There and back again —

Don’t call them Metro: Microsoft rebrands Universal apps as “Windows apps”

Hopefully the naming of Windows Runtime apps is finally settling down.

Sebastian Anthony - Mar 26, 2015 3:13 pm UTC

Windows apps vs. Windows desktop applications.
Don Box

In the beginning there was the word, and the word was Metro. And then it was Windows 8-style. And then it was Modern. And then it was Windows Store. And then it was Universal. And today, Microsoft has decreed that henceforth these apps—which are all ultimately based on Windows Runtime—will be known as Windows apps.

Historically, of course, "Windows apps" (or "Windows programs") referred to standard, Win32-based executables that ran on the Windows desktop. Under the new naming scheme, these Win32 apps will now be called Windows desktop applications. As you can see in the slide above, despite the new nomenclature, the differences between the two types of app remain the same.

While the continued name changes are tiresome, they do make sense. I suspect Microsoft would've stuck with Metro if it hadn't fallen afoul of a trademark dispute, but none of the following names ever quite made sense. Modern was meaningless. Windows Store wasn't bad, but (at the time) it didn't encapsulate the fact that Microsoft was moving towards apps that worked across Windows, Windows Phone, and Xbox. Universal apps probably sounded OK in the marketing echo chamber, but it is unfortunately rather meaningless on its own—universal, but in what context? (Apple also referred to apps that ran natively on both Power PC and x86 processors in the early days of the transition to Intel processors as "Universal Applications.")

And so we arrive at Windows apps. Using "Universal Windows apps" might have mitigated much of the confusion/conflation with current Win32 apps—but given how Microsoft continues to treat Win32 like a vestigial, legacy limb, the new name isn't entirely surprising. Microsoft is still very eager for developers to create Windows apps (aka, Universal apps) rather than legacy Win32 apps. With Windows 10, the plan is to have phones, tablets, laptops, and desktops running the same Windows apps, so the new name does make sense in that regard.

The other thing to consider is that even if Microsoft wants us to call them Windows apps and Windows desktop apps, that doesn't mean the developer and user ecosystems will automatically make the switch. Here at the Ars Orbiting HQ for instance, it's not unusual to hear us still referring to Windows Runtime-based apps as Metro or Modern apps.

Promoted Comments

jordanjay29Smack-Fu Master, in training
jump to post

The Apps Formerly Known As Metro?

17 posts | registered Sep 10, 2014
anurodhpArs Praetorian
jump to post

The new name for Metro apps:

589 posts | registered Jun 16, 2009
Jordan OrlandoArs Tribunus Militum
jump to post

sprockkets wrote:
show nested quotes
Ah, I see the same sort of nonsense and 'smart people acting less smart here' that I saw over on Paul T's site.

Everyone calls that thing that runs on their phone or tablet an 'app'. Everyone calls that thing on their desktop an application, software, that 'thing', or by it's name ("my Office is not working").

Calling these new applications that also run on a phone and tablet, and are windows applications, as "windows app" makes sense - even if there is no mobile-version, it behaves a lot like the "apps" people use on their ipads and android tablets.

Calling that thing on the desktop that is mostly no different than it has been for over 20 years (roughly speaking) the same thing it has always been called ("application") also makes sense. .

The world at large has no idea what "universal app" or "modern app" means (ars readers =/= normal windows and ipad/iphone/android users) - but they know the "app" and "application" (etc) conventions quite well.

I'd argue we used the more common "program" instead.

Maybe apple popularized "app" for the app store for ios devices, but let's not be like apple and pretend app isn't a shorter form of application, please?

In my (somewhat horrified) experience, most people don't even know what a program is on a basic, conceptual level.

A lot of us have seen that video where they go ask people in the street what a "browser" is and nobody can answer except to say that it's "where you Google" or "where you search."

I routinely ask family members (when they call me for help) which program they're using or which application they're using, or which browser they use. They don't have any idea.

Looking at an email attachment within the body of the email vs. in Acrobat (or whatever) is a distinction that's lost on them, as is the difference between seeing a video in a browser window, in the YouTube app (on a phone), in the "Videos" app (on a phone) or in a standalone video player on the computer.

The only exception is that people do seem to understand that there is such a thing as an Office document (a PowerPoint "deck" etc.) but the distinctions between the document as a file in a file browser vs. the document open in an Office application vs. the onscreen window containing the document are a total mystery.

The phone seems to be the only environment where the concept of an application or program (an "app") means anything because (1) you have to go get them and (2) there's no windowing system so you're forced to pay attention to what environment you're in, since you're only in one at a time. (And, at least iPhone keeps documents corralled by application.)

Distinctions between "browsers," websites, pages on those websites, and material (documents, movies etc.) available on those pages are also a mystery to most people. These are the people who type web addresses into the Google search box every time. The concept of a URL is similarly mysterious to these people.

But in general I'd say that, on a conceptual level, the entire "these are windows on your screen representing what's going on in a bunch of different programs" presentational scheme (from decades ago) turned out to be a big dud, in terms of conveying a concept to the average computer user.

1592 posts | registered Apr 26, 2007

Promoted Comments

jordanjay29Smack-Fu Master, in training
jump to post

The Apps Formerly Known As Metro?

17 posts | registered Sep 10, 2014
anurodhpArs Praetorian
jump to post

The new name for Metro apps:

589 posts | registered Jun 16, 2009
Jordan OrlandoArs Tribunus Militum
jump to post

sprockkets wrote:
show nested quotes
Ah, I see the same sort of nonsense and 'smart people acting less smart here' that I saw over on Paul T's site.

Everyone calls that thing that runs on their phone or tablet an 'app'. Everyone calls that thing on their desktop an application, software, that 'thing', or by it's name ("my Office is not working").

Calling these new applications that also run on a phone and tablet, and are windows applications, as "windows app" makes sense - even if there is no mobile-version, it behaves a lot like the "apps" people use on their ipads and android tablets.

Calling that thing on the desktop that is mostly no different than it has been for over 20 years (roughly speaking) the same thing it has always been called ("application") also makes sense. .

The world at large has no idea what "universal app" or "modern app" means (ars readers =/= normal windows and ipad/iphone/android users) - but they know the "app" and "application" (etc) conventions quite well.

I'd argue we used the more common "program" instead.

Maybe apple popularized "app" for the app store for ios devices, but let's not be like apple and pretend app isn't a shorter form of application, please?

In my (somewhat horrified) experience, most people don't even know what a program is on a basic, conceptual level.

A lot of us have seen that video where they go ask people in the street what a "browser" is and nobody can answer except to say that it's "where you Google" or "where you search."

I routinely ask family members (when they call me for help) which program they're using or which application they're using, or which browser they use. They don't have any idea.

Looking at an email attachment within the body of the email vs. in Acrobat (or whatever) is a distinction that's lost on them, as is the difference between seeing a video in a browser window, in the YouTube app (on a phone), in the "Videos" app (on a phone) or in a standalone video player on the computer.

The only exception is that people do seem to understand that there is such a thing as an Office document (a PowerPoint "deck" etc.) but the distinctions between the document as a file in a file browser vs. the document open in an Office application vs. the onscreen window containing the document are a total mystery.

The phone seems to be the only environment where the concept of an application or program (an "app") means anything because (1) you have to go get them and (2) there's no windowing system so you're forced to pay attention to what environment you're in, since you're only in one at a time. (And, at least iPhone keeps documents corralled by application.)

Distinctions between "browsers," websites, pages on those websites, and material (documents, movies etc.) available on those pages are also a mystery to most people. These are the people who type web addresses into the Google search box every time. The concept of a URL is similarly mysterious to these people.

But in general I'd say that, on a conceptual level, the entire "these are windows on your screen representing what's going on in a bunch of different programs" presentational scheme (from decades ago) turned out to be a big dud, in terms of conveying a concept to the average computer user.

1592 posts | registered Apr 26, 2007

Sebastian Anthony Sebastian is the editor of Ars Technica UK. He usually writes about low-level hardware, software, and transport, but it is emerging science and the future of technology that really get him excited.

Channel Ars Technica

← Previous story Next story →

Promoted Comments

Promoted Comments

reader comments

Channel Ars Technica