No escape from the store for the plebs!

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/business/archive/2012/04/18/introducing-windows-8-enterprise-and-enhanced-software-assurance-for-today-s-modern-workforce.aspx

"New Windows 8 App Deployment: Domain joined PCs and tablets running Windows 8 Enterprise will automatically be enabled to side-load internal, Windows 8 Metro style apps."

Gotcha, it's official. Not only do you need a Windows Server (that was expected), but you also need the Enterprise edition to leave the clutches of the store.

I know some offices who have SBS, but not the enterprise versions of Windows, because they just don't need the software assurance contracts. Well.. it's the Metro way or the highway!

So, your SBS users are so small that they develop custom metro apps for their business?

If they have that kinda money to invest, they have the money for Enterprise.

Or, do you think it's a good idea to just give away Enterprise features to Home editions aswell?

What's the value of an Enterprise edition then?

No one is developing anything. I just know some small business who also run SBS and have small in-house utilities (win32+.net) as well. Since the store is inpractical for that, and the key for the prison cell comes with Enterprise only, that means they will stay with .net and win32 forever.

Now, I don't care about that in the slightest, but cases like these (which may sound fringe, but you have to extrapolate the vast numbers of WIndows installations) make me wonder what the hell is MS doing with Win8. It's like they want to annoy as much people as possible, fully on purpose. Not only is Metro annoying, but even if you want to use it, they make it harder to do it.

Or, do you think it's a good idea to just give away Enterprise features to Home editions aswell?

Why isn't Enterprise available for retail by the way? (it was with ultimate, but that is canned with Win8).

Stuff like Windows To Go, or Applocker etc. can be also useful for non-bigo corporate users. I see no reason why this has to be restricted to a SKU that you can't even buy without a contract hollapoo

The question is still valid.

If they have the money to port Win32 + .Net apps to Metro apps, they can pay the money for Enterprise. I doubt the OS is more then 1% of the cost.

Otherwise, just switch to desktop and use the app, no harm done.

1 hour ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

I know some offices who have SBS, but not the enterprise versions of Windows, because they just don't need the software assurance contracts. Well.. it's the Metro way or the highway! 

...or the desktop applications way.

@Maddus Mattus:   Applications should work across all versions of the OS unless they are using services specific to certain editions - period.  That being said, the article says nothing about SBS and whether there is even going to be an SBS for Windows 8.  My guess, is that if there is, MS won't be so dumb as to prevent this from working. 

Well, for the first time I agree with the Win8 haters -- if I have a PC and I can distribute .NET apps for the desktop but not for Metro, then I see no reason to develop for Metro. That's a pretty dumb decision from MS.

Next time our customers ask us if we plan to develop a Metro version of our product (which would suit Metro very well) we will tell then that we are NOT going to do so -- if they want to use our product on a tablet we will tell them to buy an iPad and use remote desktop or Citrix to access our software on a server (which one of our customers already does).

Herbie

36 minutes ago, Bas wrote

*snip*

...or the desktop applications way.

constantly reinvented and thrown away every few years like Winforms, WPF, Silverlight etc

 Just sayin...

1 minute ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

constantly reinvented and thrown away every few years like Winforms, WPF, Silverlight etc

 Just sayin...

Microsoft never really pushed Silverlight as a true desktop application platform.. Silverlight OOB wasn't available until version 4.

10 minutes ago, vesuvius wrote

*snip*

constantly reinvented and thrown away every few years like Winforms, WPF, Silverlight etc

 Just sayin... 

And the same fate will befall the current way of creating metro apps. So you're not losing that drawback by going Metro.

Because, you know, Apple lets anybody side-load stuff onto their iPhones and iPads.

I don't like the way the market is moving towards Microsoft and Apple taking huge cuts of app-sales and forcing the business model, but Microsoft is just jumping on the Apple/Google app-store bandwagon here.

I think the government should step in under anti-trust to break down the app-stores of Google, Microsoft and Apple because they're straightforwardly anti-competitive.

Because it is not "your" PC anymore.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Windows-8-I-am-truely-worried-and-I-need-answers

The development era is dead. Time to move on. I refuse to "develop" for a cable-TV device.

31 seconds ago, evildictaitor wrote

Because, you know, Apple lets anybody side-load stuff onto their iPhones and iPads.

But they allow it on their iMacs, and you don't need to sign a contract for access to a special version  of Mac OS to do so.

20 minutes ago, WhatDoYouMean wrote

The development era is dead. Time to move on. I refuse to "develop" for a cable-TV device.

That's why I never got into developing for phones or 'pads. Sadly the vast number of apps for both is testament to the number of developers that are more than happy to give away 30% of their profits to companies that own the platform such as MS, Apple and Google.

Let's imagine a world in which Microsoft no longer makes money through Windows licenses because they give away the OS (i.e. free as in "beer"). They make all of their developer tools free as well. In that scenario, what is their only logical revenue model?

Would Microsoft be better off by swapping all of the revenues from selling Windows in exchange for 30% of the revenues from third-party developers whose software end up being installed on all Windows machines?

This could be the route Microsoft is heading. Third-party developers may opt for this because a free OS means a larger install base of users AND a central application store means less money spent on distribution and marketing.

This could be a zero-sum game for third-party developers, but a huge gain for Microsoft. The biggest losers in this imaginary scenario would be existing software resellers and advertising companies. Microsoft would essentially be taking those revenues.

If you have more than 5 PCs, it's cheaper to volume license Windows anyway, at which point you get Enterprise edition. If your customers have more than 5 PCs but no volume agreement, you should probably steer them in the right direction.

40 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

Because, you know, Apple lets anybody side-load stuff onto their iPhones and iPads.

Cool strategy - we do everything our competitor is doing to the letter.. profit.

Seriously, if you want an Apple-like experience, you just buy Apple. What's the point in creating an Apple clone?

No Starbucks loving iHippster is going to flip out over the clone army that Sinofsky is creating in Redmond.

34 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

Cool strategy - we do everything our competitor is doing to the letter.. profit.

That's business sadly. Microsoft is trying to emulate Apple's success, and to be honest a lot of apple's success comes from the owning the apple app-store.

The battle over developers having to sign 30% of their profits away to some big evil company was lost long before Microsoft came on the scene. Microsoft only now joining in the feeding frenzy that rips off developers and customers that Apple and Google started and that the US government, customers and developers failed to put a stop to several years ago.