Because the Average Joe will use the Windows Store more than any other way to get apps; he's already used to doing that on his mobile phone and his tablet, so it'll come naturally. It's easier to search for an app there than it is on the whole internet and he already knows how to do it and what to expect.

The kill switch is in the way apps are handled through the Windows store; that's why you can't download a WinRT application on a Windows 7 computer and install it in Windows 8, everything is handled through the store and store APIs.

So you can't say that the kill switch is in the app, nor can you say that the kill switch is in the store, because it's a cooperation between both the app and the store.

As for the "Why is this a Windows 8 thing and not an App Store thing?", I don't really understand the question. It is a Windows 8 thing because the Windows Store will be the preferred way to install applications moving forward, but it is something that only affects application bought/installed through the Windows Store. Blame the shit websites with sensationalistic reporting for not mentioning that small part, that regular Win32 or .Net or whatever else API application you want won't be killable remotely.

Because M$ is evil and doesn't think of the children! Will you think of the children!One1!

Now you're taking it into an entirely different debate. One where the nature of freedom itself comes into question. After all freedom in its purest form cannot exist. There are always going to be boundaries. It's just a question of whether or not you're going to be hitting up against those boundaries.

For the most part we have very good reason to be thankful that most of those boundaries exist. For if they did not then we wouldn't be free. We'd be constrained by far less just boundaries implemented by far less scrupulous people.

Such people being one of my concerns here. Given the number of security updates Microsoft has provided to stop unauthorised third parties from gaining access to the system, I believe I am right to be concerned about measures that facilitate the remote deletion of my purchases.

You're quite right in a way. People won't be hitting up against these boundaries so they won't miss the lost freedom surrendered. However, with the advent and acceptance of such measures how far away are we from all software incorporating similar measures? How far until even these relatively carefree and oblivious people are forced to sit up and take notice as EULAs are enforced in a zero tolerance manner?

We all know that EULAs are comprised almost entirely of the kind of bullshit that would only stand up in the most corrupt courts in the world. But with the introduction of kill switches they'd be able to enforce them without using the courts.

That's why I'm interested in what exactly it is about Windows 8 that accommodates such measures. Just because it started with the app store doesn't mean it will end there.
So these apps are tied to the store? Like Steam games to Steam?

That's a slippery slope; what if your energy provider decides not to sell energy to you? What if your ISP decides to stop providing Internet access to you? What if, what if, what if?

It's in Microsoft's best interest to keep its consumers happy, because that's what makes it money. And as long as there are alternatives out there to Windows you can bet your ass that you won't see any applications removed without good reason.

Yes, they are tied to your Windows account and by default you can have one app installed on up to 5 PCs at the same time.

Now, see, this is a great concern. And yes, I think it's something that people like us (who understand it) should be advocating. As long as we have hardware (and unless our lawmakers jump into action to prevent it, hasn't Raspberry Pi proven we'll always have hardware?) I think we'll be able to run what we want on it.

As for people investing in/consuming things that can be taken away, I really think this is something that needs to be address legally. This particular tech is neither, on balance, good or evil. I think our lawmakers and the people who set rules need to be informed and work towards balancing consumer interests vs. a limited set of business interests.

What you're speaking about really extends to far more than Windows 8. I donate to the EFF because they lobby for those things, in lieu of being actively involved in all but the most serious cases (such as SOPA) I feel this is my best choice. You can even get a pretty cool t-shirt for your membership if you like:)

I really do hear you, I'm an idealist too (though I lost most hope years ago, what remains is more of an existing animus really) and I think these issues need to be addressed. On balance, though, Windows 8 is a really sane move for technology in general, and since we have other really viable alternatives for the niches in our lives that it doesn't fill, I'm really excited to get one step closer to the holy grail of fool-proof technology (yes, I do think this is possible) that serves man rather than burdens him.

Alright, off my soapbox, I need more coffee:)

Precisely why I'm concerned, not so much with the intentions of corporations but with people's acceptance of the measures they implement. If corporations were allowed to do as they please we'd all be being lead in chains to the sweatshops instead of having this debate.

We've all seen how, for example, DRM has been increasingly accepted of late. Ubisoft being a prime example "Oh, you only need to activate once every time you run the game now. It's practically DRM-free!"

If people accept the inclusion of kill switches without question then yes, it's a very slippery slope and not one where corporations will have to be too concerned about what their complacent consumers have to say.

When it comes to software there is still very little in the way of legal understanding. So when you have pressure groups like the RIAA and MPAA, for instance that can run rings around the comparatively ill-informed law makers you've got a situation that can lead to corporations effectively being able to cut out the judicial middle men and take matters into their own hands.

On both sides of the pond there is a clear need for updated legislation that clarifies beyond doubt where consumer rights begin and end and what rights corporations retain post transaction. Right now the situation is bordering the anarchic where those who win are those with the muscle to take what they want.

That's true, and not just with software. However, I don't think the answer to said problem is to fight technology for technology's sake, lots of folks have a fairly clear idea of the problem, we need to take this to our legislative bodies, really, it's not even what I want to do, but it's literally the only thing that can solve this.

This is a recipe for disaster. Regulatory capture has already been stripping consumers of their rights for decades, and this is mostly on things that consumers have physical control over (so companies at least have to take legal action themselves, which most times just isn't worth the effort and cost). And at the same time, in areas where companies have the power to take things from consumers (or force things on them), we've been seeing them use that power left and right, even in cases where it seems clearly illegal. And it tends to take years and years of a class action lawsuit, or a state attorney general taking an interest, to get anything done about it. The last thing we want to do is hand even more technical control over to such companies.

The most effective way, and often the only effective way, to prevent companies from abusing power they have over consumers is to ensure that they simply don't have that power to begin with. Open computing platforms, that can be used without ceding any control to companies that either made the platform or made software for it, has been a tremendously powerful tool for protecting consumer rights (at least de facto rights, even in the face of de jure rights being slowly stripped away). Taking this power away from consumers and handing it over to companies would be an incredibly foolish thing to do.

Or another way to look at it, if you think such issues can be solved by legislation, then let's first get some of that legislation in place to protect consumer rights on existing services before going any further down that road. Let's see Valve get regularly slapped with massive fines if they remove access to games over a billing dispute. Let's see EA forced to either allow for third-party solutions or give partial refunds to everyone when the decide to kill the multiplayer servers in their games. Let's see companies forced to provide a way to permanently unlock content if their DRM servers go dark. Let's see a legal solution put in place to address all these existing problems before we go looking to create even more such problems, and an even greater financial incentive for absolutely no legislation to be passed to address them.

The key word being ESSENTIAL ofc, this was Franklin railing at people giving up rights (representation in government, etc etc) in exchange for stopping a war it wasn't about getting rid of the police (which app killing is the equivalent off).

Look, I didn't set up reality as it currently is, I'm just trying to work with it here. The stuff you are in fear of already happens because people are already purchasing huge quantities of purely digital items as well as physical items that their creators are able to exert some sort of control over (e.g. a Kindle). I'm reacting instead of being proactive because that's the actual reality I'm faced with, not because I think it's ideal. And frankly, none of this stuff has to be a bad thing.

I'd rather not cling to an ever shrinking island of stuff I can manage to hack together and keep control over while denying myself the benefits of progress and innovation. Let's simply fix the parts that are broken instead of pretending we can somehow avoid the inevitable.

I guess that's the difference between us on this- I don't see this as inevitable. People ultimately want convenience, but that convenience can take many different forms. And locked down platforms that people have no control over can easily be inconvenient once people start bumping up against the limitations imposed on them. However, as long as there are open platforms that people have control over themselves there is the option to offer people similar convenience without the limitations. And this is what we need to be focusing on. We need there to be a variety of convenient options available so that when someone starts getting annoyed by limitations or problems with the locked-down platforms we can easily respond with "Oh, here's another option you may want to take a look at that doesn't have those issues."

Right now the balance of power actually lies with consumers, because consumers have control over the technology. If we find the deal a company is offering us too onerous then there are plenty of other options available (even if some of them aren't legal). This is tremendous power, and as companies try to lock things down it only further demonstrates the extent and value of this power.

There will be a constant give and take here as well, between the convenience of walled gardens, and the convenience of alternatives on open platforms when those walled gardens aren't providing what people want. And because of this you're not going to see the open platform whither simply on account of people pursing convenience. An attempt to kill the open platform by re-writing it to be less open also won't be enough to do it in, since if people don't like the direction it's going and reject it then that's that. The only real danger is enough people who don't like what they're seeing simply resigning and thinking that it's inevitable so they might as well just go along with it.

Oh...

Because of WinRT's sandboxing, a Metro application cannot damage the system, but it can use the permissions given by the user to steal his 'stuff', depending on what permissions the user gave to the application.

The kill switch is there to insure that an application that has malware, yet passes through the certification process unnoticed, can be killed off / removed safely.

Nothing more. This is not a damn conspiracy theory, some evil tactic by Microsoft to control you, or whatever else the cool kids these days want to think. This is not an invasion of privacy or whatever, it only is an additional security measure to keep us all safer, and to spare the housewives from raging when suddenly they find their personal pictures on a porn website when all they did was install an application called myHomeCooking or whatever.

New nVidia drivers released through Windows Update. v296.17

EDIT: The graphical glitches are still present.

This Patch Tuesday brings 4 stability updates / bug fixes for Windows 8.