> Windows isn't going to be a closed platform - if anything Metro makes Windows more accessible to a larger number of developers.
If I have to go through Microsoft to get a Metro app onto Windows, then at the very least...the platform is partially closed.
Besides that, I think that many, many people already consider Windows a closed platform (I certainly do), so I guess it depends on your definition of "closed".
I don't really understand why folks are hung up on this; this is par for the course when you're using a centralized app store.
Having said that, let me do my best to try to address some concerns you might have.
1. The Windows Store is really transparent about why your app failed certification - first time our app failed it was because we forgot to attach some art assets (icons) to our app. This is the way it was with the Windows Phone marketplace too - when some of the startups I worked with had apps fail for more content-related reasons, it was always followed with an explanation as to what (1) region-specific content restriction was the source of the issue [don't submit apps with maps of disputed territories to China or fashion apps to countries with Sharia law] and (2) were reponsive when asked follow-up questions. This isn't the Apple store - Microsoft has a much higher investment in its relationships with developers.
2. The Windows Store terms of service are reasonable / understandable by human beings, and they give you the automated tool they use for checking for bugs / permissions issues (i.e. if you make calls to the location service, you have to make that explicit in your app manifest so the end-user is aware of it) so you can run it yourself before submitting.
3. Turnaround time is pretty fast now - our app got approved after we re-submitted within about 8 hours. It'll slow down more once the volume of submissions goes up.
Overall, I think it's a lot easier and cheaper to both develop and distribute a Metro app that looks good, works well, and is easily accessible to a large market. You don't have to invent your own distribution channel, and the development experience is much easier and gives you better-looking results right out of the box.
I'm not sure what you're responding to. What is par for the course when using a centralized app store?
I simply stated that if you must go through a third party to get your apps to the consumer, then that platform (or at least that part of it) is "closed". You responded with the value proposition, but I'll be glad to address that below.
I understand the value of Microsoft's offering and I'm simply not interested on principle...and I'm speaking as a hard-core Windows user. I love Windows, I think it's far better than the alternatives, but the reason I like it is because I get the right mix of quality and flexibility (read: freedom).
I'll be damned if Microsoft is going to force me into using only their store to buy and sell Metro apps. The only way I'll ever use Metro or develop for it is if Microsoft opens up the channel for alternative stores and side-loading. Barring that, I may use it begrudgingly if someone jail-breaks it and develops a store like Cydia.
Honestly, I'm sure the Windows Store is going to be great and all, but that's not my concern. I will not participate in a captive market.
If I have to go through Microsoft to get a Metro app onto Windows, then at the very least...the platform is partially closed.
Besides that, I think that many, many people already consider Windows a closed platform (I certainly do), so I guess it depends on your definition of "closed".