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

51–60 of 113 posts

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

#51

Post by JeremyBanks »

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…

Does your application allow arbitrary web browsing, or just display its own content in a web view?

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

#52

Post by AlexandrB »

valuearb wrote: post #48
ductionist wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds about right, although 5% (or 15%) is a pretty good deal IMO for worldwide payment processing, installer and update distribution, DRM, and their built-in tools like crash reporting, push notifications, analytics, affiliation, and attribution.

It’s insanely good deal. MSFT has to be losing money on that.

What? How?

Of the services on offer, only payment processing has significant cost to Microsoft. Things like crash reporting are solved problems whose cost should be approximately equal to the cost of hosting the data.

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

#53

Post by airstrike »

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 am being intellectually honest. Users make the platform. Microsoft should recognize they are dead last in this race and bite the bullet to provide developers with a clear incentive to develop for the MS store.

Apple takes the massive cut they do in their app store because developers can't really afford not to pay for that level of access to users.

One day when (IF!) Microsoft's store becomes relevant like that, they can think about what share they're entitled to

Finally, but also importantly, I don't know where in God's green world you got "elitism" from... which is pretty rich coming from someone calling my comment intellectually dishonest and "not actual constructive criticism".

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

#54

Post by omouse »

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 stores don't really fit into this equation, they're only good for partnership deals and SEO is harder to do in an app store.

Microsoft is just recognizing the reality for customers and realizing that they can possibly make up for it in volume. If I'm saving 10% from this new fee structure, that's more cash that I can re-invest into advertising in outside channels.

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

#55

Post by titanix2 »

muststopmyths wrote: post #35

Microsoft is like a competitor in a Three-legged race ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-legged_race ) except both runners are running in opposite directions. You have one side that's actively working to make Windows obsolete and another that's flailing about trying to make it relevant somehow. I'm a bitter ex-Windows Phone user, so my perspective could be colored.

I was a WP7&8 user as well as developer and yes the whole story left me a bitter taste, especially at the end. I had fun getting phones for free, participating at MS hackhatons, making friends and of course learning to develop mobile apps but it seems every decisions by MS during after Mango have been against the consumer. Also at the time the store took 30% as well...

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

#56

Post by burtonator »

opencl wrote: post #27
jpobst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like there might be more to it than that, since Slack is written in Electron and is in the Windows Store.

There is something more to it: Slack is really popular and MS really wanted it on the store so they let them ignore the rule.

The "more to it" is covered in the article.

They don't want things 'browsing the web' without you being forced to use MS Edge.

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

#57

Post by burtonator »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #51
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…

Does your application allow arbitrary web browsing, or just display its own content in a web view?

You preview content on the web, then capture it locally.

It's not really 'browsing' as you give it one URL and if that URL works you 'capture' it for offline storage.

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

#58

Post by ska »

JoshuaJB wrote: post #31
kop316 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh. This reminds me of something else with using Microsoft. My employer uses Office365 with a smart card authentication for email. In order to use the encryption features, you have to enable an activeX plugin from Microsoft. Microsoft Edge does not trust the Microsoft published plugin and disables it every time I boot up Edge (EDIT: I should note even when I attempt to enable it, it shows up as "disabled" on the ext…

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.

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

#59

Post by ductionist »

AlexandrB wrote: post #52
valuearb wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s insanely good deal. MSFT has to be losing money on that.

What? How? Of the services on offer, only payment processing has significant cost to Microsoft. Things like crash reporting are solved problems whose cost should be approximately equal to the cost of hosting the data.

I'd add hosting on top of that - like Apple, Google, etc., they don't charge you for distributing your app (which could be hefty, per paid transaction, if you have a low-converting trial or freemium app).

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

#60

Post by contextfree »

youdontknowtho wrote: post #15
nxc18 wrote: post #6

I feel like given the circumstances, Microsoft should probably make distribution free and collect no revenue, at least until the platform becomes popular. There are costs to targeting the Windows platform, especially if you're doing things their new preferred way (UWP). Primarily a slow, difficult to work with development kit. Lots of mysterious crashes that you can't do much about, lots of leaky abstractions over CO…

They don't force you to do UWP any more. You can publish Win32 apps to the Store. For what it's wort, doesn't seem like lots of developers are doing it. You can also publish command line apps to the store. Which is cool...

You can also make UWP command line apps https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/launch-resume/c...
Post reply on HN