40 ms·

Microsoft calls for a closer look at app stores

391 points by rydre 6y ago

sharemywin 6y ago
I agree with Microsoft for the same reason they do. I don't own one.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Xbox is a thing, and Microsoft is the sole gatekeeper for that platform. Obviously the Microsoft Store is also available on Windows, though it's easy to go around it there, of course. It's decently likely a ruling around app stores will have impact not just on mobile and desktop, but the console world as well.
  - laurowyn 6y ago
    At least with a console you have the option of buying a physical copy of the game and loading it onto the device, compared to mobile where you need to enable developer mode in order to load apps from alternate sources (and even then, it's not an officially supported method as the steps can change significantly between versions). But I do agree that there will be a console war if this is continued. I would hope that it leads down the "I own this device" route and level the playing field in general - I've paid Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony the money for the device, therefore I should have the right to run whatever I want on it. Gatekeeping what can be run on a device is a significant problem that needs to be resolved, along with the right to repair (Apple's a good example of the problems) and the second hand market (Tesla is a good example of the problems).
    - jaegerpicker 6y ago
      Except that the physical copy of the game is still gatekept by Microsoft or Sony. People complain about apple's app store and 30% tax but compare that to the craziness it takes to get on a console and it's not even close. As a developer I pay Apple $99 a year and i can release my app to the store as long as it meets some pretty lose guidelines. To get on a console you have to basically audition your game and met some arbitrary guidelines that aren't published anywhere. Either a company can build a curated system or they can't. XBox, PS4, and the switch aren't monopolies for gaming and iOS or Android aren't monopolies for mobile.
      - slantyyz 6y ago
        > Except that the physical copy of the game is still gatekept by Microsoft or Sony. And Nintendo. I don't follow consoles these days, but the gatekeeping by region that console makers used to do (even if I understand the reasons behind them) was incredibly annoying as well. I think the perception of game consoles is different from PCs and mobile devices. Even though the game console is a computer, they're still not seen by the public or governments as a general computing platform no matter how blurred the lines have become.
      - laurowyn 6y ago
        Absolutely, not saying it's a perfect system. But at least I can go to GameStop, or even Amazon (lol), and buy a physical copy instead of having to go to the console specific digital store to buy and download it. At least if the digital store shuts down, and/or the console goes out of support, I still have a physical copy of the game I can play. Physical vs Digital is a whole nother holy war though.
    - frosted-flakes 6y ago
      Which operating system requires developer mode to install apps from a different source? Not Android. It only requires you to enable the "Install unknown apps" permission from the source app, with this warning: "Allow from this source? [ ] Installing apps from this source may put your phone and data at risk." And it's not like this is hidden the way developer mode is. It pops up when you try to install an APK file.
      - laurowyn 6y ago
        I feel like that falls under "changes between versions". Agreed, it's not as bad as it used to be. Android needed developer mode, iOS needed the device to be registered as a test device.
    - deno 6y ago
      That physical copy still has to be signed by Microsoft. It’s Sneakernet instead of Internet but everything else stays exactly the same.
      - laurowyn 6y ago
        Except I don't need the console's digital store to be online and active to be able to play a physical copy of an offline game. Agreed, it's not a perfect system, but it's not exactly the same as the Apple app store - the only way to get software on to iOS for the longest time (recently, side loading has become easier and less gatekept, but still not the same as the desktop experience).
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      > "At least with a console you have the option of buying a physical copy of the game and loading it onto the device" Possibly not for much longer. Sony is releasing the two versions of the PS5, the "digital edition" of which has no BD drive and can't use physical game media. It'll be interesting to see whether it has much uptake.
      - toyg 6y ago
        > It'll be interesting to see whether it's has much uptake. It will. Physical media is a practical annoyance for most consumers.
      - laurowyn 6y ago
        I feel like that's an interesting approach though. My PS4 sits idle most of the time, the rest of the time it's playing a bluray movie. only fractionally ever playing a game on it nowadays. I guess the sales numbers will tell the bigger story.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      The physical games also require approval from the console maker and they still get a cut. This is has been true since at least the mid 80s.
      - laurowyn 6y ago
        Yes, but I don't need the store to be online and supported to access my physical copy of an offline game. At least there's a chance I can continue playing if/when the store gets taken down. Look at every retro console - their games still work on their platforms, and there's a second hand market for games. It's a shame they're no longer made, but at least there's a physical copy that can be traded instead of a digital copy DRM'd to an account on a store that's no longer operational.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    XBox isn't as gatekept as it used to be. It's pretty easy to run software on it now, though perhaps not as easy as XBox Live Indie Games was https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/
  - ericflo 6y ago
    Great! Facebook's Oculus store, more locked-down than any smartphone app store, is the canary in the coal mine for the future of independent developers.
jwr 6y ago
Oh, how the tables have turned! I still remember Microsoft's chokehold on the entire industry in the 1990s, their "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy, and nearly total monopoly. Now the wolf is an advocate for the sheep :-)
- bob33212 6y ago
  And 20 years from now APPL could be lobbying to end a different monopoly that they don't benefit from
  - gear54rus 6y ago
    Hopefully by then people in general would be smart enough not to buy closed down crap that makes monopolies possible. Replies like yours and another sibling ( hoorayimhelping) do put that hope into my heart.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      That locked down crap made it possible for the non English literate and non computer literate to have a consistent experience video calling their loved ones (FaceTime) and use WhatsApp and browse the internet on iOS Safari without worrying about clicking on malware links, and that was as of at least 7+ years ago. Although, I am questioning the utility of WhatsApp as they seem to be particularly fond of forwarding absolute garbage on WhatsApp.
      - gear54rus 6y ago
        Think this wouldn't be possible without the locked down part? It is far from a necessary evil IMO.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        If it is, no one has done it yet. If someone manages to, I’d love to jump to a non locked down system.
013a 6y ago
For a full view of not just what an executive says, but Microsoft's actions here: The Windows app store gives a 95/5 cut to developers, as long as the download happened from an external link to the page. If the discovery happened via an app store search or marketing within the app store, that cut changes to 85/15 [1] I would also like to find some revenue split data for the Xbox store, though I imagine that's far more nuanced, with many different contracts for different third parties. If I'm an indie developer with no negotiating power, is that a 70/30? [1] https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share...
- theNJR 6y ago
  I never knew that. How incredibly ... reasonable. Really changes your UA math in a good way.
- hn_check 6y ago
  We should note that the Windows app store is a massive failure, so Microsoft's actions as an also-ran are going to be "benevolent" and "open" because they have nothing to lose. Browse through the derelict mess that is the app store to understand just how miserable their state is. The overwhelming bulk of sales in the Windows app store are Microsoft's own products. Recall when Microsoft was lagging far behind the other cool instant messenger kids, and was loudly crying for open interoperability and cooperation. Once MSN Messenger had a foothold, it slammed shut and their noble goals dissolved. Microsoft is certainly not alone in this self-serving morality -- it is a logical position -- but they do have a lot of examples in their corporate history. Apparently the Microsoft employees are out in force today. It's also interesting how making an observation like this -- that the Windows app store is a failure -- leads people to pigeonhole. As I sit here on my Lenova 720 in Windows 10 Pro cross compiling an app between Windows and Linux in the WSL...hurrrRRRRrrr)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 013a 6y ago
    I would be willing to bet a non-zero amount of money that, much like the average Hacker News reader would woefully under-estimate how much .Net code is out there being written today, so to would we woefully underestimate how much usage the Microsoft Store gets.
growlist 6y ago
I think the level of irony here is so off the scale that it threatens to tear a rip in the fabric of space itself.
- votepaunchy 6y ago
  The irony of Microsoft also running a closed ecosystem on XBox? If Apple is forced to individually negotiate with developers, they can and will.
TicklishTiger 6y ago
Are there many applications these days which are not available as a "web app" aka website? If we (developers) go for a "website first" approach, there is not much the device manufacturers can do against people using our products. From a business perspective, is there a strong incentive to develop apps at all, when you already have a website? Any stories of startups that had a running website already and then boosted their usage by an order of magnitude by adding apps for the various appstores?
- tekdude 6y ago
  > Are there many applications these days which are not available as a "web app" aka website? Pretty much no, with a few exceptions: 1. Any kind of hardcore gaming 2. Any kind of CPU/memory/disk intensive media production software (though this is becoming less so) 3. Any kind of infrastructure application; you wouldn't run a web server or database in the browser (yet)
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    even office applications the web based offerings are years behind their native desktop versions. they are good for some basic work but if you need to do proper work you have to use the desktop versions in most occasions.
  - fr2null 6y ago
    4. Any kind of application that needs to interface with a server that doesn't support TCP (webRTC kinda solves that, but not really, at least not yet) 5. Any kind of application that needs to feel fast. I have a pretty fast phone & computer, but I really feel the difference between a web app and a native app. A bit of data viewing is alright on the internet, but real productivity for prolonged periods of time? I'd rather have a native app. 6. Anything at all that needs to interface with your device. Web apps are extremely locked down, and for good reason, but this does mean that you can't use them as a file manager for instance. Applications that only need to display, search and edit some data are absolutely fine as a webapp. Anything else gets a lot harder. Although I do feel like we are slowly shifting to more and more web based apps. For better or for worse.
Spooky23 6y ago
This is a great example about why despite the self-interested crying and whining, the App Store policy is a good thing. Why does Microsoft care about this? They have the market power to negotiate better terms. The answer is simple -- they want to reassert control over email. The Outlook app no longer uses ActiveSync, and Microsoft architects usually imply or state outright that ActiveSync is a legacy product. The MS client stack has a weaker technology advantage than it ever had. AD was the great anchor of enterprises, and it is eroding slowly as things shift to cloud. (Remember, enteprises are a decade behind startups) The whole point of moving away from open email protocols is that things like access control that enterprises need must use Azure AD. That drives deeper entrenchment in MS SKUs and drives products like ATP, Dynamics, the MS Voice stack, etc. Better PR/branding aside, Microsoft is more like 1995 Microsoft than ever. You can see over the years, Microsoft has bolted all sorts of mobile user experiences over traditional Exchange/SharePoint/etc. Teams was the first one that has had staying power. They can't add functionality to the mail/messaging/video/collaboration stack unless they break legacy. It would be really awful if Apple caved, and 80% of the commercial email market became a walled garden of a historically hostile platform owner, all so that Basecamp can make a few bucks selling an email client.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
This is why Google’s strategy with PWA (Progressive Web App) intrigues me, although android is not a walled garden (sideload, 3rd party appstores) pushing for PWAs seems counter intuitive to increase its Playstore revenue; same reason why Apple has been hesitant about supporting PWA. So what's the deal? It's hard to beleive Google cares more about open web platform than their Playstore revenue or it's just they want to ditch android/ART completely in future. P.S. As a consumer I'm glad PWA exists and can't wait to see the end of duopoly in the smartphone ecosystem.
- untog 6y ago
  I think the answer is simply that Google is massive and sometimes competes with itself. Android’s Instant Apps, announced a few years ago (seemingly to go nowhere?) seemed like a direct attack on the use case for web sites, but the company tolerated it. As a whole I think Google wants to chase ubiquity. A PWA will work on laptops, phones, Windows, Mac, Android... an Android app won’t. So they’ll push PWAs.
  - Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
    I too thought of just blaming it on Google's idiosyncrasy, but PWA has stood the test of time with multiple parties (browsers) extending their support. Perhaps, I'm thinking other way round; May be PWA was supposed to kill traditional web apps and was intended to bring web apps to Playstore/Appstore but it didn't happen(yet). >Android’s Instant Apps, announced a few years ago (seemingly to go nowhere?) seemed like a direct attack on the use case for web sites, but the company tolerated it. I think android instant apps are meant for Google Assistant ecosystem, Google Smart Display have it and Fuchsia would have GA; so instant apps might come handy.
    - jfoster 6y ago
      PWAs can be bundled up for the Play store: https://medium.com/@firt/google-play-store-now-open-for-progressive-web-apps-ec6f3c6ff3cc https://medium.com/@firt/google-play-store-now-open-for-prog...
Dahoon 6y ago
I find the feeling of rooting for Microsoft very strange indeed but the Apple Appstore is really a thing that needs to be broken down/opened up ASAP. Microsoft gets slapped over IE and Media Player but Apple can go way further and lock out every browser but their own (all iOS browsers are just a skin on Safari). Apple has become what Microsoft used to be - IMHO worse.
onyva 6y ago
Oh Brad Smith. Like, only few years back he was heading Microsoft’s onslaught against Linux and open source with exactly the opposite, calling Microsoft technology “open” because they published APIs. I wonder where Republican law makers got their straight face hypocrisy and cynicism if not from companies like Microsoft.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rhacker 6y ago
The credit card companies found that 1-3% is all they get away with skimming from the top. That being said they have massive volumes. I wonder why everyone is so accepting of such a massive cut of the profits. We need to demand 2% and NO MORE of a cut of profits and that should go to everything from Ubers to software sales. I think a really low percentage wave is going to disrupt these markets as new competitors that are bootstrapped, slimmed down and not VC money hungry enter the scene. All it takes is for people to start demanding they get paid for the real work and not the sale.
- rimliu 6y ago
  I am sure Apple owns the cars. Speaking for myself I would gladly part with 30% if it means not dealing with the payment processors, distribution CDN's etc. myself. Also, do not forget there are many free apps on the App Store.
- guptaneil 6y ago
  Credit cards are near the bottom of the value stack. Uber, Apple, et al are built on top of that and need to pay the credit card transaction fees, which means they need to charge X% more than 2-3% to keep any money for themselves. You could argue that their chosen X% is too high relative to their value add, but any competitor will definitely need to charge more than your proposed X=0.
  - aembleton 6y ago
    A competitor could charge x=0 if they can get sponsored apps to pay up so that they appear at the top of the listings.
- akiselev 6y ago
  Electronic credit card processing was born in the 70s, a few years after the ARPA research project was started and decades before the modern internet was born. At first it took a five minute phone call to authorize charges, so the infrastructure to support credit cards before commoditized networked computers was substantial. The credit card processing fees have gone down substantially since then with improvements in technology.
boudewijnrempt 6y ago
When Microsoft helped me get Krita in the Windows Store I hadn't much expectations. Now the Windows Store and Steam (fifty/fifty) bring in enough to pay me and six other people to work on Krita almost full-time. It has saved me from having to find a day job that would have driven me round the bend for sure. That said, it sucks that I cannot tell people they can also download Krita from krita.org. There's always the fear that some day, the Windows Store will be closed, or Krita will be kicked out or whatever. Publishing in an app store means you're a sharecropper, with all that entails.
- AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
  > That said, it sucks that I cannot tell people they can also download Krita from krita.org. As in, you've signed an NDA literally forbidding you from mentioning as such? Or you're simply not allowed to put the URL anywhere in the Windows Store description?
  - gganley 6y ago
    The second option, keep in mind speaking from reading and not from experience
    - rnotaro 6y ago
      False. The URL is currently in the Microsoft Store description. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/krita/9n6x57zgrw96 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/krita/9n6x57zgrw96
      - dapole 6y ago
        I mean in practice you can also list links to your site on the Apple App Store but you aren’t allowed to mention a cheaper price or another purchasing option.
        thephyber 6y ago
        It seems to me there is some price arbitrage opportunity for a 3rd party who can figure out how to get affiliate payments. If the app developer can't advertise that one of their store options is cheaper, a 3rd party isn't limited by the same contractual obligation.
exabrial 6y ago
What a time to be alive... Microsoft calling for anti-trust action. Oh how the tables have turned.
indymike 6y ago
It's interesting that app stores rose in the 2000s when we were at the tail end of selling software in boxes. Margins on packaged software were often 5-15% at the distributor level and 10-25% at the retail level for consumer software. For enterprise software, it was customary to make 40% on the first license and 10-20% on upgrades. So, the app stores aren't too far off of what the reseller share would have been...
- AgloeDreams 6y ago
  That was the original argument by Steve...But imagine a world where you couldn't just give software to someone you know without going to the big box store, giving it to them first and agreeing that if the other person wanted to pay for it the store would take 30%? Even worse, the big box stores back then also bought shipments ahead of sale and managed inventory, sales, and the like. The publisher would pay production and take B2B orders at a 30% cut or so. The issue is that they both are asking for 30% while doing basically little to nothing to deserve it (with the app store netting very few devs any sort of promotion value), applying the rules to only some companies, while also outright banning the sale of software elsewhere. Maybe this is fair in a small company but in a large company that controls 70% of the US market? Thats borderline like setting up a tax on an entire industry as if your company was a state in the US.
partiallypro 6y ago
Even if Microsoft is doing this out of self interest/business...they are still 100% right on this.
not2b 6y ago
Apple's demand for 30% of all in-app purchases, with no other way to get an app onto their platform, and its increasing censorship efforts to block an app from informing a user of alternative payment methods, isn't going to last, because antitrust regulators are going to kill it.
jpz 6y ago
I agree Apple is abusive here. There is also a very valid counterargument. Apple maintain the quality of apps on their app story by being a censor. There are a lot of ways to scam people or bug their devices, and by and large Apple also create a sufficiently safe environment for iOS users. There do seem to be two aspects in conflict, but good for DHH for kicking this off. 30% is obcene.
jbb67 6y ago
Great. Presumably microsoft will also be opening up their xbox to run whatever software I like without going through them too then?
lmeyerov 6y ago
Pot, kettle: The Azure Marketplace for b2b apps is also 20-30%. Worse, while most app stores pay out 30-60 days after use, Azure can hold on to your payments about 3-6mo. I am a fan of the concept, but this kind of stuff is entirely flexing and broken PM politics. Imagine if Intel did that to juice proceeds of all x86 users for a couple of years!
- Aissen 6y ago
  While this isn't entirely comparable (just run compute on Azure and install your services). I'm pretty sure this is a reason Steam completely gave up on their remote app for iOS.
romanovcode 6y ago
Maybe when Microsoft implements a decent app store then they could speak about other appstores?
- CleverLime 6y ago
  iOS doesn't allow sideloading, and the only available store takes 30% from developers, that is anti-competitive.
libertine 6y ago
Why not broaden the spectrum and regulate market places overall? Amazon, AppStore, PlayStore, etc. The pattern is the same: - Bend/ignore/disregard rules for their own products; - Leverage data from competition for their advantage within the market place; - Ban/exclude/penalize products from one day to the other; - Boost/give privilege their own apps; - Limited support/response, most of the times automated, disregarding the investment and commitment people took on their market place;
soapdog 6y ago
Is Microsoft doing that because their store never took off? Probably yes. Should governments take a closer look into app stores? Absolutely yes, those games are rigged, monopolistic, and broken.
diffctx99 6y ago
Walmart called on regulators to do the dirty work of controlling how Target negotiates the sale of shelf space within its walls. “As one of the largest retailers in the world, making billions each year in profit, it’s unconscionable if we sat by not calling out others for doing the same.” Walmart continued, “It’s imperative that we sully our competitions brand to make gains in the financial markets. Without state backed protectionism for large enterprises, us Barons are really just being hung out to dry.” Walmart has continued to profit mightily, but it says the complaint is predicated on the fact they could be profiting MORE if someone forced Target to behave more like the rest of the majority. When asked if Walmart had considered rebuilding its own image to gain business, there was a pause, before the conversation returned to targeting Target. Walmart blew of criticism it’s used the market to wipe out competition in the past. When asked why they simply don’t do that to Target they replied, “Target is too big financially. So we need a bigger bully they can’t damage in return to stand up for us gritty, ruggedly individual elites. It’s the story of humanity to build government that’s coddles and pampers a privileged minority. It should be no different now.” When it was suggested the public should advocate for dissolution of middlemen landlords in general, rather than drag the public courts through a pissing contest between blowhards, and stop wasting its precious time resource arbitrating the concerns of petty rich guys, the room laughed.
routerhash 6y ago
Apple could allow alternative app store which then can be permanently banned if any of the app distributed via it contains malware/adware or privacy issues
pjmlp 6y ago
Yeah, right. Everyone is unhappy when they are the underdog, had the Store not been a failure and the tune would be something else.
frusciante29 6y ago
Well, I'm so glad that today I can also bash the 30% cost of doing business on the App Store, like I did yesterday and two days ago. And the day before that. Maybe I can also do that tomorrow, because hey, it should be 0%. Apple has enough money anyway, right? After that, I'll probably hop into my race car for 24hrs. And start talking to people about capitalism after freeloading on the App Store for 8 years.
JOnAgain 6y ago
They mean the Xbox store, right? Gonna let steam be an alternative way to distribute games on my Xbox?
z3t4 6y ago
One good thing with app store tax is that more apps will consider being web apps instead.
sergeykish 6y ago
It is so strange that corporations fights for what essentially is iPhone owners freedoms. The right to repair - fix app store owner decisions. And that's not the worst. Apple sells devices with limited support. Perfectly functioning devices with no way to change OS once it become unsupported. Devices with expiration date.
me551ah 6y ago
App stores on the desktop are nowhere as close to their mobile counterparts. Web versions of mobile apps exist, but people always choose to go with the native versions. While on desktops, the opposite is true. I've always wondered why that is the case.
robertlagrant 6y ago
Is this coming up because their app store didn't work very well?

391 points by rydre 6y ago

sharemywin 6y ago

I agree with Microsoft for the same reason they do. I don't own one.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Xbox is a thing, and Microsoft is the sole gatekeeper for that platform. Obviously the Microsoft Store is also available on Windows, though it's easy to go around it there, of course. It's decently likely a ruling around app stores will have impact not just on mobile and desktop, but the console world as well.
- laurowyn 6y ago
  At least with a console you have the option of buying a physical copy of the game and loading it onto the device, compared to mobile where you need to enable developer mode in order to load apps from alternate sources (and even then, it's not an officially supported method as the steps can change significantly between versions). But I do agree that there will be a console war if this is continued. I would hope that it leads down the "I own this device" route and level the playing field in general - I've paid Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony the money for the device, therefore I should have the right to run whatever I want on it. Gatekeeping what can be run on a device is a significant problem that needs to be resolved, along with the right to repair (Apple's a good example of the problems) and the second hand market (Tesla is a good example of the problems).
  - jaegerpicker 6y ago
    Except that the physical copy of the game is still gatekept by Microsoft or Sony. People complain about apple's app store and 30% tax but compare that to the craziness it takes to get on a console and it's not even close. As a developer I pay Apple $99 a year and i can release my app to the store as long as it meets some pretty lose guidelines. To get on a console you have to basically audition your game and met some arbitrary guidelines that aren't published anywhere. Either a company can build a curated system or they can't. XBox, PS4, and the switch aren't monopolies for gaming and iOS or Android aren't monopolies for mobile.
    - slantyyz 6y ago
      > Except that the physical copy of the game is still gatekept by Microsoft or Sony. And Nintendo. I don't follow consoles these days, but the gatekeeping by region that console makers used to do (even if I understand the reasons behind them) was incredibly annoying as well. I think the perception of game consoles is different from PCs and mobile devices. Even though the game console is a computer, they're still not seen by the public or governments as a general computing platform no matter how blurred the lines have become.
    - laurowyn 6y ago
      Absolutely, not saying it's a perfect system. But at least I can go to GameStop, or even Amazon (lol), and buy a physical copy instead of having to go to the console specific digital store to buy and download it. At least if the digital store shuts down, and/or the console goes out of support, I still have a physical copy of the game I can play. Physical vs Digital is a whole nother holy war though.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    Which operating system requires developer mode to install apps from a different source? Not Android. It only requires you to enable the "Install unknown apps" permission from the source app, with this warning: "Allow from this source? [ ] Installing apps from this source may put your phone and data at risk." And it's not like this is hidden the way developer mode is. It pops up when you try to install an APK file.
    - laurowyn 6y ago
      I feel like that falls under "changes between versions". Agreed, it's not as bad as it used to be. Android needed developer mode, iOS needed the device to be registered as a test device.
  - deno 6y ago
    That physical copy still has to be signed by Microsoft. It’s Sneakernet instead of Internet but everything else stays exactly the same.
    - laurowyn 6y ago
      Except I don't need the console's digital store to be online and active to be able to play a physical copy of an offline game. Agreed, it's not a perfect system, but it's not exactly the same as the Apple app store - the only way to get software on to iOS for the longest time (recently, side loading has become easier and less gatekept, but still not the same as the desktop experience).
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "At least with a console you have the option of buying a physical copy of the game and loading it onto the device" Possibly not for much longer. Sony is releasing the two versions of the PS5, the "digital edition" of which has no BD drive and can't use physical game media. It'll be interesting to see whether it has much uptake.
    - toyg 6y ago
      > It'll be interesting to see whether it's has much uptake. It will. Physical media is a practical annoyance for most consumers.
    - laurowyn 6y ago
      I feel like that's an interesting approach though. My PS4 sits idle most of the time, the rest of the time it's playing a bluray movie. only fractionally ever playing a game on it nowadays. I guess the sales numbers will tell the bigger story.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    The physical games also require approval from the console maker and they still get a cut. This is has been true since at least the mid 80s.
    - laurowyn 6y ago
      Yes, but I don't need the store to be online and supported to access my physical copy of an offline game. At least there's a chance I can continue playing if/when the store gets taken down. Look at every retro console - their games still work on their platforms, and there's a second hand market for games. It's a shame they're no longer made, but at least there's a physical copy that can be traded instead of a digital copy DRM'd to an account on a store that's no longer operational.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  XBox isn't as gatekept as it used to be. It's pretty easy to run software on it now, though perhaps not as easy as XBox Live Indie Games was https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/
- ericflo 6y ago
  Great! Facebook's Oculus store, more locked-down than any smartphone app store, is the canary in the coal mine for the future of independent developers.

jwr 6y ago

Oh, how the tables have turned! I still remember Microsoft's chokehold on the entire industry in the 1990s, their "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy, and nearly total monopoly. Now the wolf is an advocate for the sheep :-)

bob33212 6y ago
And 20 years from now APPL could be lobbying to end a different monopoly that they don't benefit from
- gear54rus 6y ago
  Hopefully by then people in general would be smart enough not to buy closed down crap that makes monopolies possible. Replies like yours and another sibling ( hoorayimhelping) do put that hope into my heart.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That locked down crap made it possible for the non English literate and non computer literate to have a consistent experience video calling their loved ones (FaceTime) and use WhatsApp and browse the internet on iOS Safari without worrying about clicking on malware links, and that was as of at least 7+ years ago. Although, I am questioning the utility of WhatsApp as they seem to be particularly fond of forwarding absolute garbage on WhatsApp.
    - gear54rus 6y ago
      Think this wouldn't be possible without the locked down part? It is far from a necessary evil IMO.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        If it is, no one has done it yet. If someone manages to, I’d love to jump to a non locked down system.

013a 6y ago

For a full view of not just what an executive says, but Microsoft's actions here: The Windows app store gives a 95/5 cut to developers, as long as the download happened from an external link to the page. If the discovery happened via an app store search or marketing within the app store, that cut changes to 85/15 [1] I would also like to find some revenue split data for the Xbox store, though I imagine that's far more nuanced, with many different contracts for different third parties. If I'm an indie developer with no negotiating power, is that a 70/30? [1] https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share...

theNJR 6y ago
I never knew that. How incredibly ... reasonable. Really changes your UA math in a good way.
hn_check 6y ago
We should note that the Windows app store is a massive failure, so Microsoft's actions as an also-ran are going to be "benevolent" and "open" because they have nothing to lose. Browse through the derelict mess that is the app store to understand just how miserable their state is. The overwhelming bulk of sales in the Windows app store are Microsoft's own products. Recall when Microsoft was lagging far behind the other cool instant messenger kids, and was loudly crying for open interoperability and cooperation. Once MSN Messenger had a foothold, it slammed shut and their noble goals dissolved. Microsoft is certainly not alone in this self-serving morality -- it is a logical position -- but they do have a lot of examples in their corporate history. Apparently the Microsoft employees are out in force today. It's also interesting how making an observation like this -- that the Windows app store is a failure -- leads people to pigeonhole. As I sit here on my Lenova 720 in Windows 10 Pro cross compiling an app between Windows and Linux in the WSL...hurrrRRRRrrr)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 013a 6y ago
  I would be willing to bet a non-zero amount of money that, much like the average Hacker News reader would woefully under-estimate how much .Net code is out there being written today, so to would we woefully underestimate how much usage the Microsoft Store gets.

growlist 6y ago

I think the level of irony here is so off the scale that it threatens to tear a rip in the fabric of space itself.

votepaunchy 6y ago
The irony of Microsoft also running a closed ecosystem on XBox? If Apple is forced to individually negotiate with developers, they can and will.

TicklishTiger 6y ago

Are there many applications these days which are not available as a "web app" aka website? If we (developers) go for a "website first" approach, there is not much the device manufacturers can do against people using our products. From a business perspective, is there a strong incentive to develop apps at all, when you already have a website? Any stories of startups that had a running website already and then boosted their usage by an order of magnitude by adding apps for the various appstores?

tekdude 6y ago
> Are there many applications these days which are not available as a "web app" aka website? Pretty much no, with a few exceptions: 1. Any kind of hardcore gaming 2. Any kind of CPU/memory/disk intensive media production software (though this is becoming less so) 3. Any kind of infrastructure application; you wouldn't run a web server or database in the browser (yet)
- kyriakos 6y ago
  even office applications the web based offerings are years behind their native desktop versions. they are good for some basic work but if you need to do proper work you have to use the desktop versions in most occasions.
- fr2null 6y ago
  4. Any kind of application that needs to interface with a server that doesn't support TCP (webRTC kinda solves that, but not really, at least not yet) 5. Any kind of application that needs to feel fast. I have a pretty fast phone & computer, but I really feel the difference between a web app and a native app. A bit of data viewing is alright on the internet, but real productivity for prolonged periods of time? I'd rather have a native app. 6. Anything at all that needs to interface with your device. Web apps are extremely locked down, and for good reason, but this does mean that you can't use them as a file manager for instance. Applications that only need to display, search and edit some data are absolutely fine as a webapp. Anything else gets a lot harder. Although I do feel like we are slowly shifting to more and more web based apps. For better or for worse.

Spooky23 6y ago

This is a great example about why despite the self-interested crying and whining, the App Store policy is a good thing. Why does Microsoft care about this? They have the market power to negotiate better terms. The answer is simple -- they want to reassert control over email. The Outlook app no longer uses ActiveSync, and Microsoft architects usually imply or state outright that ActiveSync is a legacy product. The MS client stack has a weaker technology advantage than it ever had. AD was the great anchor of enterprises, and it is eroding slowly as things shift to cloud. (Remember, enteprises are a decade behind startups) The whole point of moving away from open email protocols is that things like access control that enterprises need must use Azure AD. That drives deeper entrenchment in MS SKUs and drives products like ATP, Dynamics, the MS Voice stack, etc. Better PR/branding aside, Microsoft is more like 1995 Microsoft than ever. You can see over the years, Microsoft has bolted all sorts of mobile user experiences over traditional Exchange/SharePoint/etc. Teams was the first one that has had staying power. They can't add functionality to the mail/messaging/video/collaboration stack unless they break legacy. It would be really awful if Apple caved, and 80% of the commercial email market became a walled garden of a historically hostile platform owner, all so that Basecamp can make a few bucks selling an email client.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

This is why Google’s strategy with PWA (Progressive Web App) intrigues me, although android is not a walled garden (sideload, 3rd party appstores) pushing for PWAs seems counter intuitive to increase its Playstore revenue; same reason why Apple has been hesitant about supporting PWA. So what's the deal? It's hard to beleive Google cares more about open web platform than their Playstore revenue or it's just they want to ditch android/ART completely in future. P.S. As a consumer I'm glad PWA exists and can't wait to see the end of duopoly in the smartphone ecosystem.

untog 6y ago
I think the answer is simply that Google is massive and sometimes competes with itself. Android’s Instant Apps, announced a few years ago (seemingly to go nowhere?) seemed like a direct attack on the use case for web sites, but the company tolerated it. As a whole I think Google wants to chase ubiquity. A PWA will work on laptops, phones, Windows, Mac, Android... an Android app won’t. So they’ll push PWAs.
- Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  I too thought of just blaming it on Google's idiosyncrasy, but PWA has stood the test of time with multiple parties (browsers) extending their support. Perhaps, I'm thinking other way round; May be PWA was supposed to kill traditional web apps and was intended to bring web apps to Playstore/Appstore but it didn't happen(yet). >Android’s Instant Apps, announced a few years ago (seemingly to go nowhere?) seemed like a direct attack on the use case for web sites, but the company tolerated it. I think android instant apps are meant for Google Assistant ecosystem, Google Smart Display have it and Fuchsia would have GA; so instant apps might come handy.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    PWAs can be bundled up for the Play store: https://medium.com/@firt/google-play-store-now-open-for-progressive-web-apps-ec6f3c6ff3cc https://medium.com/@firt/google-play-store-now-open-for-prog...

Dahoon 6y ago

I find the feeling of rooting for Microsoft very strange indeed but the Apple Appstore is really a thing that needs to be broken down/opened up ASAP. Microsoft gets slapped over IE and Media Player but Apple can go way further and lock out every browser but their own (all iOS browsers are just a skin on Safari). Apple has become what Microsoft used to be - IMHO worse.

onyva 6y ago

Oh Brad Smith. Like, only few years back he was heading Microsoft’s onslaught against Linux and open source with exactly the opposite, calling Microsoft technology “open” because they published APIs. I wonder where Republican law makers got their straight face hypocrisy and cynicism if not from companies like Microsoft.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rhacker 6y ago

The credit card companies found that 1-3% is all they get away with skimming from the top. That being said they have massive volumes. I wonder why everyone is so accepting of such a massive cut of the profits. We need to demand 2% and NO MORE of a cut of profits and that should go to everything from Ubers to software sales. I think a really low percentage wave is going to disrupt these markets as new competitors that are bootstrapped, slimmed down and not VC money hungry enter the scene. All it takes is for people to start demanding they get paid for the real work and not the sale.

rimliu 6y ago
I am sure Apple owns the cars. Speaking for myself I would gladly part with 30% if it means not dealing with the payment processors, distribution CDN's etc. myself. Also, do not forget there are many free apps on the App Store.
guptaneil 6y ago
Credit cards are near the bottom of the value stack. Uber, Apple, et al are built on top of that and need to pay the credit card transaction fees, which means they need to charge X% more than 2-3% to keep any money for themselves. You could argue that their chosen X% is too high relative to their value add, but any competitor will definitely need to charge more than your proposed X=0.
- aembleton 6y ago
  A competitor could charge x=0 if they can get sponsored apps to pay up so that they appear at the top of the listings.
akiselev 6y ago
Electronic credit card processing was born in the 70s, a few years after the ARPA research project was started and decades before the modern internet was born. At first it took a five minute phone call to authorize charges, so the infrastructure to support credit cards before commoditized networked computers was substantial. The credit card processing fees have gone down substantially since then with improvements in technology.

boudewijnrempt 6y ago

When Microsoft helped me get Krita in the Windows Store I hadn't much expectations. Now the Windows Store and Steam (fifty/fifty) bring in enough to pay me and six other people to work on Krita almost full-time. It has saved me from having to find a day job that would have driven me round the bend for sure. That said, it sucks that I cannot tell people they can also download Krita from krita.org. There's always the fear that some day, the Windows Store will be closed, or Krita will be kicked out or whatever. Publishing in an app store means you're a sharecropper, with all that entails.

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
> That said, it sucks that I cannot tell people they can also download Krita from krita.org. As in, you've signed an NDA literally forbidding you from mentioning as such? Or you're simply not allowed to put the URL anywhere in the Windows Store description?
- gganley 6y ago
  The second option, keep in mind speaking from reading and not from experience
  - rnotaro 6y ago
    False. The URL is currently in the Microsoft Store description. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/krita/9n6x57zgrw96 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/krita/9n6x57zgrw96
    - dapole 6y ago
      I mean in practice you can also list links to your site on the Apple App Store but you aren’t allowed to mention a cheaper price or another purchasing option.
      - thephyber 6y ago
        It seems to me there is some price arbitrage opportunity for a 3rd party who can figure out how to get affiliate payments. If the app developer can't advertise that one of their store options is cheaper, a 3rd party isn't limited by the same contractual obligation.

exabrial 6y ago

What a time to be alive... Microsoft calling for anti-trust action. Oh how the tables have turned.

indymike 6y ago

It's interesting that app stores rose in the 2000s when we were at the tail end of selling software in boxes. Margins on packaged software were often 5-15% at the distributor level and 10-25% at the retail level for consumer software. For enterprise software, it was customary to make 40% on the first license and 10-20% on upgrades. So, the app stores aren't too far off of what the reseller share would have been...

AgloeDreams 6y ago
That was the original argument by Steve...But imagine a world where you couldn't just give software to someone you know without going to the big box store, giving it to them first and agreeing that if the other person wanted to pay for it the store would take 30%? Even worse, the big box stores back then also bought shipments ahead of sale and managed inventory, sales, and the like. The publisher would pay production and take B2B orders at a 30% cut or so. The issue is that they both are asking for 30% while doing basically little to nothing to deserve it (with the app store netting very few devs any sort of promotion value), applying the rules to only some companies, while also outright banning the sale of software elsewhere. Maybe this is fair in a small company but in a large company that controls 70% of the US market? Thats borderline like setting up a tax on an entire industry as if your company was a state in the US.

partiallypro 6y ago

Even if Microsoft is doing this out of self interest/business...they are still 100% right on this.

not2b 6y ago

Apple's demand for 30% of all in-app purchases, with no other way to get an app onto their platform, and its increasing censorship efforts to block an app from informing a user of alternative payment methods, isn't going to last, because antitrust regulators are going to kill it.

jpz 6y ago

I agree Apple is abusive here. There is also a very valid counterargument. Apple maintain the quality of apps on their app story by being a censor. There are a lot of ways to scam people or bug their devices, and by and large Apple also create a sufficiently safe environment for iOS users. There do seem to be two aspects in conflict, but good for DHH for kicking this off. 30% is obcene.

jbb67 6y ago

Great. Presumably microsoft will also be opening up their xbox to run whatever software I like without going through them too then?

lmeyerov 6y ago

Pot, kettle: The Azure Marketplace for b2b apps is also 20-30%. Worse, while most app stores pay out 30-60 days after use, Azure can hold on to your payments about 3-6mo. I am a fan of the concept, but this kind of stuff is entirely flexing and broken PM politics. Imagine if Intel did that to juice proceeds of all x86 users for a couple of years!

Aissen 6y ago
While this isn't entirely comparable (just run compute on Azure and install your services). I'm pretty sure this is a reason Steam completely gave up on their remote app for iOS.

romanovcode 6y ago

Maybe when Microsoft implements a decent app store then they could speak about other appstores?

CleverLime 6y ago
iOS doesn't allow sideloading, and the only available store takes 30% from developers, that is anti-competitive.

libertine 6y ago

Why not broaden the spectrum and regulate market places overall? Amazon, AppStore, PlayStore, etc. The pattern is the same: - Bend/ignore/disregard rules for their own products; - Leverage data from competition for their advantage within the market place; - Ban/exclude/penalize products from one day to the other; - Boost/give privilege their own apps; - Limited support/response, most of the times automated, disregarding the investment and commitment people took on their market place;

soapdog 6y ago

Is Microsoft doing that because their store never took off? Probably yes. Should governments take a closer look into app stores? Absolutely yes, those games are rigged, monopolistic, and broken.

diffctx99 6y ago

Walmart called on regulators to do the dirty work of controlling how Target negotiates the sale of shelf space within its walls. “As one of the largest retailers in the world, making billions each year in profit, it’s unconscionable if we sat by not calling out others for doing the same.” Walmart continued, “It’s imperative that we sully our competitions brand to make gains in the financial markets. Without state backed protectionism for large enterprises, us Barons are really just being hung out to dry.” Walmart has continued to profit mightily, but it says the complaint is predicated on the fact they could be profiting MORE if someone forced Target to behave more like the rest of the majority. When asked if Walmart had considered rebuilding its own image to gain business, there was a pause, before the conversation returned to targeting Target. Walmart blew of criticism it’s used the market to wipe out competition in the past. When asked why they simply don’t do that to Target they replied, “Target is too big financially. So we need a bigger bully they can’t damage in return to stand up for us gritty, ruggedly individual elites. It’s the story of humanity to build government that’s coddles and pampers a privileged minority. It should be no different now.” When it was suggested the public should advocate for dissolution of middlemen landlords in general, rather than drag the public courts through a pissing contest between blowhards, and stop wasting its precious time resource arbitrating the concerns of petty rich guys, the room laughed.

routerhash 6y ago

Apple could allow alternative app store which then can be permanently banned if any of the app distributed via it contains malware/adware or privacy issues

pjmlp 6y ago

Yeah, right. Everyone is unhappy when they are the underdog, had the Store not been a failure and the tune would be something else.

frusciante29 6y ago

Well, I'm so glad that today I can also bash the 30% cost of doing business on the App Store, like I did yesterday and two days ago. And the day before that. Maybe I can also do that tomorrow, because hey, it should be 0%. Apple has enough money anyway, right? After that, I'll probably hop into my race car for 24hrs. And start talking to people about capitalism after freeloading on the App Store for 8 years.

JOnAgain 6y ago

They mean the Xbox store, right? Gonna let steam be an alternative way to distribute games on my Xbox?

z3t4 6y ago

One good thing with app store tax is that more apps will consider being web apps instead.

sergeykish 6y ago

It is so strange that corporations fights for what essentially is iPhone owners freedoms. The right to repair - fix app store owner decisions. And that's not the worst. Apple sells devices with limited support. Perfectly functioning devices with no way to change OS once it become unsupported. Devices with expiration date.

me551ah 6y ago

App stores on the desktop are nowhere as close to their mobile counterparts. Web versions of mobile apps exist, but people always choose to go with the native versions. While on desktops, the opposite is true. I've always wondered why that is the case.

robertlagrant 6y ago

Is this coming up because their app store didn't work very well?