"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!

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1 hour ago, evildictaitor wrote

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

300$ a year. That's a lot cheaper than Microsoft's plan.

4 hours ago, Bas wrote

*snip*

...or the desktop applications way.

Desktop apps don't work on tablets with ARM.

17 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

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.

You can chalk this up to FOSS forcing Microsoft's hand in this direction. Microsoft is turning itself into a hosting company with Azure. They don't care if you run Windows vs. Linux, SQL Server vs. MySQL, Azure Table Storage vs. MongoDB. They've completely devalued Windows Server as a guest OS on Azure because it's the same price to have a Window Server 2008 VM role as it does to have a Linux VM role. You're basically paying for rental of infrastructure and getting Windows Server as a guest OS for free.

They could be setting themselves up for offering Windows on client machines for free too as long as they can make money on the "back end" through commission on application sales.

2 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

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.

You're going to have to leave the goog out of this one; they let users side-load apps and there are plenty of app store alternatives for Android including Amazon. This is strictly an Apple-Microsoft walled garden party. Google & Android have their problems but this is not one of them.

40 minutes ago, ZippyV wrote

*snip*

Desktop apps don't work on tablets with ARM.

That's true, but then customers and developers kindof expect that the business model for tablets will require them to fork out hundreds of dollars to the developer of the device rather than the developer of the software thanks to Apple.

It's just a shame that Microsoft, in trying to unify the tablet and desktop market have inadvertently taken the incredibly restrictive business model of the tablet and forced it onto the desktop, rather than taking the very open business model of the desktop and brought it to the tablet.

9 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

That's true, but then customers and developers kindof expect that the business model for tablets will require them to fork out hundreds of dollars to the developer of the device rather than the developer of the software thanks to Apple.

It's just a shame that Microsoft, in trying to unify the tablet and desktop market have inadvertently taken the incredibly restrictive business model of the tablet and forced it onto the desktop, rather than taking the very open business model of the desktop and brought it to the tablet.

Until you can order an ARM chip, motherboard, and capacitive touchscreen from newegg.com and build your own tablet, Microsoft has give away Windows RT to OEMs for practically nothing and allow them to dictate when new versions of that OS get installed on these tablets. And when these new versions come out, you can bet your sweet a$$ that owners of said tablets aren't going to fork over any amount of money for the privilege installing these new versions.

That means Microsoft has to go after other sources of revenue, because they're not going to get much from licenses of Windows RT.

With PCs, every OEM copy of Windows 7 that Microsoft sold to Dell or HP since 2009 is a candidate for sales of a RETAIL copy of Windows 8. With tablets, every license of Windows RT is going to be a liability unless there's an supplemental revenue stream. Consumers are going to demand updates to the OS AND expect to get it for free.

1 hour ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

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.

On the newest OS X you have an appstore, but you can still install apps outside the appstore if you change a setting in the Gatekeeper.

You can't to do this that easy with the Win 8 store and metro apps.

So they are trying to emulate Apple's success by copying them by the book.. with the exception to make their stuff even more closed than Apple's! I still don't get it how this can be succesful.

What's so sexy about an even more restricted Apple clone?

*snip*

What's so sexy about an even more restricted Apple clone?

7 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

You can't to do this that easy with the Win 8 store and metro apps.

You can still use the desktop without subscribing to Microsoft's appstore terms and conditions.

What's so sexy about an even more restricted Apple clone?

Why do you think Microsoft wants to be sexy when it can be ridiculously profitable. Apple didn't get to having $500bn by just being sexy. It got there by owning 30% of all of the sales of apps, 40% of all of the subscriptions and owning a huge % of the phone market.

4 hours ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

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.

 People were lining up when the iPhone came out at $599 with no app store at all. It was selling very well before you could even install apps on it. Apple's success has little to do with their technology and more to do with the fact that they are able to turn technology into a religious experience.