Wow that's... What?
For all its warts, the Windows Store is a secure app delivery platform. Doesn't disabling it merely encourage downloading zipped executables from sleazy unencrypted websites?
Similarly, though admittedly not a problem in the same way with Windows store apps, to Chrome extensions. Those working in secretive environments with naive users shouldn't have something like "Youtube auto-hd" installed, which will feedback every single website they visit to some shady third party analytics company. IMO this is why having even the concept of these apps inside a "secure" (re. enterprise) version of Windows is a massive oversight. I will admit that this is not a problem in the LTSB branch of Windows 10 Enterprise; I had the disabled apps magically re-enable themselves 3 times after "updates" on non-LTSB before switching back over.
Sorry to rant, but in summation, don't be shocked when corporate users want their laptops to be as restricted and purely for work as possible.
One issue is that some classes of users and locations (e.g. Trading floors) are restricted by law concerning the communications systems they can use for work because all communications regarding financial transactions has to be auditable.
On the other hand most of the banks have their own internal software libraries you can install stuff from and you get a bunch of useful utilities by default such as Irfanview, notepad++, Greenshot or similar. Machines for devs are often less locked down.
But a long way from MS Paint.
Hence the popularity of portable apps which don't use installers. The just unzip to any folder and run.
Once a portable app shows up in the reports you are simply fired by blatant disregard for the rules and procedures you agreed to when signing your contract.
Finance is a heavily regulated environment and you can't get away with things that would be excusable in other places.
That seems to be a rather extreme clause; I doubt that a bank would care if a developer installed something that was not whitelisted. It would be a different story if the developer linked against code whose source was not easily attributable.
In brief, if any of the said applications require Registry entry, it denies that through the permission model that these systems have installed.
If it requires altering some files under some directory, it denies that as well.
Some corporations even restrict such shady websites altogether using an exhaustive list of restricted domains and subdomains, often maintained by a third party, who do this list maintenance full-time for corporates like IBM, TCS, just to name a few.
On top of it, almost all network and device activities are tracked, flash drive ports disabled, etc. to ensure "security".
(Only a handful of underpaid device managers have access to Admin account. Forget the fact that this still doesn't prevent them from doing so at their discretion, or credentials sharing)
Perhaps we should all go back to mainframes and green-screen dumb terminals?
That's why "the shock".
I understand the security issues - they are absolutely valid in today's world.
But the whole reason the PC came about, was because it moved the computing resources from some sacrosanct computing "temple" (complete with acolytes who kept the system running, secure, and managed) to the general office, and allowed the users to customize and control their software and data to allow for a more "agile" flow.
Computer-based spreadsheets, for instance, weren't anything new when VisiCalc appeared on the scene in 1979 (and later on the PC in 1981) - what was new was having such a powerful piece of software available on a machine that was cheap and independent of the "computer room". Users and managers now had direct control of their data and processes, and ultimately this set the stage toward today's reality.
Gone were having to wait (and wait, and wait) for approval to get a particular application installed; gone were having to wait for the budget approval, hardware upgrades or acquisitions, etc - tons of effort, time, planning, etc needed just to get a simple app (if such was even allowed by the mainframe service contract! Maybe that needed renegotiation as well!).
Just go down to ComputerLand, buy a PC and a copy of VisiCalc (or whatever), plop it on a desk, and work. Freedom!
Ever since then, though, there has been this security of the system and data (physical security, data security, backups, viruses, worms, trojans, etc) that has been problematic. Various solutions have been tried, none have been 100% effective. Problems still exist, data gets wiped or lost, employees move on, leaving password-enabled zip files behind nobody knows how to access, data leaves the building, laptops are stolen, viruses and malware abound, cryptolocking happens, and on and on and on...
But people still want their freedom. They want to just download and run a piece of software to make their life and work flow better. They don't want to wait for approval and budgets.
How do you solve this dilemma?
Going back to a locked down system isn't the answer; as tempting as it may seem, it merely moves the problem up the stack, while increasing frustration for the actual users of the systems.
Hence my snarky response - because that was (in a way) considered "ultimate security" - a centralized system, with no smarts at the end nodes. Tightly controlled, regulated, monitored, updated, and secured. Many major companies (most of them gone today) built fortunes on that model. That such few of these companies remain tells you something about how that model faired. Trying to return to it might not be the best thing to do.
What the answer to the problem should be, though, I can't say unfortunately...
In a corporate environment in many cases it is undesired that users install applications. So of course one disables Windows Store. Additionally one prohibits downloading zips etc. I have read of a way how in Windows one can set that files created/downloaded by users cannot be executed, which is also a desired configuration in many corporate environments.
That is a pretty effective way to prevent unwanted software to be installed / run.
For some value of $secure, yes. It's has package integrity checks, sure, but there's plenty of PUPs, adware and spyware in apps that for some corporate networks are considered a no-no.
Seriously whoever designed their "modern" UI needs to get booted. It's terrible and the main reason nobody uses the windows app store.
Ubuntu, MacOS, and even Steam on Windows all have a good app store interface. MS designed the OS and their version is a UI nightmare.
I'm hoping in some way there's some MS employees watching this thread. Please fix the damn app store by just extending the functionality of "add/remove programs" which everyone knows how to use and works fine.
We also had a look at the enterprise store recently to publish our own apps too, but the reliance on azure cloud means that we'll be publishing through other means for the foreseeable future.
It's amazing to see how MS destroying it's own platform.
Since a lot of us are programmers we were effectively allowed to install anything else normal that we wanted, but for some reason metro applications were disabled.
Ha ha ...
Additionally it does not work properly without a Microsoft account (could've changed) forcing it to be off if Active Domain is used.
Furthermore, the Windows Store for Business uses Active Domain accounts entirely and allows you to connect Windows Store licenses to corporate licensing policies, if you want to control corporate application requisitions centrally but still give users some individual control in Store installed apps. (Not to mention carrying private internal apps for an enterprise.) WSB has been around in various capacities since Windows 8.1 as well, but also fully came into its own very early in Windows 10.
As for application vetting and "apps people need", that's entirely a subjective judgment, but there is an application vetting process in place which is more than you can say about the traditional google for an MSI/EXE and hope its correct install process.