That's some heavy duty creative editing you've done there, essentially snipping out the entire paragraph that ends with "The wide variety of delivery mechanisms, installation tools, and overall approaches to updates across the full breadth of applications makes it impossible to push all updates through this mechanism. As frustrating as this might be, it is also an important part of the ecosystem that we cannot just revisit for the installed base of software."
And you haven't read an entire paragraph in my opening post:
And the excuse sucks - so what if some developers won't use AppX or whatever? Those who don't want to use it, just keep them as a mere links, and those who will write an installer that can be used with the appstore will get the full appstore treatment. Problem solved
Don't tell me it would be rocket science to allow opening up the appstore for "traditonal" types of programs. Steam proves it can be done just fine even on Windows, and the games there are nothing more than just good old Win32 applications.
I understand there's another reason: The sandboxing that WinRT provides. But it's not as if there isn't a way to provide non-WinRT applications and still be safe. This problem could be solved by a verification system: Vendors who want to publish desktop apps need to provide their full name, adress, website URL and their credit card number, MS charges 0.1 cent from the card and the vendor then needs to enter the code that was is listed in the bill. Lots of pay systems have similiar verifications. Again, no rocket science for a multi-billion dollar company.
At the very least, why not allowing companies that can be 100% trusted, like Oracle, Adobe etc. and this way solving the third party update troubles for 99% of all users?