Why?
Imagine for Windows 9, Microsoft unveils that you can play all Xbox 360 games on the OS. Just insert your disc and you can play.
What're you arguing about is the equivalent of complaining that Windows 9 doesn't play PS3 or Wii Games. And that if it can't play PS3 or Wii games then it shouldn't play Xbox 360 games either. Keep that functionality out of Windows 9.
Do you see now what the problem is with your logic?
An open platform is conducive to technological progress, small scale electronics aside.
Let me throw the whole Metro/Desktop thing into a different perspective. Metro is a 12oz can of pop, the desktop is a 1-liter. Both can be purchased for the same price, but for on-the-go quick carry - people choose the can.
Why? Convenience. It's there, its readily accessible and people will pay for convenience. Metro is in-your-face the minute you start Windows. W8 is the "do all" OS for PC, tablet, mobile, etc.
The idea is to get consumers on board with being comfortable to use Metro - it is a convenience for the consumer to have a single store for Metro and I believe that is fine and dandy and SHOULD exist for that type of environment for the services it provides. A nice single place to safely purchase software for that working environment.
The downside is that while you still can go to the desktop and it's "business as usual" on that side - the desktop environment is now the red-headed stepchild. It's no longer the centerpiece of the operating system.
Do you really think the average user will actively go to the desktop just to purchase from outside vendors? Or will they most likely say "oh... so here is the place where I buy my programs for Windows 8" when referring to Metro?
No other stores are allowed on Metro.
That wouldn't be an issue if Metro wasn't
forced as the default interface for Windows 8. Microsoft is actively trying to pull consumers into Metro and away from other stores... that's business as usual, right? You want people to buy from your store! No brainer!
The problem is that MS wants Metro to be the default from here on out. I don't know a single PC user who has not voiced their disdain for a touch interface on desktop for a long time coming - but MS still went ahead with it anyway. It's not intuitive in the slightest, at least from my limited time with the developer preview.
It's flashy and very "mobile" looking because, hey, that's cool these days, rite? It's a shiny new toy the average consumer will go "ooooooooh" over. That's the intention.
Now fast forward 5 years from now. How much farther down the totem pole will the desktop be? People will be using Metro for convenience and sticking with that store as they should for convenience and peace of mind.
They are still given a choice - but that choice is an illusion - because people understand with technology you either adapt or get left behind. So they will adapt to the new system since it is the DEFAULT startup and the desktop and it's development environment will be a thing of the past once apps move forward with their Metro counterparts (currently most apps launch to desktop from Metro if not developed for Metro)
Now let's look at things from MY perspective trying to reach that market on Metro. How long does an application approval take? I have to pay 500 per year for a license? What about if I create open-source applications or decide to give people software for free... why am I obligated to pay a yearly subscription for my software if its free? What about patching software? How long will the approval process be and how much will it cost? Is there a way to expedite the process due to a known bug and I'd like to keep my paying customers happy by patching quickly? Etc.
I'm tired right now but, to me, it seems like they want to edge out the competition by playing the consumer. That's how this works. That's the business model and has been the business model for as long as I can remember.
Metro is front and center for a reason. MS wants you using metro, not the desktop. The writing is on the wall with a big flashing arrow pointing to it and nobody seems to notice :|
I want to go live with my software when I say so, not pending an approval process. I want to patch the minute I feel I need to patch, not pending an approval process. I would not be able to make a Metro app and sell it as I believe it should be sold on stores of my choosing. That's not how Metro works.
So the more people stick with Metro, the less they will use the desktop and it's applications, the more developers will be forced to move to a single-store system with the inability to sell their OWN software on their OWN terms. Until that day, I stick with desktop development and will not support Metro.
As someone who throws code at my screen several hours a day, I'm going to remain vigilant and keep my options open. It does not make sense from a business perspective to NOT study every single option well into the future and the avenues they present -
no matter how off-the-wall they appear to be.
I have plenty of time to be complacent and ignorant when I'm dead. Now is not the time... big flashing arrow and all.
