[vaultboy21]

i for one feel that microsoft is completely justified in actually being stricter with these desktop listings in the windows store..

these apps don't go through the same certification processes as do the modern apps that sit alongside them in the store, but they get all the discoverability from being in there.. to a consumer, all apps via an app store are assumed to be stable and safe (even if they link to an external site to complete payment). just the fact that they're listed there in the windows store provides a de-facto stamp of approval that these apps are vetted by microsoft.

if they aren't sufficiently strict and maleware (or process-hogging apps) get through it would undermine both trust in microsoft and in the reliability of the app store which would probably hurt all devs.

[JoeAltmaier]

"Reliability of the app store"????

This goes back to the beginning of the internet, where folks were reluctant to link to other sites because they might have 'bad stuff'. Does anybody alive think Microsoft is responsible for stuff they link to? When you have to buy the stuff on some obviously-3rd-party website?

Paying to link to a 3rd rate store is not worth any of the money or hassle Microsoft put the guy through. Its exactly as if a bloated corporation overdesigned the process - full of arrogant assumptions and pointless theatre.

[vaultboy21]

that may make sense to you, but for the average consumer i doubt they'll differentiate. microsoft has built and will be promoting the windows app store as the place to find and download apps (and on some devices, windows rt tablets, it will be the only place)

ios popularized the app store and their model, which has defined it as a safe reliable place to find apps that won't fuck-up your system, has become the standard (many may suck, but they're generally not harmful). microsoft is doing the same with the windows store and in the case of metro/modern apps, that holds true. but for desktop apps (which many people do, and will still, want) that’s not true. they have deeper-access to the system and are not sandboxed. so it makes sense to try to differentiate malware and crap from valuable desktop-style applications, which is exactly what they’re trying to do..

and microsoft does not charge for these desktop application ‘store listings’, and they are not required. they do however look like a good option for desktop application developers to showcase their offerings within (the increasingly common model of) a managed store, improving discoverability. if they let anyone publish apps without trying hard to verify the identity of the developer and reliability of the application (as they're not 'certifying' these like the metro apps) then it would entirely undermine the whole point of the store..