Because you used the word "desperate" means you are desperate to make Microsoft look bad. What you say is true though, it is an attempt to get back into the game, but adding an emotional word just makes you sound a little bitter.
LOB applications for enterprises are supported in some circumstances.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/uk_faculty_connection/archive/2012/04/03/installing-enterprise-metro-apps-without-using-microsoft-store.aspx
You may even be able to work round some of the imposed limitations.
http://www.ghacks.net/2012/08/17/how-to-add-non-store-apps-to-windows-8/
For delivering apps to consumer tablets then having everything go through the app store is actually a good idea. It's worked well for Apple, the alternative is Android and it's not really worked out too well there.
My own thoughts are obviously subjective - this isn't a news site, and I state my own opinion on matters. That being said, I'm not deliberately trying to get Microsoft look bad.
Microsoft were actually on the touch-wagon quite early - there was a Tablet-PC edition of Windows XP, and there's been a few computers using it.
However, the interface hasn't been specifically designed for it, and the market for tablets didn't explode until a few years ago - while Windows 7 has some support for touch sensitive computers, it's basically the same as the Tablet-PC version of XP from about ten years ago.
On the other hand I'd be very surprised if Windows 8 didn't have touch interface as a main priority.
When it comes to the Microsoft store, it's not the idea of a store that I don't like - on the contrary, I've been using it for a some time to buy Xbox games and have no complaints.
Sideloading Metro apps doesn't remove the need for them to be digitally signed. Last time i checked, those certificates can cost quite a bit, so getting around the store is not a non-trivial issue.
Microsoft could have added a setting, similar to the one in Android, so that users can opt to install this kind of software at their own risk.
