Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Working On Its Own App Store

Posted by timothy on Sat Nov 08, 2008 06:00 PM
from the goes-around-comes-around dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft is working on a software distribution scheme along the lines of Apple's iPhone App Store, CEO Steve Ballmer said yesterday at a developer's conference in Sydney, Australia. 'There's not much money being made, but the general concept of giving developers a way not only to get their code distributed, but to really get visibility for the code, is a good idea,' Ballmer said. Ballmer hinted that something similar would be coming soon from Microsoft. While he said Micrsoft was not ready to detail the works in progress, he said '... fear not, we're hard at work, and you'll see some of the benefits [of that] with some of the concepts, particularly Facebook's.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Mobile: Competition For the App Store Is Mounting 136 comments
MojoKid writes "Right now the only real 'competition' to Apple's App Store is the Android Market. Presently, anyone using an Android-based phone can download applications from the Android Market, which first started offering free applications in October '08. A drawback to Android application developers, however, is the fact that the potential Android Market user base is fairly small right now, as there is presently only one Android phone available, the T-Mobile G1. However, in the coming months we're also going to see more app stores come online for additional smartphone platforms. Nokia will officially launch an app store for its Symbian OS-based smartphones at Mobile World Congress on Monday. Microsoft is also getting in the game for smartphones that run the Windows Mobile OS, with Steve Ballmer delivering the keynote speech at Mobile World Congress as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This company is pathetic. Don't they every ever come up with an original idea?

      • Live Maps? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Christophotron (812632) on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:57PM (#25690687)

        I think that's an example of something they did better.. They ripped Google off and put better, more detailed satellite photos in the "birds-eye view" on their mapping site. It's a little chunky to use but the photos are amazing. Now when I shop for a house I go to live maps and instantly get a view of it from all sides from about ~50ft away. It puts Google Earth to shame, and although street view is even closer and more detailed, it covers a lot more area than street view.

        Sure, MS copies ideas, but it only really HELPS the consumer in the long run. Even if it's not always "better" than the competition, it gives us more choices. I, for one, am looking forward to the new app store on my HTC Kaiser.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:21PM (#25690457)

    There's not much money being made, but the general concept of giving developers a way not only to get their code distributed, but to really get visibility for the code, is a good idea

    The money being made is in smaller chunks but the volume could be quite high. This combined could quite profitable for small, independent developers. Also from Apple's standpoint they are not in it to make large amounts of profit for themselves from the app store. Like the music and video divisions, it will probably generate a small profit. The app store is a tool to sell more devices. MS unfortunately only sees that they can't make much money off it because their model relies on OEMs buying their OS software and their mobile software which means they will have to compete in some cases with 3rd party developers.

    • The apple App store model has huge problems (aka. you cannot run app X because we don't want you too) I don't think customers really want a repeat of that. iPhone and iPod users use it because they don't have an option. However once a way that allows them to run apps outside of the app store that will not cause the iPhone to brick on the next update then the new method will probably get far more popular. As you can get apps that really make the iPhone useful. Flash, Java, ways to share network connections.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The apple App store model has huge problems (aka. you cannot run app X because we don't want you too) I don't think customers really want a repeat of that

        I suspect you're wrong. Users want somewhere safe where they can get apps that do what they want and know that they won't get some malware. If that means that they may miss out on a few apps that Apple doesn't like then a lot of people will be willing to accept that.

  • 'There's not much money being made, but the general concept of giving developers a way not only to get their binaries distributed, but to really get visibility for the binaries, is a good idea'
  • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

    by NuclearError (1256172) on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:32PM (#25690523)

    ... fear not, we're hard at work...

    Start fearing.

  • With blackjack? And hookers? Ah screw it, forget the blackjack... And the app store.
  • It could end up being like a package manager. If you could get all or most of your software through the software store, it could handle updates and dependencies. It might even make re-installing Windows easier. Just save the list of installed programs, wipe and install, then use some scripting magic to re-install all of your programs. That is, if it's not crippled by DRM.
    • The problem is, this is MS. Most software installed is not MS software, unlike OS X where just about every app is made by Apple or Adobe. Just look at the disaster Windows update is, think about what they would do with this. Not to mention that this will attract about 3 other developers other than MS, and no doubt MS would charge to be part of this "elite network" which throws out any OSS project. Its a good idea, but the thing about Ballmer's MS is, they have some corporate crap stopping them from executin
      • this could render horrible, spyware-laden free app download sites like the current ones a thing of the past. if Microsoft hosts and vets downloads, it means higher quality apps for users, as well as an extra distribution channel for vendors
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Microsoft is subject to monopoly regulation, unlike Apple. It wouldn't be allowed to do that.

            If they have a built-in download-and-install system in Windows, that could greatly improve Windows security as well as greatly benefiting free/OSS software on Windows. . It disadvantages Linux but helps both Microsoft (re: security), and the user...
        • Well, on just about every Mac I've seen, from corporate computers, to those of artists to those used at home, just about all the used software is from Apple or Adobe, with the exception of Office.

          iTunes is overwhelmingly the most used media player, Safari for browsing, Photoshop for editing, etc. On the other hand on Windows computers, VLC or iTunes are the most popular media players, Firefox the browser (for anyone who knows much about computers), Photoshop or The GIMP for editing, etc.
  • by santiagodraco (1254708) on Saturday November 08 2008, @07:25PM (#25690881)

    They are making PLENTY of money off the app store, far more than they expected. Ballmer's comments about "there's not much money being made" is simply his way of discounting Apples success and predicting his own failure.

    • by neuromanc3r (1119631) on Saturday November 08 2008, @09:43PM (#25691605)
      I like to bash MS/Ballmer as much as the next slashdotter, but I don't think that's true. He admits that it is a good idea. And his comments about "not much money being made" simply show the difference between his definition and your definition of "much money".
  • by fermion (181285) on Saturday November 08 2008, @07:47PM (#25691003) Homepage Journal
    I am not sure what the motivation here. When I go to a store, I see MS Windows programs everywhere. When I go to sourceforge, I see plenty of free MS Windows programs. If people want to pay a small fee for a program, I see that too. I just paid a small free for an utility the other day. I do not see a dearth of opportunities to purchase a MS Windows program.

    So what is the motivation here. Apple has it's store to control content. I don't think MS wants to do that. Google has it's store to insure that content is available, provide more pages to host ads, and eventually make a little money on the side, when they begin charging, something I thought they were already doing, but I forgot about their always freaky business model. MS business models are always very straight forward.

    So as best I can figure this is a case where someone else it making a bit of money in the computer business, MS is not getting it's cut, which is driving MS crazy. So they open a store, even though they have no experience in it and will not pay anyone who has experience, and then use their partnership arrangements to make others use it, maybe even building it into the next version os IE. Probably have to have to have and MSN account to use it as well.

  • Linux community: "Windows sucks. They don't even have a decent app repository. In Linux I can find any program from one place!" Microsoft: "We're building an App Store" Linux community: "Zoinks! Theives! Scoundrels! Copycats!" Since when is it wrong for a company to see something it's competitor has done successfully, that was beneficial for both customers and developers, and then decide to do so for their own customers and developers? Seriously, how is this a bad thing that they're doing it? They've even acknowledged that their competitors had a good idea and that they've taken the concept from them. Jeez.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Damnit, I really wish Slashdot's 'html formatted' posting method will put in the br tags automatically.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        An app store would theoretically allow free apps, as does the iPhone app store. How are they different?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Ever used the iPhone app store? Which allows for updates as well? Also, Windows apps tend to not need dependencies installed.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                The poster compared it to apt-get. Apt get allows for updates and upgrading as well as checking for dependencies. I repeat... how is an app store like a repository???

                Never once has [iphone app store] supplied the source code for me.

                How did the source code requirement suddenly crop up? It wasn't in GGP. Source is not necessary for an MS Windows app store/repo anyway. If this keeps my family members from downloading crap from stupidweatherbugspywareriddledsite.example.com , I think it's a good thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Considering that Apple didn't invent any of the things you listed either, I don't see what your point is.

        • I am pretty sure that neither of them invented the mouse or the GUI.

          • by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:23PM (#25690471) Journal

            No, but Apple legally licensed/bought the tech from PARC. Microsoft simply copied them after they saw how successful it was.

            Whether or not Apple did invent these things it has been a fairly consistent paradigm that Apple (or Google, or whoever) comes up with something and makes it successful and then Microsoft tries to get in on the action. I'm sure their app store will do fine. At least as fine as the Zune....

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              No, but Apple legally licensed/bought the tech from PARC. Microsoft simply copied them after they saw how successful it was.

              Whether or not Apple did invent these things it has been a fairly consistent paradigm that Apple (or Google, or whoever) comes up with something and makes it successful and then Microsoft tries to get in on the action.

              On the other hand it took Apple few decades to put second button and wheel (ok.. "orb") on their mouse and they managed to get it wrong still.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              The way I see it is that someone somewhere innovates. PARC, Linus or whoever, it doesn't matter. It seems to be less and less likely with any big company.

              Apple gets hold of the idea and makes something very neat and appealing with it. The only problem I ever have is that it is too expensive. I own an iPod but have never felt able to justify the cost of a 'Mac.

              Microsoft takes the idea and makes something much cheaper. It looks cheap as well. It runs on my PC but is no more open than the Apple stuff.

        • Apple invented the iPod as much as Microsoft invented the Zune. However, NEITHER of them invented the mp3 player, portable media player, etc. Even the mp3 player with a touchscreen was nothing new when Apple announced the "innovation"!

          If you don't believe me check out Archos. They had touch screens + WIFI WAY before apple did.

    • I'm pretty sure the mouse came from Xerox PARC.

      • Re:No supprise here (Score:5, Informative)

        by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:32PM (#25690519) Journal

        I'm pretty sure the mouse came from Xerox PARC.

        No, Doug Englebart invented it at SRI.

        -jcr

        • Re:No supprise here (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Facegarden (967477) on Saturday November 08 2008, @07:43PM (#25690985)

          I'm pretty sure the mouse came from Xerox PARC.

          No, Doug Englebart invented it at SRI.

          -jcr

          I met him once a couple years ago. Really old (he's passed now) but he had a pretty interesting story. The part that really gets me is he never made a penny from inventing the mouse, aside from his salary at the company. He should have been made rich though!
          -Taylor

      • Aha, but that's not where the story begins...

        What few realize is that is that the mouse was preceded by the development of cheese as a user input device. If I recall correctly, this was an Al Gore invention which, unfortunately for him, didn't succeed to the same level as his better known invention - the internet.

        Sadly, Al could not figure out an appropriate application of a block of cheese to a User Interface. Xerox PARC quickly picked up the ball and drew the obvious conclusion.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I wouldn't go quite that far, but he should shut down his unprofitable ego-trip ventures like the Zune and the Xbox.

      MS's problem is that they're fixated on competition, not customers. They got into search because they thought they had to compete with Google. They got into online services in the first place because they thought they had to compete with AOL. Same with Zune and Apple.

      -jcr

      • by cgenman (325138) on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:54PM (#25690681) Homepage

        Actually, that division is currently making money [joystiq.com].

        As a game developer, I'd hate to see MS shut down their Xbox division. They basically took some great developers, gave them a real budget, and said "do what you want." So far MS corporate has avoided messing with the console games division, keeping them from becoming another MS Bob.

        On consoles, Microsoft is basically responsible for: Digital game sales, digital movie rentals, add-on downloads, HDD's on consoles, cross-title friends lists, and the general concept of a cross-title global experience. While they're also responsible for the most godawfully painful log-in/log-out scenarios of any console manufacturer, they did a lot of things right and really pushed Sony and Nintendo kicking and screaming into an online world.

        • by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Saturday November 08 2008, @07:25PM (#25690879) Journal

          Actually, that division is currently making money.

          Only if you don't count the billions already pissed away. Xbox needs about twenty more HALO-scale hits before it breaks even.

          -jcr

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Same can be said for nearly every console ever apart from the Wii. The PS3 is still selling at a loss a few years on, and in a recent interview I think it was Kaz Hirai (probably wrong) that said they wouldn't recoup the losses made from the PS3 "in his lifetime"
          • Right, but those billions have already been pissed away. Shutting down what is now a profitable division because in the past it lost money is silly.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Shutting down what is now a profitable division because in the past it lost money is silly.

              Only if it's more profitable than other things MS could be doing with the capital they have tied up in it.

              -jcr

              • by EveLibertine (847955) on Saturday November 08 2008, @10:43PM (#25691947)
                So you'd have them piss away more billions on a potentially unprofitable division, incurring years of loss for a chance to make a profit instead of having done exactly that, except they've finally gotten through to the profitable era of the division? You wouldn't happen to work for WaMu or something, would you?
                    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      And as to "paying dividends", where exactly do you think the money to pay dividends comes from? I'll tell you where it comes from, profitable divisions, that's where.

                      MS Office and Windows are profitable divisions. The revenues they generate should be paid out as dividends, not spent on ego trips like the Xbox. Ballmer has wasted billions of his shareholders' money on lines of business that will never break even. Going cash-flow positive for a year or so doesn't make it profitable, it makes it potentia

        • I'd hate to see MS shut down their Xbox division. They basically took some great developers, gave them a real budget, and said "do what you want."

          That explains a lot. Aside from the hardware problems, the XBox is one of the less flawed consoles. Now if only there'd put this much effort into all the other stuff they do...

      • MS's problem is that they're fixated on competition, not customers.

        Boy, you said it, Chewie. Microsoft just wants to sell you the sizzle off the steak.

      • by lysergic.acid (845423) on Saturday November 08 2008, @07:52PM (#25691041) Homepage

        i actually think some of the Zune's WiFi features are pretty innovative. being able to share music/photos/images directly with other wireless devices is definitely a neat feature (though it'd be neater if more devices supported it). likewise with by able to broadcast a wireless profile to indicate what you're listening to.

        frankly, i think the major PMP manufacturers should get together and create a standardized protocol for sharing files across portable media players. Microsoft kinda ruined a great concept by crippling it with DRM. they also missed a great opportunity by not publishing their protocol as an open standard. with the iPod still lacking WiFi capabilities, if Microsoft had made wireless file sharing a popular open standard by working with companies like Sony, Creative, Archos and even SmartPhone manufacturers, they could have made it a huge selling point over the iPod. but the Zune by itself isn't popular enough to make their file sharing feature anything more than a passing novelty. the whole "welcome to the social" campaign is kinda silly when you're the only one in the social.

        however, i still look forward to the day when these features become standard on all portable media devices. it'd be cool to sit down on a train and see that there's a person across the room that likes the same music/movies/tv shows/games as you do and be able to swap music/videos/frags/etc. with them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        but he should shut down his unprofitable ego-trip ventures like the Zune and the Xbox

        The Xbox division is profitable, and it's been a long time coming. Unlike other parts of Microsoft, the Xbox division truly has an innovative product that is continually being improved in creative ways that benefit the user. The same can't really be said for Windows...

        The Zune is also a very impressive piece of technology. Having played with one (and speaking as a loyal Mac user) I have to say it rips the hell out of the iPod classic's UI.

        You've listed the two products that MS should not shut down under any

    • Or stick to things they're actually good at. This whole chasing every thing that comes down the pipe is abject stupidity. It has nothing to do with good business and everything to do with corporate ego.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday November 08 2008, @06:51PM (#25690653) Homepage Journal

        You do realize people have been buying music and software from Microsoft Online services for over 7 years right?

        Really? MSN Music launched in 2004, a year after the iTunes Music Store (2003), and it is the first online music store from Microsoft that I can find any references to. I'm aware that Microsoft has had an online software store for a few years, although I've yet to encounter anyone who's bought anything from it (and any non-geeks who are even aware of its existence).

      • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Saturday November 08 2008, @09:17PM (#25691485)

        your point would be...

        Originally Microsoft started out selling music store servers and DRM to Walmart, Yahoo, etc. rather than sell music themselves. Then they went thru a few changes in DRM schemes selling multiple types to multiple people. Then Plays for (not) Sure, then because they promised not to compete in the "one music file" market they created a new type ZUNE that works on Live. Only in the last iteration have they actually mattered compared to Apple. Ironically Live ties music to Zune and Xbox 360 even tighter than Apple ties to iPod and Apple TV.

        They have had a "product store" tied to windows since at least ME.. and it was a pale attempt to sell you regular software stuff in a retail box and mail it, a few things might be downloadable now. All I remember is that it never had anything interesting and never updated... ever. Microsoft would have made a killing with online buying of small apps integrated into their website that automatically installed into windows in the "preferred" method, but they constantly try to hijack ISV sales so nobody would touch such a store for Windows because they'd block you out.. a la Defender, ForeFront..etc. A store might work for CE devices, but those are so varied and Microsoft allows carriers to lock out various features so the apps wouldn't be "WinMo" apps they'd have to be "AT&T WinMo" and "Verison WinMo" and "TMobile..." Apple's 5 year deal bought them the kind of control over their devices to make the system really shine. Microsoft would be violating anti-trust to even ask for such a thing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          your point would be...

          Just what you took time to demonstrate in your post, Microsoft was doing all of this crap before Apple.

          Therefore, the comment "Monkey see, Monkey do", would better be suited at an attack at Apple, as they are the 'me too' once again. Of course their fanbois wouldn't know this, and probably still think they invented everything, as long as Apple marketing tries to make people believe it.

          And yes Apple INTENTIONALLY tries to create this perception. When they run ads about the first 64bit

    • by CarpetShark (865376) on Saturday November 08 2008, @07:05PM (#25690745)

      Probably something like Linux package managers, only you have to pay for the privilege of a less functional version.

        • And, on Windows it will probably actually WORK.

          I know you're a whiny astroturfing AC troll, but I can't let this pass.

          If Microsoft OS software had a feature that worked like GNU/linux's software repositories, that would be a huge benefit for the end user and a major selling point. Install any of many thousands of apps in every category for free just by clicking on it? Free apps so plentiful they require their own search engine? Automatic dependency resolution? Integrated updates for all apps in one system? Slam dunk. There's even a spot for it in