
              Yahoo The 2nd largest search engine on the Web, full of features.
              DuckDuckGo A safe and secure engine providing augmented Yahoo results.
              Ixquick A safe and secure engine gathering results from multiple search engines.
              Startpage A safe and secure engine providing augmented Google results.
              Amazon The largest online store.
              Wikipedia The largest online encyclopedia.

      Why aren't some search engines included in Linux Mint?

      Engines are included based on the following criteria:

              Funding: Whether using the engine funds Linux Mint
              Privacy: Whether the engine provides users with best-in-class privacy/security features
              Non-commercial: Whether the engine is popular and non-commercial

      So, sorry, but for whatever reason in the version I had Google wasn't an option -- and figuring out what was required to change it wasn't worth it for me.

      I was shopping for a distribution, not an ideology.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support."

      Yep they won't come to me for tech support. Cause I laugh and give them what they told me "Apple stuff never have any issues." Then step in to save the day with my 5 year old PC. With the only issue I have had is running low on hard drive space.

    9. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your two weeks of experience with one distro prove that "Linux is far from ready for primetime on the desktop."?

    10. Re:They won't by Aaden42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As a user, I’d prefer a software system that had no DRM, but I’m prepared to accept that few publishes are ever going to give that up. It’s down to a matter of whether the compromise struck between publisher and user is reasonable and acceptable to me.

      It’s true every iOS app is DRM’d, so we have to look at what the restrictions to me as an end user are: In order to run an app, I must login as the Apple account that purchased it on the device I wish to use the app. That’s it. There’s no limitation on the number of devices. To date at least, the DRM has never been used for “evil” to revoke the right to run an app post-purchase. The most Apple has done to my knowledge was revoke an app’s right to use location services when it misbehaved, but the app still ran on devices where it was installed. If I’m not willing to input my Apple ID username & password on a device for some reason, to me that seems like a good indication that I’m trying to run the app on a device that isn’t mine. As a user, I don’t think preventing that is unreasonable as part of the agreement in my purchasing software.

      The other restriction on (unrooted) iOS is that I can’t run arbitrary code of my choosing on my device. If I want to circumvent that (without jailbreaking), I can choose to pay Apple $99/year to run any code I like on up to 100 devices of my choosing. If I need more devices than that, there are higher-cost corporate options to do the same.

      Don’t get me wrong. I loath DRM in general. All else being equal, I’d use DRM-free platforms whenever possible. That said, all else is not equal, and the benefits that Apple’s platform provides in terms of security, interface consistency, and ease of use are worth the tradeoff of accepting the limitations of their DRM system.

      To contrast that, Apple’s video offerings through iTunes are still limited to playback on five computers with permission required each time a new device is authorized. It’s also only possible to play back the video with devices and software that Apple supports (no Linux, no third party media players, XBMC, etc.) Personally I find that an unreasonable restriction for video. I easily have more than five computers that I could want to play video, and several of them are either non Win/Mac or are set-top systems that I use an interface like XBMC that can’t access DRM’d video, even on an otherwise supported OS. For those restrictions, I choose not to buy video from Apple.

      When the limitations imposed by DRM actually restrict something that I think is reasonable for me to want to do, I generally choose not to accept those limitations and vote with my wallet. When DRM generally stays out of my way and more or less succeeds at keeping honest people honest Ideologically I might prefer it not exist, but I have a hard time really justifying that in the real world.

    11. Re:They won't by cygnwolf · · Score: 1

      Particularly since you're talking about Mint and not one of the more solid and robust distros like Ubuntu or Red Hat.

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
    12. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck do you blame google for the malware infected fucking cesspool that is the average windows PC?

      I've got news for you. Google products are by far the least offensive. Try clicking on promoted links on Bing and see how long you stay clean.

      Truely open and unrestricted platforms are good, but utterly useless and frankly dangerous in the hands of unskilled users. Giving you grandma a windows PC and logging her the ability to do administrative elevations is like giving a chainsaw to a five year old. Shit will break. There will be crying.

      Sorry. If you don't know what a user account is, then it's Ipads and Chromebooks for you.

      For that matter, the idea of a curated and safe computing experience is not mutually exclusive from that of open source software and software freedom. We have android. It's open. Currently, the best curated experiences are closed or partially closed. That's just a market reality.

      The dream of having open source software, and a safe curated computing experience is attainable. The fact that the linux kernel is behind the most popular moblie computing platform in the world is proof of this. You can have a 100% open hardware and software platform and cryptographic security can keep your system locked down for unskilled users. It's just a matter of who controls the keys. Open is better, and we're working towards that slowly. Closed will lose because it's less agile, less flexible. It will just take time.

    13. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS on this. I doubt even windows would self destruct like this with no user intervention other than "just opening Firefox".

    14. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aka "I pulled my initial claim out of my ass".

    15. Re:They won't by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Does Debian count as solid and robust? I installed it on my HTPC the other day, and (after installing the non-free Radeon firmware and then changing the sound output from speakers to HDMI in settings), the sound works for the non-root user I created during installation, but not for the other non-root user I created afterward.

      I've used Linux (on and off) for a long time. I'm a sustaining member of both the EFF and FSF. I'm a really big fan of Free Software in general. But I still have to admit that my immediate thought was "WTF, Windows wouldn't screw up this kind of thing."

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:They won't by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      ROUND OF APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!

    17. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha. My PC is always connected to a TV. But Windows still randomly decides (for example after each graphics driver update) that sound should go to the (non-connected) line-out instead of HDMI.
      So yes, it very much does screw up that kind of things all the time as well.
      Software just is in the "crap" stages still all over.

    18. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman IS a crank, and the GPL is an ideological platform, not a license.

      Yes, it may be cheaper to get Linux, but, only if you want all the butthurting experiences that come along with it. My parents aren't going to go for that bullshit, and neither are most people. They want something that works and don't need to call anyone to make it work.

      Windows is not even good at not being a butthurting experience, but unlike Linux, you can easily restore a Windows machine to working order by unplugging it from the internet and running the restore discs, wiping out all the data in the process. Linux... not a chance. You're lucky if the Linux Distro isn't years old.

      This is the grand problem with Linux as a platform, is that it moves and changes too fast for it's own good. Nothing built for the previous third-point-decimal version of Linux Kernal works with any other version. Video drivers don't work with any version but a specific kernel version, and when you have two different drivers on your system that want the same kind of "only works on this version" you have to make do without it.

      And let's not go into how awful mixing binary packages and source packages makes Linux impossible to deal with.

      At least on Windows or MacOS X you don't have this crap to deal with. If I can buy a game or a program on the App store, I'm assured that it will at least fricken work without having to recompile anything.

    19. Re: They won't by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      your two weeks of experience with one distro

      his two of experience with one distro running in a VM, no less.

    20. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *checks crystal ball*
      You didn't add your 2nd user to the audio group.

      Newly created users not being members of audio by default ... I can see how one could argue that's a sane default (e.g. someone adds a user account so someone else can ssh in and compile stuff or whatever on that box, they likely don't want them messing with their audio).

      The fact that there's no useful error messages (and no, the mixer applet saying "No such device" is a not useful when it really means "Access Denied"), and that you have to dig through wikis to find WTF is causing it... *that* is pretty much a typical linux problem.

    21. Re:They won't by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Mine didn't do that when it was running Windows 7... but then again I never updated the graphics driver either (unless Windows Update did it by itself).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:They won't by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Aka "I pulled my initial claim out of my ass".

      No, I pulled it from the Linux Mint VM I have which didn't give me any obvious mechanism to do something as trivial as setting my search provider to Google.

      If it isn't in the drop down list, and I have to play hunt the wumpus to figure out WTF I need to be doing to add it, I'll stand by my initial assertion ... that, for whatever reason, they've made setting Google as a search provider less than easy or obvious.

      Google is not in the default list, after spending a small amount of time trying to figure out how to do it, I gave up on the Distro entirely.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    23. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

      If it isn't in the drop down list, and I have to play hunt the wumpus to figure out WTF I need to be doing to add it, I'll stand by my initial assertion ... that, for whatever reason, they've made setting Google as a search provider less than easy or obvious.

      See if you can spot the difference.

    24. Re:They won't by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      His initial report OF HIS EXPERIENCE was correct. Linux Mint has chosen to hide Google away as an extra, and this resulted, as intended, in the user thinking it wasn't an option. This user stopped there. That's the fault of Mint, not the user.

    25. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I installed a Linux Mint VM image a while back, and it wasn't even possible to set the search provider to Google, apparently because it's not ideologically pure enough or something.

      That's very odd, because I happen to be working in a Mint VM right now, and guess who my search provider is? Google.

    26. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You claimed it wasn't even possible to do so. Emphasis yours.

      Put the goalposts down.

    27. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had a problem setting my Linux Mint search provider to Google, or DuckDuckGo, or Wikipedia (I haven't tried the others. Click on the down-arrow in the search window, select "Manage Search Engines ...", then click on the "Get more search engines ..." link. Google should be one of your choices.

      If you are still running Mint 15 or older, there are a ton of unfixed exploits in there (openssh included, also enabled by default) which you might want to double-check aren't exposed online.

      I can tell you are using an older version because ever since 16 (according to the mint folk) and 17 where I saw this behavior personally, the included firefox browser is PAINFUL to un-mintafy and un-fuck to let you use Google services in an integrated fashion.

      Your process for changing integrated search providers will not work with a stock mint firefox. Google is not an option on the page it takes you to, which is immediately obvious to not be a firefox URL.
      Load up the about:config page and find "browser.search.searchEnginesURL" to see the search providers page (where the "get more search engines" button takes you to) and see it is set to a mint page, not the standard firefox one.
      It's also a system option under etc, so non-root running firefox processes can not simply delete it and get the normal default URL back. You CAN override the setting with your own URL to a page with search provider profiles, but if one doesn't have a un-modified copy of firefox to reference what the real default value is, it is difficult to reset. Clicking "default" will just blank out the URL completely.

      On the mint page of firefox search engines, they out right explain that they will only list and allow search engines that give them ad revenue and refuse to add providers that are hostile to mint making money, which adamantly Google actually is guilty of.

      For comparison, the linux mint firefox "get more search engines" goes to http://www.linuxmint.com/searc... (Which redirects to a slightly different url, with a .php extension)
      Your options are Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, lxquick, startpage, Amazon, and Wikipedia. No others.
      Below those options states why engines like google are excluded.

      A stock default firefox however will use the setting https://addons.mozilla.org/%25...
      (Which is the default setting in v31.0)

      While I admit this ticked me off quite a lot the first 15 or so minutes I discovered it, I can at least understand why they might be doing this and in a way that doesn't violate their agreement.
      I am too used to how Debian handles things and completely re-brands and re-names their firefox browser (iceweasel) so you are 100% aware this is Debians doing and not Firefox/Mozilla.
      But that bit is just my own opinion.

    28. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You know, it's as much about giving our friends and family a user experience which a) won't drive them insane, and b) won't make them come to us for tech support."

      Yep they won't come to me for tech support. Cause I laugh and give them what they told me "Apple stuff never have any issues." Then step in to save the day with my 5 year old PC. With the only issue I have had is running low on hard drive space.

      Boy, I'lll bet you're a joy to live with.

      Fucktard.

    29. Re:They won't by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The problem is the end users. I see this a lot as we work in an IE shop, IE7 to be precise because of some sensitive stupid web services that won't run in anything else.

      Anyway my point is that they default to Bing, there is an option to change it permanently in pretty much an identical way that you described in Mint, yet 99% of the users don't do this, and of those 99%, 100% of them talk as if they are about to gift me their firstborn after I show them how to change it.

      NEVER underestimate the power of "defaults" and the stupidity of users.

    30. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or you could just scroll down to "Commercial engines" on the mint page, click on "Google" (9th from the left), then click "Add "Google"" in your search provider list while on that page.

    31. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF do you need a taskbar for? I never understood this. It is just a waste of desktop space and is redundant with the alt-tab menu. If Windows would not be so instable with the taskbar forcibly removed, I would probably use Windows for more than a few games through a VM.

    32. Re:They won't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Microsoft sells computers without the crapware: www.microsoftstore.com/signature
      On the one hand they hate what the crapware does to the entire experience. OTOH $75-90 in subsidies per machine per OEM translates into about $150 to the end customer in savings. At an ASP of $550 an increase to $700 would be a 27% increase in price which would definitely harm sales. The value trap is a disaster for Microsoft. One of the points of the new interface is to drive up the price of PCs by making better interface hardware worthwhile and thus cut that number down to a level where they might be able to get rid of crapware.

      I completely fail to comprehend why most Slashdotters seem to push everyone towards DRM'ed iPads and Chromebooks that put Palladium to shame instead of more open Windows PCs.

      They don't. This generation of /.ers pretty much hates everything except for grey market hardware distributors. They hate Linux for failing on the desktop. They hate Apple for being vertically integrated and expensive. , They hate Microsoft for not being innovative while ignoring Azure and enterprise apps where Microsoft has been innovative. Then when Microsoft brings out their biggest innovation for home / small business they trash that because it runs badly on Windows 7 machine.

      They've gotten bitter. Of course it was easier to be positive when /. started and we were in a tech explosion with salaries rapidly rising and jobs plentiful.

    33. Re:They won't by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm an Apple user. I can accuse Microsoft of a lot but yes they are substantially more open than Apple:

      a) Their hardware base system is extremely open. Apple provides very limited hardware choice
      b) Their driver selection is 2nd to none. Incredible. Apple is far worse than Linux and might even be worse than other BSDs.
      c) Azure (their cloud offering) is probably the most open cloud out there. Certainly among the big players. Apple's cloud is completely tied to their platform and they don't allow other clouds.
      d) Their enterprise apps tend to play well with others and allow you to mix and match.

      etc...

    34. Re:They won't by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Sensible a rational comment - what are you doing on slashdot?

      Another thing worth noting about apple's DRM is that it's possible to authorize a device for multiple apple IDs without (so far as I've been able to tell) any restrictions around the number of accounts of a given device, or the number of devices against a specific account.

      Regarding their video DRM, it's certain that this is the decision of the movie studio rather than Apple - and it's quite possible that one day Apple may be able to move the world to DRM free video as they once did for DRM free music downloads.

    35. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, since that wasn't there two weeks ago or prior.

      But I'm glad mint listened to the complaints and added those options back in either way.

    36. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to point C.

      Most don't realise that Apples cloud system runs on top of Microsoft Azure, weird I know but true.

    37. Re:They won't by DavidCBillen · · Score: 1

      The problem with desktops is they're bloated. I just blew-off Mint on my development Linux machine and log right into Open-Box. I did barely touch the config file once. It's my favorite desktop now over OSX or Windows.

    38. Re:They won't by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For whatever reason, the laptop connected to the TV hardly ever fails to connect anymore. Nowadays, it seems that, when we turn on the TV and the laptop, it displays properly. Of course, sometimes it still requires being disconnected and reconnected a few times before it figures it out. I guess this Windows stuff still isn't ready for the consumer market.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has nothing to do with Windows that is completely the drivers that you are installing doing a reset on some non-standard (face it audio out through hdmi is not the norm) settings.

    40. Re:They won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: When making up bullshit claims about history, check Archive.org first.
      Google's been under "Commercial Engines" on that page for the last 3 years.

  9. It's about time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, they're taking this semi-seriously.

    1. Re:It's about time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took time to write convoluted fineprint that allowed them to still count these 1500 apps towards the total.

  10. All it took... by ildon · · Score: 1

    All it took for them to do this was a half dozen articles about how the entire store is infested with scams and fake apps. This is something they should have done a year and a half ago.

    1. Re:All it took... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Ballmer was in charge back then. That fat monkey didn't give a shit.

  11. Microsoft under HEAVY DDoS attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're all dead, Jim!

  12. Closed platforms are total bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > We took the feedback seriously and modified the Windows Store app certification requirements as a first step toward better ensuring that apps are named and described in a way that doesnÃ(TM)t misrepresent their purpose.

    I'm glad to see the scamware get the boot, but the whole idea of "we changed the certification requirements" should scare everyone. Unless you're a large company with a highly sought after application, you're an idiot if you develop for platforms that don't have an open distribution model. Microsoft's platform is one instance where developers have some leverage and everyone needs to take a stand and tell Microsoft to go fuck themselves until they get their heads out of their asses stop trying to control application distribution.

    Today they're kicking out the scammers. Tomorrow it'll be competitors.

    1. Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The problem is they will tell you 'You absolutely can distribute your own apps, as long as you buy the server infrastructure from us to do it.' It is possible to side-load on iOS, Android and WinPhone platforms, just not for average users.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Tomorrow it'll be competitors.

      What are you talking about? Microsoft has a long and glorious history of shutting out competitors with shady practices. You're making it sound like this would be a new thing.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible to side-load on Android.

      It's possible to side-load on iOS and Windows Store, but only if you get permission from Apple or Microsoft and, really, only if you're a big company distributing applications internally. If you're a Fortune 500 company you might be able to get some guarantees when it comes to (internal) distribution. If you're a small developer you might get fucked.

    4. Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citing Groklaw for reasons why Microsoft is the devil is very similar to citing the NRA for reasons why you should teach your 9 year old daughter to fire an Uzi.

    5. Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to see the scamware get the boot

      However your ideological position involves leaving the known scammers there. A good clue that your ideology is no good.

    6. Re:Closed platforms are total bullshit. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why an idiot? There's plenty of ways for an iOS app to fail to make money. Having Apple disapprove it is one, and there's lots of reasons why it might not sell on the store.

      Also, all the complaints I see about Apple not allowing this app or pulling that one have the apps at least pushing the limits. Develop an app for iOS that is well within the Apple guidelines and they'll let it through. That approach has its limitations, but it is a viable business strategy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. bailing water at this point, ms. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This might not be a stellar opinion but its got to be said. for microsoft to jettison 1500 apps from a store few used and even fewer knew existed isnt poigniant unless you take into account that this has been microsofts strategy for 10 years in various segments. new product shows up, its identical to a product or products that have been around for 5 years, and it reluctantly disappears without much fanfare or spends a decade on XBox revenue life support. The zune was a dismal failure, and Azure only made an 11% gain because they tie the product into normal licensing for businesses, making it a mandatory item as part of discounts. Windows phone has had more stops and starts than a sixteen year old in a porsche. in 2014 it only had 3% of the marketshare for smartphones and its purchase of nokia was the kiss of death that made standard and poors downgrade their bond status to junk. the content restrictions on the appstore are virtually indistinguishable from the content restrictions of a protestant grandmother. The concept of a microsoft store in general is so hobbled its had to partner with another floating turd, best buy, to continue expansion beyond its 63 stores. Bing was the product of 3 years pounding away at yahoo until they purchased their search technology and relabeled it. After a huge marketing blitz, forcing it as a default in internet explorer, strapping it onto everything from phones to the xbox and even copying google results they still couldnt do better than an alexa rank of 23. Yahoo is alexa ranked at 4. IIS is a blood-stain that makes headlines only because its netcraft rating is artificially inflated with hosting providers that have been paid to use IIS for their static placeholder sites. Internet explorer, despite having 7 versions of development, ranks dead last in pc and mobile categories. Windows and Xbox and perpetual corporate licensing are all that keep microsoft in busines, and even Xbox isnt ranked #1 in gaming as that title goes to nintendo.

    Financials and earnings reports sum this point up exactly. Microsoft has hemmoraged 21.8 billion dollars in net income and all it has to show for this is a lobbying division thats convinced a city in germany to switch to windows, and an operating system that, until valve pulls the trigger, will continue to exist solely because it shows up on the computer at the time of delivery and skyrim runs on it.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:bailing water at this point, ms. by bradvoy · · Score: 1

      ...from a store few used and even fewer knew existed ...

      You're suggesting that some used the store without knowing it existed. An impressive achievement.

    2. Re:bailing water at this point, ms. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Searching from the start menu (well, that tile desktop I guess) includes Windows Store results by default. So downloading an app without knowing? Probable.

    3. Re:bailing water at this point, ms. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Ummm, Bing is not Yahoo. Yahoo is Bing.

      3% isn't great. But Apple only has 10%. So it's not *that* far behind what most people consider the leader.

      IE is dead second. Well behind Chrome but way ahead of Firefox etc.

      Bing is also the default search engine for the iPhone. So I guess that means Apple is in on this conspiracy to cram Bing down everyone's throats.

    4. Re:bailing water at this point, ms. by cavebison · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of stuff to say without backing any of it up with references. I'll take that rant as your personal opinion and move on. If you want people to take a post full of claims like that seriously, provide links to support them.

  14. Color me surprised by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    People actually use the Windows Store? Wow.

  15. obey their own policy by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's new certification process, in particular, asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app,"

    i lol'ed at the part in bold....

    M$ is not the worst offender but there up there...'zune', .NET, etc...M$ is horrible at names

    i'll probably never choose to use a M$ product for the rest of my life...but maybe this is a sign they are wising up?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:obey their own policy by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      This isn't about picking an obscure made up name for an application. This is about using a name that is similar or the same as another well known app to scam people into downloading.

    2. Re:obey their own policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your interpretation, I don't read the same.

  16. ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can bully out other apps that are competitors to there own apps.

    look at how bad simcity was now just thing how bad it can be for new apps / games to be the same way and they use the app store lock in to push out other competitors with better games / apps that do the same thing / are the same type of game.

    1. Re:ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      There's no problem with other apps in the same genre. The problem is where apps use a similar name and/or logo to pass themselves off AS another app.

      EA isn't the villain here - scammers are.

    2. Re:ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

      What some makes a city sim game and EA says we own the rights to any city sim.

    3. Re:ensure apps aren't confused = EA and others can by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you're referring to some news of which I'm not aware.

  17. Names that reflect functionality by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app,"

    I guess there will be no more "Shazam" for the Windows Phone platform, then?

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Names that reflect functionality by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Or Excel, Outlook, or Powerpoint.

  18. An open platform != open source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open source isn't nearly as important as having open platforms. The big issue is about having a 3rd party dictate what you can and can't do with your device. I don't give a shit about auditing the applications I run or the idealistic concepts Stallman has, but I do care about getting to choose what can and can't be done with the electronics I buy.

    Microsoft had a great, open platform in the 90s and it was a major contributing factor to their success. I will gladly cough up $200 for Windows if it means the hardware and software industries remain a free-for-all. Too many people are short sighted and don't understand the long term benefits of an open platform. Somehow Microsoft has become one of them.

  19. Windows 8 Store Epic Fail by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, the Store has been a problem for me from the start. First I don't believe in Walled Gardens but you also can't sideload Metro apps. Couple that along with the fact that you can't delete store history in Windows 8 and you'll have a situation that just pisses people off. There are multiple support threads on this in the Microsoft forums and yet nothings been done to address these deficiencies. That's why you still see vendors creating desktop mode apps which still give them some control over the user experience including downloads and support.

    Sorry Microsoft, get your heads out of your collective asses and listen to your customers.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Windows 8 Store Epic Fail by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      First I don't believe in Walled Gardens

      MS's walled garden didn't previously have enough of a bar to scammers. Any store without any selection criteria will be predominantly scamware.

      (Not including desktop Linux here as there's no one to scam. But definately including Android.)

    2. Re:Windows 8 Store Epic Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I want a walled garden, I'd rather choose Apple's or Google's.

      Microsoft should just cut its losses and abandon all ambitions in the mobile ecosystem. Focus on the enterprise, port Office to iOS and Android, and call it a day.

  20. 1500 apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had that many?

    OK, cheap shot, but if you aanounce you're giving away cash to developers for every app they submit to the store, why were you surprised when you got deluged with crap? I wish I'd got in on the act myself and submitted my "Hello World" app which no doubt would have also sold loads to knowingly ironic hipsters, and it's title would have "reflected the functionality of the app" better than any app that has or would ever be produced.

  21. Ane the user is left without the choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Microsoft started censoring what the user can and cannot run on their own hardware.

  22. Quality Control by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

    What these online stores for software need is proper quality control. Steam used to keep a pretty good standards for publishing games, but that has gone down the hill. Android never had any good quality control and iOS seems to be lacking as well.

  23. This is good news...... by genner · · Score: 2

    For the three remaining apps.....

  24. I don't care what they do by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    I don't care what they do, I will never buy anything that runs Windows 8. 8 is the deal breaker.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  25. Whatever happened to Free Trade? by DanielOom · · Score: 1

    Quality Control may sound like a good idea....and Microsoft should apply it to their own products or maybe even their own app store, but allow competitor's software to run on their wares.

  26. Half their app store is gone now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's that like half their app store gone now?

  27. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, people started complaining all over the web and MS actually did something about it. MS, finally, listening to their user base.

    I re-installed windows 7 from scratch and setup my primary user as a standard user with uac enabled and secondary user as a administrator. My performance is hit and some applications don't behave nicely anymore including google chrome, probably caused by UAC. I even ran windows update as Administrator under standard user and in the end of the installation it gave me a damn error and could no longer run the updates even after restarting the machine, but fixed it by re-installing .net framework, then I had different freaking issues. Plus, the update installation took 30 minutes longer than it did when I was under the administrator user. Tired, I just went back to using Administrator and applications no longer run buggy and performance is back. Shit! I thought I could run it like linux. I did not get the su or sudo experience more like FU and SUCKO.

    MS really needs to develop another OS but from scratch(get rid of all legacy) with security in mind instead of throwing ACL System on top of all that legacy crap. I'm sure people in time would adopt to the new OS at the same time windows 7/8 still being used. Something has to be done MS can't ride on 24 year old technology for long.

  28. 1500 apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wait, they actually had that many apps in there in the first place?

  29. MS apps by Sciath · · Score: 1

    Most MS apps are crap anyway.

    --
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire