5 ms·

Microsoft failed because they had few developers for either the desktop or mobile version of the framework. The countless Windows apps did not become buildable

Microsoft failed because they had few developers for either the desktop or mobile version of the framework. The countless Windows apps did not become buildable on mobile. If Apple makes it easy to add OSX support to existing iOS apps, they will have a lot of success.

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
That, and the fact the new XAML UX framework can only be used by AppX apps that run in the sandbox. “Normal”, otherwise unconstrained Win32 programs can’t use it.
- paulryanrogers 9y ago
  This decrease in capability seems to be a weakness with Mac App Store as well, that and the ramp up from 0% to 30% of purchase price. As a user I personally prefer more powerful software and a more financially motivated developer; even when it makes buying more bespoke.
  - kartickv 9y ago
    What are some alternatives to Mac App Store that give the developer the same services, like handling payment, including subscriptions, downloads, some DRM to prevent casual copying and updates, for less than 30%? Last I checked, I had to assemble the above from disparate services, investigating each, integrating them, and paying for each, which doesn't seem like a productive use of my time or money.
    - untog 9y ago
      That's not an answerable question in any universal way. 30% of what? Assembling from disparate sources will have more of an upfront cost but cost less per purchase. So it depends entirely on your sales volume.
      - kartickv 9y ago
        30% of the sale price, obviously. Regarding your second point, interesting, seems like MAS is good to get started until the app reaches a certain volume.
  - untangle 9y ago
    The "buy once update forever" business model of the Mac App Store is the real financial burden, not the ~30% tariff. Dev houses need some residual income, esp in the relatively small Mac market.
    - paulryanrogers 9y ago
      My guess is this could be driving the divide between semantic and vanity versions. If a developer has a big new update that's fully backward compatible they'll still be tempted to bump the major version of it means they can justify selling it separately. (Assuming stores allow names with a numeric bump.)

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago

That, and the fact the new XAML UX framework can only be used by AppX apps that run in the sandbox. “Normal”, otherwise unconstrained Win32 programs can’t use it.

paulryanrogers 9y ago
This decrease in capability seems to be a weakness with Mac App Store as well, that and the ramp up from 0% to 30% of purchase price. As a user I personally prefer more powerful software and a more financially motivated developer; even when it makes buying more bespoke.
- kartickv 9y ago
  What are some alternatives to Mac App Store that give the developer the same services, like handling payment, including subscriptions, downloads, some DRM to prevent casual copying and updates, for less than 30%? Last I checked, I had to assemble the above from disparate services, investigating each, integrating them, and paying for each, which doesn't seem like a productive use of my time or money.
  - untog 9y ago
    That's not an answerable question in any universal way. 30% of what? Assembling from disparate sources will have more of an upfront cost but cost less per purchase. So it depends entirely on your sales volume.
    - kartickv 9y ago
      30% of the sale price, obviously. Regarding your second point, interesting, seems like MAS is good to get started until the app reaches a certain volume.
- untangle 9y ago
  The "buy once update forever" business model of the Mac App Store is the real financial burden, not the ~30% tariff. Dev houses need some residual income, esp in the relatively small Mac market.
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    My guess is this could be driving the divide between semantic and vanity versions. If a developer has a big new update that's fully backward compatible they'll still be tempted to bump the major version of it means they can justify selling it separately. (Assuming stores allow names with a numeric bump.)