[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..