Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

blogs.windows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#61

Post by shawnz »

ktjfi wrote: post #28
yunyu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've attempted to do that before: https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/19/4124548/microsoft-paying-... All that lead to was a bunch of similar looking apps of questionable quality flooding the store.

That was absolutely retarded. I remember they went around universities handing out Lumia 925 mobiles to anybody who uploaded a few apps... imagine the quality of the apps. If only they had spent that money on actually making the OS better. Imagine that.

> If only they had spent that money on actually making the OS better. Imagine that.

What do you think they were trying to do? Apps are what make an OS good. Even if they caused 10,000 trash apps to be created and only 100 good ones, that's still 100 more good apps than they had before.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#62

Post by int_19h »

jawns wrote: post #2

Here's how the new payment structure works: > When Microsoft delivers a customer through other methods (tracked by an OCID), such as when the customer discovers the app in a Microsoft Store collection, through Microsoft Store search, or through any other Microsoft-owned properties, then you will receive 85 percent of the revenue from that purchase. > When there is no CID or OCID attributed to a purchase, in the insta…

The app is going to be in the Store either way tho, it's only a question of how the user ends up there.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#63

Post by bduerst »

stephenhuey wrote: post #4
jawns wrote: post #2

Here's how the new payment structure works: > When Microsoft delivers a customer through other methods (tracked by an OCID), such as when the customer discovers the app in a Microsoft Store collection, through Microsoft Store search, or through any other Microsoft-owned properties, then you will receive 85 percent of the revenue from that purchase. > When there is no CID or OCID attributed to a purchase, in the insta…

So if they are browsing your website, decide they’ll probably purchase it, but then later they open up the Microsoft store and search for it there, you lose money you would’ve had if they’d immediately downloaded it from a link on your website?

This is the problem that is common with most last-click attribution models, and isn't unique to this Microsoft store.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#64

Post by keerthiko »

omouse wrote: post #54
jawns wrote: post #2

Here's how the new payment structure works: > When Microsoft delivers a customer through other methods (tracked by an OCID), such as when the customer discovers the app in a Microsoft Store collection, through Microsoft Store search, or through any other Microsoft-owned properties, then you will receive 85 percent of the revenue from that purchase. > When there is no CID or OCID attributed to a purchase, in the insta…

It's obvious from that structure that Microsoft realizes they are part of a larger ecosystem and that they aren't a dominant channel. > if you rely mostly on your own marketing methods, then it should get less That's usually how it is. You rely on your own website and blog for organic results and Google or Facebook or some other channel (billboards, TV, podcasts, etc.) for paid advertising. Microsoft and other app st…

> That's usually how it is.

That's usually how it should be.

But if you collect payments through Apple App Store or Google Play because your apps are available on their platforms, even if customers didn't discover it from the stores but through your own marketing methods, the platforms get the full 30%. There are some ways to circumvent this, but not really.

[assumed flow is potential customer sees marketing/advertisement, clicks to website/ad, or goes to app store and searches for your app to download it, pays from within the app]

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#65

Post by drewmol »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #47
airstrike wrote: post #22

I'm surprised it isn't 100% – it should have been so from the outset. It's not like Microsoft really needs the revenue from the half-dozen apps available in their store right now. What they need is momentum . If I were in charge of making this decision I would pull the levers on every incentive I can give developers, cause God knows most people don't even remember the MS Store exists...

Compared to the massive cut Apple takes on their app stores Microsoft's revenue split seems pretty generous. I downvoted your comment because you aren't being intellectually honest to suggest it makes sense for them to provide payment processing, update management and DRM for free to app developers when at the very least they'd be losing big on the credit card processing side. So your comment reads as an elitist jab…

I read the comment as a suggestion to temporarily subsidise the cost of providing payment processing, update management and DRM for free to app developers in exchange for momentum/traction which I find intellectualy honest criticism of MS play. In reality this revenue sharing strategy may have evolved from temporarily subsidise into reduce our margins and landed on the 15/5 pc royalty described in this announcement.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#66

Post by giorgioz »

burtonator wrote: post #18

That's cool... assuming you can get in: https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-bloc... I found out that our app was crushed after 2 weeks of development. Basically, they won't let us in because we use Electron. Electron is developed in part (primarily) due to Github which they now own. TWO WEEKS I spent porting to the MS App Store only to have them just crush us ... It's great that I can make 95% of…

I do have an electron app on the Windows Store which is not particularly popular. I don't think Electron is just the reason why you were rejected. They might reject you once but keep trying might work. Do provide reason why your electron app is using something native that a normal website cannot achieve.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#67

Post by MSJo »

burtonator wrote: post #18

That's cool... assuming you can get in: https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-bloc... I found out that our app was crushed after 2 weeks of development. Basically, they won't let us in because we use Electron. Electron is developed in part (primarily) due to Github which they now own. TWO WEEKS I spent porting to the MS App Store only to have them just crush us ... It's great that I can make 95% of…

Hi, I'm a Microsoft employee and own the certification for apps. Electron is allowed. I checked with my team it. The failure is related to browsing capabilities which have to comply with 10.2.1.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#68

Post by jdsully »

ska wrote: post #58
JoshuaJB wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, half the problem is that there are far too many options to maintain, many of them legacy. Smart card authentication has worked great in Edge on Office 365 for years without any plugins at Microsoft, so I imagine your employer has got the wrong box checked somewhere triggering a fall back to ActiveX.

Eh, half the problem is that there are far too many options to maintain In microsofts case, this is partially self-inflicted, and cultural.

Enterprises want options. How else are they going to disable solitaire and make work as miserable as possible?

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#69

Post by avinium »

MSJo wrote: post #67
burtonator wrote: post #18

That's cool... assuming you can get in: https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-bloc... I found out that our app was crushed after 2 weeks of development. Basically, they won't let us in because we use Electron. Electron is developed in part (primarily) due to Github which they now own. TWO WEEKS I spent porting to the MS App Store only to have them just crush us ... It's great that I can make 95% of…

Hi, I'm a Microsoft employee and own the certification for apps. Electron is allowed. I checked with my team it. The failure is related to browsing capabilities which have to comply with 10.2.1.

No vested interest in this whatsoever - just wanted to let you know that it's cool you picked this up on HN, followed it up internally and responded publicly to clarify the situation.

That kind of transparency really helps build confidence in Microsoft Store as a platform. It's important to show that the team is accessible (and, frankly, human). It also helps to correct misleading narratives (e.g. "MS Store doesn't Electron apps").

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#70

Post by ktjfi »

shawnz wrote: post #61
ktjfi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was absolutely retarded. I remember they went around universities handing out Lumia 925 mobiles to anybody who uploaded a few apps... imagine the quality of the apps. If only they had spent that money on actually making the OS better. Imagine that.

> If only they had spent that money on actually making the OS better. Imagine that. What do you think they were trying to do? Apps are what make an OS good. Even if they caused 10,000 trash apps to be created and only 100 good ones, that's still 100 more good apps than they had before.

Not having a new toolkit every version would've been good. Allowing users of WP 7.* to update to 8, good too. Allowing all users of 8.1 to update to 10.

Also their own apps were poor. I remember Skype for WP 8 was absolutely unusable. MS is composed of many teams and many of them clearly didn't give a shit about WP.

Post reply on HN