Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Windows

Trouble For Microsoft Developers With the Windows Store 232

An anonymous reader writes "This blog post from an un-happy Microsoft developer highlights many of the problems that developers are having with submitting to the new Windows store. His app, that won 2 App X challenges from Microsoft, has been rejected 6 times over 2 months with no clear indications as to the cause. This is even after going through a rigorous early-certification process. With Windows RT relying solely on apps from the store, and there being just over 7,000 apps total, Microsoft could have a big problem here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trouble For Microsoft Developers With the Windows Store

Comments Filter:
  • by cbhacking ( 979169 ) <been_out_cruisin ... om ['hoo' in gap> on Friday October 26, 2012 @01:02AM (#41774199) Homepage Journal

    No, pretty sure *you* are the idiot here. If you'd actually RTFA, instead of whatever brief skim you took, you'd have seen that the guy ran WACK every time... and that it always ran clean on his system. He eventually got a failure out of it by running his VM's performance down to the Win8 mimum specs, but even after fixing that he continued getting unexplained errors from the certification process that didn't show up on his local system.

    Also, WACK failed to catch a very simple and obvious thing - a piece of dev/test code that he'd left in a constructor, which will crash the app when run if installed from the store - that it clearly should have. That's exactly the kind of thing that static analysis should have found.

    I'm rather shocked by Microsoft's failures, here. Usually, they're very good with dev tools and communication. Not this time, it seems. You'd think they'd have learned from the problems Apple had... it almost feels like they're trying to repeat Apple's mistakes too.

  • by caballew ( 2725281 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @01:14AM (#41774263)
    I don't see MS and/or PCs being marginalized simply because business won't adopt Win 8 RT if it means their in-house software as well as other specialized software can't be used unless MS approves it in their App store. This might affect individuals but not business clients from small business to enterprise clients. With these restrictions, development for Android will only grow while development for Win 8 RT will whither after the initial rush of early development. Sorta like how SPARC and DEC lost out in the business desktop and small server application race; poor business model equals failure. There are still way too many businesses using XP that haven't even upgraded to Win7 because of legacy and in-house software .
  • by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @01:22AM (#41774295) Homepage Journal

    Why do you think that another mobile failure will marginalize MS? None of the previous ones did. Are you under the impression that everybody's going to throw away their PC and start using a tablet? That's not what's happening. PC sales are stagnant because the market's saturated. Tablet sales are booming because it's new use case that users are just beginning to move to. One is not being replaced by the other.

    It's true that this is going to hurt MS. But they'll still collect a tithe for every non-Mac PC sold, and they'll still sell a lot of server licenses. As these markets saturate, they will cease to make MS uber-profitable, but these markets are still big, and will remain so — as will Microsoft.

  • For those who prefer metric, that's about 195.6 cm. He's well above 99th percentile for height. Big, too. Kind of an imposing-looking guy, in fact.

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:57AM (#41774687)

    The Surface was dead before it ever launched. The reason is that there is no tablet market, there's an iPad market.

    Most people have no use for tablets. There are niche uses (the in medicine) but by and large there just isn't a real use for tablets. People are not going to be able to get rid of their computers because tablets are lousy for content creation, even basic content like writing an e-mail or forum post. However they aren't portable like a smartphone so you don't take it with you all the time. They try to fill a niche where your smartphone isn't large enough for what you need, but your laptop isn't portable enough. There is almost none of that in a normal person's life. I've yet to meet someone that has dumped their smartphone or computer for their tablet and as such they really don't need it.

    However, the iPad is a cool tech toy, and fashion accessory, to have. People want one because it is cool, not because they need it. They want to be seen with it and they want to mess around with it. However that is only the case because it is an iPad. Apple makes the cool consumer electronics currently. MS never will, they are horrible at selling style.

    So they are trying to get in to a market that just isn't there. Tablets are going to fade away as the fad passes. People will find that their smartphone is just more convenient for the "small" computing needs and that a laptop or maybe desktop are better when you need to do some work or the like.

    Even if they had a stellar app store with tons of apps the surface still wouldn't go anywhere because nobody gives a shit because it isn't an iPad.

  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @04:27AM (#41775059) Homepage

    How apt: belief based development.

    Back in the mid 90s, I worked at a games company where we were struggling to get the performance of Direct3D Retained Mode (anyone else remember that?) up to anywhere near Glide levels on Voodoo hardware. It was "escalated" until some DirectX "evangelist" rocked up at our office to "assist."

    His "assistance" consisted of looking out of the window and telling us that we must be doing something wrong, because his developers assured him that D3DRM should perform better than anything that we could roll ourselves.

    "Look," we said, "here's the same app, showing the same scene, and the framerate of the D3DRM version is half that of Glide."

    But he wouldn't look. He literally wouldn't look at the screens. He wouldn't even acknowledge the problem. Just kept going on about how we must be mis-using it, because he had been assured.

    Needless to say, we dropped D3DRM, as did everyone else, and it died in a corner, alone and unloved. But it did give us a valuable insight into the developer and "evangelist" culture at Microsoft. I think all Windows developers learn it eventually, which is why Microsoft need a constant influx of bright eyed, bushy tailed young suckers who'll fall for the line that they only hurt us because they love us so much.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 26, 2012 @04:28AM (#41775061)

    Its not just the app store that is the problem. I was about to purchase a MSDN subscription, and took a peek at the current situation with respect to license keys and installation of developer operating systems, and couldn't believe how much effort MS must have expended in creating such a confusing and unmanageable mess. They wont get my money. It is much more expedient to NOT develop for Windows. I will continue developing for various mobile platforms, and Linux, and even IOS, but MS has made everything far too difficult.

    It would seem that MS has never really properly weighed up the economics of draconian license keys vs the benefits of implicitly TRUSTING THEIR DEVELOPERS. MS used to trust me as a developer - and I behaved 100% in accordance with that trust - but now they DON'T TRUST ME and as a result I NOW HATE THEM. That is the outcome they have generated. I will never purchase an MSDN subscription ever again.

  • by AC-x ( 735297 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @06:11AM (#41775551)

    Why the hell aren't Microsoft sending stack traces of crashes back to developers? Are they so incompetent that they've forgotten how software is developed?

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith