Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Store

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Windows Store)

Spotify Acquisition?

[edit]

Greetings fellow Wikipedians

The article currently says that Spotify acquired the music streaming service form Microsoft. While Groove is being discontinued, I do not believe that Spotify acquired any actual assets from Microsoft rather there was an agreement between Microsoft and Spotify for Spotify to be Microsoft's music streaming service. The article also states that this change in service providers is a "spin off" which also doesn't properly reflect the events that have taken place. GerlachBP (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but not for the reasons you asked. Most importantly, Groove is not being discontinued. According to Groove Music and Spotify: FAQ, only the Music Pass streaming service is discontinued. People without a Music Pass subscription will notice nary a change.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification and making changes. GerlachBP (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reality

[edit]

The Windows store now has a separate hub for mixed reality applications.[1] The windows store is also now accessible in mixed reality via the cliff house. I believe this update should be reflected under Windows 10 due to its significance with Windows store's future utilization. GerlachBP (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this contribution removed? No explanation was given. GerlachBP (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Devine, Richard (17 October 2017). "First batch of Windows Mixed Reality apps and games hits the Store". Windows Central. Retrieved 24 October 2017.

Hasty name update?

[edit]

Hello, everyone

To most of the Wikipedia veterns, the situation we have here is very familiar: A potential name change is announced or rumored, and someone hastily tries to reflect the rumor, ignoring even our fundamental policies! Our lucky contender today is Smithr32, who contends that "Windows Store" has become "Microsoft Store". (Hello, Smithr32! I hope you are reading this!)

There are three problems with Smithr32's attempt to update the article. (No hard feelings, Smithr32. We are assuming that you did it in good faith. )

  1. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL: In Smithr32's version, the article is written in a way that the name change is completed and now everyone can see it! Yet, I find no evidence of it. My "Store" app has not changed, despite having made sure that it is the latest version; the Windows Store entry does not show the new name and logo, even when I spoofed the user agent. How do you even know if it is a rename? Maybe it is a new app? (Of course, in all the probability, both would occupy this very same article.)
  2. Not adhering to WP:COMMONNAME: Smithr32's work in this regard was very incongruous. In his revision, "Windows Store" is still designated as the common name (with "Microsoft Store" being the official name). And yet, he has change every instance of "Windows Store" in the article to "Microsoft Store".
  3. Unresolved conflict with the Microsoft Store article: Self-explanatory, right?

Patience is one of the greatest virtues of a encyclopedia writer. Please wait until we have confirmed details of what we have at hands.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You too? Serious guys...
"Windows" has never actually been part of the app's name.
It's tile says "Store" only.
It's title bar says "STore" only.
It's About section in the Setting dialog box also says "Store".
Hell, the page to which you link also reads "Store".
There is no official "Windows" prefix. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the change is only available for Windows Insiders at the moment. However, I can confirm as an Insider that the app has been renamed Microsoft Store, from Store, it also has a new icon. Other than that, the app works exactly the same. I can upload screenshots if anyone wants; however, I think it is better to wait until general release. Daylen (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not on an insider build, but the icon/branding actually did change to Microsoft Store for me today. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Then lets be patient. Soon, the change will roll out to everyone and we can update the article while still retaining a universally correct point of view.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the page title, I would like to suggest to move this one to Microsoft Store (app) or similar to distinguish with the physical Microsoft Store. Any other suggestions? Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 00:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinjiman: Our standard suffix is "(software)", not "(app)". Plus, I think we should move the current Microsoft Store to Microsoft Store (retail) and move this one to Microsoft Store. Of course, that needs the aid of an admin or page mover.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The software suffix sounds more sense for that. By the way here's the URL of the Microsoft Store app itself. [1] Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 15:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, this is not a rumor.The rollout has been updating for users the past 24 hours. I work at Microsoft Store and have been trying to update the Wikipedia page to reflect this change. The Windows Store bag icon has changed and in the top left of the Windows Store, it is now Microsoft Store. I was trying to send a screenshot of mine, but it won't let me upload. Msredmond (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Msredmond, just have more edits until you got the Autoconfirmed status then you can upload the files to here. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 00:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn! Just read all the comments, the name and logo changed during a Windows Insider Preview for the Windows 10 Fall Creators Update (Redstone 3) and during an alpha version of the Xbox OS ( both I am part of). Unfortunately no one reports on the small things so there wasn't sufficient evidence to support the Wiki change. Now the update has been released and Windows store has been renamed I think we can all agree on the next topic which is (see below...) Smithr32 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Microsoft Store (digital), no move at present for the retail article. There was no real consensus on what the disambiguator should be, only that we need one because it isn't the primary topic (at the moment). I've gone with "digital" because it had some good arguments for it and a reasonable number of people were happy with it. No prejudice against a new RM solely discussing what the disambiguation should be. On the primary topic question, there was no consensus to rename the retail article at the moment to include disambiguation. However, it seems to me there is a fair chance that will change in the future and I think it's something we should revisit, but not for at least three months so we can get a handle on things like how the article traffic is playing out. Gut feel is that we will probably end up with a dab page at Microsoft Store but time will tell. Jenks24 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– The app's entry has changed to "Microsoft Store", eventually confirming that it is not a rumor or announcement that Microsoft can reverse. Both Wikipedia:Verifiabilty and WP:CRYSTAL requirements are finally fulfilled. So, I believe it is finally time to make the move. My fellow Wikipedians know how to respond here with supporting or opposing verdicts+reason. Msredmond, you might want to study Wikipedia:Requested moves § Commenting in a requested move first. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Move to something that says "Microsoft Store". Nom.'s source is valid. I am withdrawing my previous objections. And I am downloading "Microsoft Store" too. It is available for Windows 1703 as well. I do not support moving to "Microsoft Store (app)" per MOS:STABILITY, because our de facto suffix is "(software)" not "(app)". —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Microsoft Store" is still the retail/tangible goods store. Until the most frequent reference is to the software store it is not appropriate to move Microsoft Store to Microsoft Store (retail). If anything this article should be moved to Microsoft Store (software). Windows does currently refer to the program as "Microsoft Store" but I don't think that it is enough to make it the primary topic at this point. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DIYeditor: Hello. You are perhaps aware that the claim of "primary topic" status needs an evidence. Can I see your evidence? —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google web search. Seems clear to me that a very recent change to the name of the software isn't going to override that. How many people have even noticed the change at this point? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't the Google search snippet reflect Wikipedia? Anyway, I only supported the fact that "Windows Store" is no longer the suitable article name. FC's proposal was a course of action but whether it is the best course of action wasn't my immediate concern. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the google results (or any other search results you try to get) reflect what people are looking for when they search for "Microsoft Store" which is what PRIMARYTOPIC directs us to reflect. The proposal includes two actions and you just said "Support" which would include those two actions. I think that is the immediate concern. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • While everyone's opinion is respectable for himself, we actually have policy. WP:NAMECHANGES says "Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." So, I am afraid your old Google search results do not have sufficient weight. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • That doesn't at all address this situation where there is a conflict in names. Clearly the above (from WP:OFFICIALNAMES) only applies to whether to continue referring to this as "Windows Store" or to move on to "Microsoft Store". I agree that the official name of the topic of this article is now "Microsoft Store" but that doesn't make it the PRIMARYTOPIC for that name. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Microsoft Store → Microsoft Store (retail) and Windows Store → Microsoft Store (digital distribution), or merge the two articles into a WP:broad concept article that covers both online and brick-and-mortar stores. The idea that either could be considered the primary topic over the other without any context is ludicrous. Apple Store is about a retail chain, and many people will think that "Microsoft Store" is the same. See Apple Store (disambiguation). Now, maybe this could fly if they called it the Microsoft App Store; that would be unambiguous. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. Microsoft is creating a singular platform called the Microsoft store that can be accessed via the Windows 10 & Xbox Store app, the web] but also the retail stores. The Microsoft store allows users to purchase both applications and hardware. See [2] Smithr32 (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer I don't think a "Support" !vote that doesn't explain or express a reason for replacing the retail store article with this one can be given equal weight since this proposal is not just to rename this article but to move the other. An opinion that something needs to be done is note equivalent to support for this specific proposal. Just my opinion of course. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, newcomer! We know out jobs. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much anyone can close a move request so it seems worth pointing out what I see as a pitfall here. Your request didn't include justifications for both actions and I have similar concerns about support votes. "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." —DIYeditor (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi. Look, I don't mind you condescending behavior at all, but if your aggressiveness result in a "no consensus" verdict, I will have no choice but to revert all mentions of "Microsoft Store" in the article to "Windows Store". (I have edited my recommendation to help prevent this course of action.) Unlike me, some admins or movers do get offended by an editor with no more than 1802 edits telling them what to do and what not to do. (And I don't blame them.) So, please bear the WP:BOOMERANG in mind. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps refer to WP:BITE. I also see you have completely substantially changed your comment after it had been responded to, contrary to WP:REDACT. "Any deleted text should be marked with <s>...</s> or <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted." I didn't tell any possible closer (who could be any editor at all not just an admin) what to do, I pointed out a serious problem with the way this proposal is being presented and responded to. Your updated !vote addresses this concern so we are getting somewhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Microsoft Store (digital), but oppose move of Microsoft Store. The physical store is likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the moment for that title. (Perhaps in a year or so, if the digital store stays at the new name, it MIGHT be appropriate to move it to Microsoft Store (retail) and move the digital one to Microsoft Store, but it's too soon to say.) SnowFire (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this title too, as more concise and sufficient to disambiguate. I agree that this move should take priority over moving the physical store, so have no objection to holding off on moving the brick-and-mortar off primary topic; on the other hand I also can support moving it now and making this a disambiguation. What I'm opposed to is immediately making the digital platform the primary topic; the idea that WP:primary topics can switch places with each other overnight is kind of counter to the concept of what a primary topic is. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original request. I feel something like Microsoft Store (app) is the better destination. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:MERGE the two articles. They are both small enough and the retail article already has a "digital distribution" section. History can include both, and how you can now purchase devices through the Store. WikIan -(talk) 05:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above rationales, which covered everything I would have said (most expecially that the retail article already has section for digital distro – what's happened here is a way-premature WP:SUMMARY split).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge and probably oppose move too - these are completely different things. The Windows Store is an app store, a virtual platform for downloading apps and other software. The Microsoft Store is a bricks and mortar concept, with flagship stores in prime locations such as central London. This would be like merging iTunes Store and Apple Store, which are similarly very different things. As for the move request, I think we're best leaving that where it is too. The actual "official name", if there is one, is probably just "Store", so disambiguating it with Windows (another common name for it) seems to be fine, and keeps both titles natural.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is almost like arguing that the official name of Microsoft Office is just "Office" so it would be as fitting to title its article "Windows Office". The app store is not entirely distinct from the Microsoft Store if we are to judge from Microsoft Store Online, which sells both the apps and hardware. Clearly the official name of Microsoft Store Online is not "Store Online" - it's Microsoft Store, Online. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: You may want to do a bit of research first. One, it was never "Store", it was always Windows Store. Secondly, it was just rebranded to Microsoft Store and now sells hardware like the online store does. Third, the retail store doesn't have apps, but you can request service from the online Microsoft Store and bring your device to the retail Microsoft Store to get it serviced. WikIan -(talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Microsoft Store (online). It would be more appropriate to disambiguate with "(online)" rather than "(software)" given it's really an online store platform accessible via the web and not just through the app that comes with Windows. Keep Microsoft Store as is for now as it's too early to say whether it is no longer the primary topic. It may be that the two pages should be merged or the primary topic swapped over in the future once the nature of the relationship between the platforms becomes more apparent. Kb.au (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

To simplify this and avoid continued revision of and replies to !votes, and the possibility of a finding of "no consensus", I think these issues might be best fleshed out through a discussion. So far we have 3 different possibilities for this article other than Microsoft Store: Microsoft Store (app), Microsoft Store (software) and Microsoft Store (digital), a suggestion that the two articles be merged, the original proposal of moving the retail store article, and one of moving both articles. These are a lot of different options to sort through and it would be easier for me personally if they could be narrowed down. I would like to update my !vote to support a specific solution rather than just oppose the original proposed move because clearly something needs to be done here. Right now I am leaning toward supporting a move of this article to Microsoft Store (digital) because (app) doesn't sound encyclopedic and (software) leaves possible ambiguity as to whether it is a software-based store or store that sells software. Also there is a website version of the store so it's not just a Windows program. Opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You wrote "[...] and (software) leaves possible confusion as to whether it is a software-based store or store that sells software."
  1. Since both are correct assumptions, why do you bother? The reader can assume whichever, or both.
  2. The prevalence of "(software)" tag in Wikipedia means anyone who has been here knows that "[Name] (software)" means the subject of the article is a computer program called [Name]. Hence "Microsoft Store (software)" communicates that it is an app called "Microsoft Store" — at least to some audience.
  3. People who are intent on getting confused, get confused anyway, no matter what you. They get confused from "(digital)" because they don't know whether it is a digital store, or whether the store sells digital goods. Nothing is ignorant-proof or fool-proof.
Let people read the article; if you try to outdo yourself with parenthetical suffixes, you end up like Microsoft: It is a company known for constant and insessant product name changing and having no stable naming schemes. Every time they chose one weird deviant name for their Windows versions, they rationalized their actions with such nonsense as "market appeal" and "contextual meaning". Likewise, if you end up overdoing yourself, you will end up with an encyclopedia with confusing parenthetical suffixes and no pattern in them.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. The problem I saw with the ambiguity is that the retail/tangible goods store also sells software so it potentially creates an inaccurate distinction. But by the same token the software sold by the "other" Microsoft Store (particularly the "Online" aspect) is also digital distribution, aside from the portion of Xbox games that are on disc. So really both "digital" and "software" create false distinctions from the other Microsoft Store, depending on how interpreted, and perhaps in this case it would be best as you say to use "software", meaning that is a piece of software, for consistency in Wikipedia titles. I agree that this is typical of Microsoft's poor marketing choices but maybe they intend for them both (or all three) to be aspects of the same store, possibly calling for a single combined article. To me this raises the possibility that for clarity the three aspects should be Microsoft Store (software), Microsoft Store (online), and Microsoft Store (retail) with Microsoft Store being only a disambiguation page. While I don't think this is entirely in keeping with PRIMARYTOPIC (which I do think is the retail store), it is a clean solution logically and prevents the reader from arriving at the wrong place. However in that scenario where does the web page for the app store fit - is it part of (online) or (software)? This is why I think some discussion is in order, I could really go along with several solutions at this point. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We simply don't have sufficient material for three articles. Microsoft Store (software) is fine with me. Also Codename Lisa, the word for the state you described is "incongruity". If we overthink the suffix, we end up having an incongruous Wikipedia. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Store (software) doesn't account for the fact that the apps are also distributed via a web site[3] which doesn't meet the normal use of "software". It's a "digital distribution platform" per the current article but the article as written does not describe the other[4] Microsoft Store digital distribution platform (for Windows, Office, Xbox games, etc.) so clearly (digital) wouldn't work either. This article as written could be something like Microsoft Store (apps) since it contains material relevant to apps on both the software-based store and web site, but not to "Microsoft Store" otherwise. Or it could be titled Microsoft Store (digital distribution) and expanded to include the Xbox games. Seems like this conflict needs to be resolved before there can be a clear choice of titles. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely overthinking it. Don't! Go with "(software)". —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I glanced past FleetCommand's advice not to overthink it since it appeared to be addressed to you. That makes sense, I'm a fan of consistency in titles. Perhaps the title being 100% logically correct is not that important. Unfortunately with the !votes going so many different directions it looks like reaching consensus may be messy. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, this is embarassing. I noticed a Bot removing the move discussion notice. By mistake, I assumed that a page mover or admin had moved the page. Sure enough, the page had been moved to Microsoft Store (application). Well, I was wrong. An ordinary user had moved it and that user reverted his/her own action. I believe everyone knows the rest of the story. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, I didn't see the "don't move page" notice when I moved it. I have made it back to the way it was so it should be all good now. User 261115 (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Store (digital). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss improvements in lede

[edit]

I’ve removed the tag on improving the lede, since there is no dicussion of the issues or suggestions for improvement. Lets discuss improvements if you wish to put back the tag. Work permit (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was retagged. I improved the lede and removed the tag. Please discuss any additional improvements if you feel the tag should remain. Work permit (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current Fee Information Not Accurate

[edit]

The current default fee for use of the Microsoft store for windows 10 will now be 15%, not 30% as implied in the article (that is the old fee). The article is correct that the fee will only be 5% if the application purchase is made via an outside link.

https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2018/05/07/a-new-microsoft-store-revenue-share-is-coming/#C4G3QMkROuh04Mbl.97

John Linstrum (john@linstrum.net) 2601:204:D980:7B31:3890:50DD:4F3B:9E88 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, per consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– The retail store has discontinued in 2020 since the last discussion in 2017. I think this is now the primary topic. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Store&oldid=1255370940"