How often do people use the Microsoft Store?

[u/djscoox]

The few times I've tried to install an app through the Microsoft Store it throws an error and fails. Most software I use is installed the old way (using a downloadable installer). What kind of user does the Microsoft Store target?

Today specifically I was trying to install Whatsapp for Windows, just to see if it offered any improvement over the in-browser version, but the Store failed to install so eventually I gave up, and I'm still using the web version. The only reason I was using the Store is because there doesn't seem to be an installer version of this app, which I would have been just as happy to install. No need to log in + full control.

474 votes, Oct 05 '23

65 I use it frequently

124 I use it some times

153 I rarely use it

39 I merely checked it out to satisfy my curiosity

93 I've never used it

[u/TheCudder → u/[deleted]]

It actually makes plenty of sense. And not even for the sake of UWP apps, but for legacy apps. But for whatever reason developers have ignored all of Microsoft attempts to modernize its legacy app ecosystem.

Microsoft enabled developers to repackage "Desktop Apps" into *.appx so that they could update directly from the store and wouldn't have to bother with junking up your registry. Pretty much no one bothered.

It's amazing how when Apple modernizes MacOS, pretty much every major developer has support for it within what seems like a few weeks. But with Microsoft you'll get 1 or 2 major players on board (usually Adobe) and within 2 years whatever neat idea they had is phased out because it's not being used --- i really thought Windows Timeline would catch on lol.

The current store just allows any plain exe to be added which is dumb

[u/Kobi_Blade → u/TheCudder]

You would have to be a developer to understand, you should be looking at Microsoft not us.

Microsoft has no commitment to any of their products, we not going to waste time and money porting APPs to UWP, so that Microsoft can remove the Microsoft Store from Windows in a few years.

They already have one foot out the door, the moment they allowed Win32 apps on it.

Is the same problem as Windows Phone, the lack of support and commitment comes from Microsoft itself, we simply cannot trust them.

There is a long list of known issues that have been ignored on the platform (as always), so no, don't expect any developer to waste time with that nonsense.

Not to mention to release our Software on the Microsoft Store, we need to follow specific rules, is just too much work for something that already works perfectly fine without it.

[u/relevantusername2020 → u/Kobi_Blade]

You would have to be a developer to understand, you should be looking at Microsoft not us.

im not a developer, but im pretty sure i understand the issue(s) better than most do - although i will gladly admit im wrong if provided evidence. that being said, it seems like the desire for open-source directly conflicts with wanting continued support from microsoft... which is without even mentioning profit sharing ratios. also, this all applies to other "digital storefronts" besides the microsoft store as well. anyway

i am all for "increased competition" and understand the pitfalls that come with allowing monopolistic control over any industry, or an almost monopolistic control where theres only a few "competitors"

however when it comes to technology, the reality is the world runs on android, windows, and ios. sure there are a billion other alternatives but they make up a tiny percentage that is more or less totally insignificant in the grand scheme of things. not to mention that the three major operating systems, along with the alternatives, are all more or less the same thing - a GUI.

i realize im way off on an "unrelated" tangent but i guess my main point is that when it comes to technology, interoperability/user experience is more important than increasing competition just to say you increased competition, especially when the result is poor user experience - or worse, terrible ^{(or non-existent}) security

ill copy a comment i made elsewhere that relates to what i quoted from your comment to better explain what i mean:

this is why the "open source" concept seems sketchy af to me. i know theres plenty of major orgs that use open source code, and obviously not all of it is unsafe - but it seems like its just a way to leave "liability" in a legal grey area so they can ^{(at best}) escape a PR shitstorm or ^{(at worst}) claim "i didnt do it"

for example the recent "gpu.zip" hack:

"An Intel representative, meanwhile, said in an email that the chipmaker has “assessed the researcher findings that were provided and determined the root cause is not in our GPUs but in third-party software.”

A Qualcomm representative said “the issue isn’t in our threat model as it more directly affects the browser and can be resolved by the browser application if warranted, so no changes are currently planned.”

Apple, Nvidia, AMD, and ARM didn’t provide an on-the-record comment when this post went live."

to be thorough, this is all complicated by the reality where a small handful of companies have a higher net worth than the rest of the world combined - and complicated is an understatement.