Opinion: Even if You Hate the Idea, Windows Users Should Want Windows 10 S To Succeed (arstechnica.com)

Last week, Microsoft unveiled Windows 10 S, a new variant of its desktop operating system aimed largely at the education space. While time will tell how this new edition of Windows fares, if early reactions from enthusiasts are anything to go by, Windows 10 S is in for a tough ride ahead. For one, Windows 10 S only permits installation of applications from the Windows Store. If that wasn't a deal-breaker, several popular applications including Google's Chrome are missing from the Store. Amid all of this, reporter and columnist Peter Bright has an op-ed up on ArsTechnica in which he argues that despite the walled-garden offering, people should want Windows 10 S to succeed as it could make Windows better for everyone else. From his article: This [forbidding execution of any program that wasn't downloaded from the Windows Store] positions Microsoft as a gatekeeper -- although its criteria for entry within the store is for the most part not stringent, it does reserve the right to remove software that it deems undesirable -- and means that the vast majority of extant Windows software can't be used. This means that PC mainstays, from Adobe Photoshop to Valve's Steam, can't be used on Windows 10 S. [...] Some of the arguments against this are bizarre. Notably, the complaint that Microsoft has now erected a paywall -- "you have to pay $50 to run Steam!" -- is very peculiar when one considers that, in general, Windows licenses have never been free. [...] The Windows Store makes bad parts of Windows better: I'd argue, however, that Windows users should want Windows 10 S to succeed. Windows 10 S isn't for everybody, and Windows 10 S may not be for you, but if Windows 10 S succeeds, it will make Windows 10 better for everyone. The Store in Windows RT required developers to write their apps from scratch. With negligible numbers of users, developers were uninterested in doing this work. The Store in Windows 10 has Centennial. In principle, Centennial should make it easy to package existing Win32 apps and sell them through the Store, and if developers of Windows apps adopt Centennial en masse then the Store restriction shouldn't be particularly restrictive. Widespread adoption will be good for Windows users of all stripes.

Comments

M$ not eating dogfood until VS is on Store

[tepples]

"and if developers of Windows apps adopt Centennial en masse then the Store restriction shouldn't be particularly restrictive."

Let me know when Centennial is complete enough that Microsoft can put Visual Studio on Windows Store.

Re:M$ not eating dogfood until VS is on Store

[AmiMoJo]

Even if it was perfect, why would anyone want to be locked in to having to use Microsoft's store as opposed to just getting their software from anywhere they like?

Windows 10 S is bad for freedom. If it succeeds it will just give Microsoft a tighter grip over what you can run. Maybe they don't like competition, so no Libre Office for you...

Fortunately Windows 10 S is already doomed. Why get a half baked OS when you can get a similar tablet with Android and a much larger selection of software, or just full Windows 10 that doesn't suck as much for a little more money?

Re:M$ not eating dogfood until VS is on Store

[postbigbang]

Yeah. Gated Windows apps. Microsoft glommed most of the apps it sells today. Have a nice app? Put it into the store and find its features in something Microsoft magically comes out with. These are kings of intellectual property rights and patents.

Worse, it removes choice. Yes, there are lots of downloadables that are plainly ugly and malware-ridden. Nonetheless, they're outside of Microsoft's control-- and often for the better. It's the death of shareware as we know it. It's vendor control, ala Oracle and Apple.

I have absolutely no trust of Microsoft at all. I have to deal with them, but I want nothing to do with them.

Re:M$ not eating dogfood until VS is on Store

[Oswald McWeany]

Indeed.

If we want a walled garden, there is already Apple products, which arguably are more secure. The reason Microsoft has been successful and the "default" OS for so long is that they are "open".

As crap as Microsoft are, they are open and easy for the average dumb-user to understand. If you take away open, they're just easy, and plenty of alternatives are easy.

I don't buy it

[TFlan91]

I don't buy it.... For Windows 10 S to "succeed", they need a high sales number. A high sales number translates to the people at the top that their product is good and people want it, which means they make more of it, and develop future products similar to it.

Windows 10 S is not good. Wanting Windows 10 S to succeed is saying that you want more of Windows 10 S type products in the future.

No. I do not want more walled gardens. No, I do not want Windows 10 S to succeed.

Uh, I saw this yesterday,who is pushing this?

[evolutionary]

okay, who ever the MS Employee pushing this is. Kindly back off. First, there is NO good reason we want this or anything connected to Windows 10 to succeed because it's basically an information trojan with no respect for privacy (or even pretence of it) for the end user. Second, posting this a second time looks kind of desperate. What we really want people to do is drop the trojan/boated Windows 10 and starting using ElementaryOS or Linux Mint. It's so easy to do folks, and the world at large will thank you. (as MS will have to reconsider it's abuse of the public.)

Not really because it stifles competitive pricing

[HalAtWork]

Since you're restricted to one store it stifles competitive pricing for apps and games.

OEMs will be happy to include 10 S as it makes their devices cheaper and easier to support, it will be the defacto standard version of Windows, suddenly all casual desktop users are funneled to the Windows Store.

If MS had a store API that let other vendors hook in and provide their own storefronts this would not be a big deal, but for some reason they don't. I hear the Windows Store compared to a package repo in Linux, but it's not, you can't add third party sources.

I should what now?

[grasshoppa]

I want S to succeed so the Windows Store is more populated?

Sorry; no. I don't particularly care about that, OR Windows S. Given MS's behavior since 7, I'm more inclined to want to see it fail.

Walled Garden

[Thelasko]

Pro: Microsoft has complete control over what can be installed on your computer, so they can prevent malware.

Con: Microsoft has complete control over what can be installed on your computer, so they can bilk you for every last cent.

Apple essentially already does this. However, people tend to have a lot of trust in Apple for some reason. I'm not sure that applies to Microsoft.

Re:Walled Garden

[tlhIngan]

Actually, Apple doesn't do this at all in MacOS (it only does it in iOS). I can download (or buy a CD/DVD for) any application written for MacOS and run it, no sweat.

Fact is, I rarely even bother with the Apple App Store for the stuff on my laptop.

Funny thing, I could swear everyone, or at least the anti-Apple folks, keep repeating that this is exactly what would happen to macOS. Of course, macOS stays pretty much open, but Microsoft now does what Apple was supposed to do...

OP claim we should want Windows 10 S to succeed.

[aliquis]

Continues writing a lot of stuff but never say WHY.
Why would we want it to succeed? So it become less restrictive than now? Yay.. Good reason.
So idiots can use Windows with no problem? How does that help me?
Windows S is bad because a Windows store is bad because if Windows store become the de-facto or only way to buy stuff then competition dies in Windows and with that you can be sure prices will get worse.

Simply no

[luvirini]

It is better for such things so tightly linked to walled gardens to fail. So I am heavily hoping that Windows 10s will fail spectacularly. (Not that it is even close to the only thing with that problem, but that is not reason cheer it.)

And the elephant in the room is...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The massive blind spot (or possibly rhetorical sleight-of-hand) here is the casual conflating of "The Windows Store" with "a new Windows packaging mechanism".

It's pretty easy to make a case that today's combination of mostly MSI files with some vendors still shipping in-house or legacy .exe installers isn't great; and that the ability of win32 applications to, unless very, very, carefully kept on a leash, scribble all over one another is a risk. If so; an improved installer format and some sort of application isolation(ideally not hacked on with a bunch of virtualization layers; like the "App-V" stuff designed to let enterprise users take legacy applications and isolate them whether they like it or not).

However, none of this has any relationship whatsoever with Microsoft's precious "App Store"; and their desire to be the sole gatekeeper for cryptographically blessed software and get their 30% cut. And this aspect of the deal is not something that is of plausible value to anyone who isn't Microsoft. It's unlikely that MS will be able to get rid of 'legacy' Windows entirely; because Corporate would scream; but they would love for this 'Windows S' to become the de-facto 'Home Edition', with anyone who wants to go outside the walled garden paying an upgrade fee for the privilege.

This seems like a fatal flaw in the argument. If this were just about a fight between MSI loyalists and APPX fanboys; it would be easy to make the case that the legacy tech isn't good enough. That, however, is a relatively minor part of the issue; with the 'Store' being placed front and center by Microsoft's decision to effectively link UWP/APPX with the store(yes, there is a 'sideload' switch, at least for now; but the only remotely preferred configuration involves everyone with a Microsoft account, buying software, from any vendor, through the Microsoft store.

Fuck walled gardens.

[Mysticalfruit]

If this succeeds, we'll see a future where when you buy a PC, it'll come with an OS preinstalled that you can't uninstall or reinstall because you don't have a signed bootloader from a authorized OEM. On this OS you'll only be able to run software that's been duly blessed by the vendor. Oh you've got some cool idea for a killer app / game... gotta submit the source code to possibly a future competitor..
Any peripherals you'd like to attach have to be specify allowed.

Not all opinions are equal

[Lord Kano]

and this one is stupid.

10 S should fail, it should fail and die, then the idiots who conceived and approved this monstrosity should be fired and ostracized from the IT community forever.

It's a step backwards for computing. I bailed on Apple before they built their walled garden and I'd bail on Microsoft if it looks like this is going to be the future of their OS.

LK