The Linux model works for a handful of trusted curators who only concern themselves with software worth their time... it can't deal with every single publisher who wants their content in your platform. It doesn't have to deal with issues regarding content for the most part (trademarks, copyright, decency, etc.)
Also npm has shown that open repositories, at certain scale, become fertile ground for malware. pip also had issues with this. I sometimes worry about homebrew, since it wouldn't be that hard to get malware in.
Sure it can, anyone can set up a Linux repository. Some apps have their own repositories just for themselves.
The Linux model is great for curation, because having multiple repositories means that you don't have to grow to npm's size if you don't want to.
Arch is a great example of this. The existence of the AUR repositories gives the official repositories much more freedom to more tightly moderate what goes into them, and it gives me a lot more confidence that packages aren't being blindly added to the official repositories.
It's the opposite of what people are implying, having more storefronts means that storefronts can be stricter about what they apply. It means as a storefront owner you don't have to come up with one moderation policy that binds literally everyone in the world, so you can be a lot more choosy and subjective about what you approve and reject.
Alternatives stores could also provide sandboxing,review and maybe even better support.
This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows Store regarding installation & updates for Win32 apps. The app is installed into its own little corner and a lot of them also come with their own contained registry hive. I don't need a thousand auto update services or an app updating itself only when I open it. And the store requires extensive file signing so as long as I know it's the right developer, the need to manually check installer signatures goes out the window. And regarding minimal exposure, if you simply use it as a download source and redirect customers there, Microsoft takes only 5%.
I didn't like S Mode, Windows RT, the restriction to use just the store, etc. That shouldn't be forced upon the already-open PC platform. But I liked having a trusted channel for applications. (I don't mean that every app on there was trustworthy but you get what I mean, like above)
> I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie.
That's what I think, too. Tim Sweeney likes to harp on about consumer choice, store freedom and such -- but with all the exclusives it's clear they just want to be the new Steam. They want you to have a big Epic Games Store library that you can't give up on, that you would always prefer to add to instead of going to another store. That's why they have these weekly free games, to get everyone to start a foundation of games without having to convince them to buy any for that to happen.