12 ms·

Developers offered 80 percent cut of Windows Store app sales

49 points by ukdm 15y ago

tpatke 15y ago
This is an iterative improvement. Not a revolution. Microsoft has some serious catching up to do here and I would like to see a little more innovation coming from MSFT's camp. "Hey, nobody is really using our platform, but you can save fifty-bucks" isn't really going to cut it. How about - MSFT covers all costs for the first 2 years (keep 100% of what you make)? Heck, even a contest with some real prizes would be something...
- barranger 15y ago
  You do realize that this is in regards to the store for Windows 8 that runs on the desktop (as well as tablets)?
  - throwaway64 15y ago
    as the windows desktop store is going to be metro only, i dont see it being a roaring success
    - freehunter 15y ago
      Yup, no one uses Windows. The half-a-billion Windows 7 users will all stop buying Microsoft and their 95% marketshare momentum will come to a complete halt overnight. I believe Microsoft will be bankrupt this time next year. Or do you think it's more likely that your average user (the same market that is abandoning the desktop in favor of the iPad) doesn't share your fear of a new, more friendly (to them) interface? Remember, the Internet pooh-poohed the iPad as just an oversized iPhone. That really hurt its sales.
      - chc 15y ago
        What a bizarre false dichotomy. "Either 500 million people will upgrade to Windows 8 and prefer the new interface style or nobody will use Windows anymore." Most likely scenario in my mind: Most people stay on older versions of Windows for quite some time to come, those who do use Windows 8 prefer to stick with the Windows interface they've used for the past 16 years.
        freehunter 15y ago
        If everyone sticks to older versions of Windows, Microsoft will stop making money. It does Microsoft no good to keep people on a legacy system. Either people upgrade to Windows 8 or Microsoft goes out of business. Have you not thought "hmm, wonder why people are buying tablets in droves, while Windows sales are declining"? People _like_ the interface. The only people who don't like it are the people most notorious for hating change of any kind, and the people who they tell to hate it. It's gotta be tiring hating things that you've never used.
        chc 15y ago
        Windows isn't even Microsoft's biggest moneymaker at the moment, much less its only one. MS didn't go out of business when Vista or ME were released, and I don't think anywhere close to 50% of users upgraded to either of those platforms. Also, people are buying iPads in droves. Other tablet sales are pretty anemic. And Metro looks nothing like the iPad, or even any of the iPad's closest competitors, so I don't know how you can conclude that "people like the interface" when people aren't using the interface.
        MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        > Most likely scenario in my mind: Most people stay on older versions of Windows for quite some time to come Remember that Vista, a major flop, was the fastest selling version of Windows at one point. The enterprise skipped Vista but consumers did not because most consumers upgrade their OS when they upgrade their computers. > those who do use Windows 8 prefer to stick with the Windows interface they've used for the past 16 years. I assume you mean they will spend most of their time in Desktop. That's fine, but that's still a potential sale. The Metro start screen can't be avoided; the old start menu doesn't exist any more. So the "Windows Store" logo will be staring at users every time they go to launch an app (whether Metro or desktop). You can do the numbers and gather that there are going to be a lot of people at least exploring the Store at some point.
- mcantelon 15y ago
  It's hard to believe they charge any fee for devs when they're attempting to compete against Android, which charges $0/year for tools.
  - qeorge 15y ago
    True, but you have to pay to publish on Android Market. IIRC its $100/year.
    - jc4p 15y ago
      It might have changed, but when I paid for it during the first month the Android Market existed it was $25 for life. It's more of an anti-spam filter than actually getting users to pay.
    - king_jester 15y ago
      This is incorrect. There is a one time payment of $25 to publish for the Android Market. The iTunes store has a $100/year fee to publish to the iTunes store. http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=113468 http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/an...
erkin_unlu 15y ago
i still think they have to make the conditions much nicer for win developers, recognizing the gap between apple store, android market and the baby win store.
shimon_e 15y ago
Probably not going to last. When Google launched checkout it had better rates than paypal. After a few years it ended up matching paypal. When Amazon started selling music online it was 89 cents a song. Now it is on par with iTunes.
johnbender 15y ago
The $49 developer membership is less exciting when you consider that MS charges $479 for the least expensive version of Visual Studio and more for an MSDN membership. And while I'm aware the the express version is free it seems odd to me to charge for developer tools used by hobbyists and individuals at all.
- dpark 15y ago
  Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tools? As you said, the Express versions are free. But if you want to play with the same toys as professionals, why shouldn't you pay for them? Last I checked, Photoshop wasn't free to me just because I'm not a professional artist. Neither is anything else, really. There's not a lot of software licensed under a CC-noncommercial-style license. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee here
  - king_magic 15y ago
    Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4? If a paid membership came with a VS install, that'd be one thing, but I've seen no indications of that yet. Now, I personally see no problem with charging for tools, but if Microsoft wants to drive adoption at the same (or higher) rate as iOS/OSX/Android, they are going to have to make the tools free or very cheap. And BizSpark just isn't enough. Developers are going to ignore the platform, end of story. This shouldn't be surprising. No offense, but this just strikes me as another instance of Microsoft "not getting it".
    - dpark 15y ago
      So don't buy Visual Studio. You don't have to spend $479 to develop for Windows 7, and you won't have to spend $479 to develop Metro apps for Windows 8, either. You can use the express edition for free, and until that's available, you can use the developer preview for free. (That's $4 less than Xcode!) This is kind of like saying "I'll never edit a picture because Photoshop costs $600!" Yeah, you can edit a picture in Photoshop, or you can do the same thing with a free tool.
zerostar07 15y ago
Why so small reduction? The 30% cut that apple, google and facebook require is arbitrary and absurd already. The fair cost is much less than that and should be coming down with competition now that platforms are becoming commodities. (Oddly it's something that developers don't complain much about).
- dpark 15y ago
  Probably because it's been demonstrated that people are willing to pay the 30%. I'm a touch surprised that Microsoft is dropping to 20% for big players, considering that's where the money is. My guess is they're keeping it at 30% for small players because that's where most of the cost will be. It costs the same to put an app through the review process whether it sells one copy or one million copies. Also, the current platforms are kind of the opposite of a commodity. Commodities are interchangeable. Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft, but have no visibility into their Windows Store pricing.
dazbradbury 15y ago
Link to Microsoft blog (source): http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2011/12/06/announcing-the-new-windows-store.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2011/12/06/anno... Already Posted (yesterday): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3322320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3322320
ebbv 15y ago
The title is misleading, you only get to the 80% level once your application is fairly successful ($25k in sales.) Below that it's 70/30 just like others. Whether this is something worth pursuing or not is hard to judge at this point as we do not know what the adoption rate of Windows 8 is going to be. In particular what the adoption rate of the new Metro interface for Windows 8 will be.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  It's going to be the default interface for every new PC. It can be a Vista style flop and still be a gigantic market for developers.
kennethologist 15y ago
Time for my to pull out my visual studio!
nsxwolf 15y ago
This reminds me a bit of the working for Radio Shack come-on... They tell you it's minimum wage plus commission. Then your first check comes and you find out it was minimum wage OR commission, whichever is higher. $25,000 is a pipe dream for the vast, vast majority of mobile apps.
- freehunter 15y ago
  And the vast, vast majority of mobile apps aren't worth the $0.99 they charge for them. I don't have a problem with people making fewer shitty apps.
mdonahoe 15y ago
If they want to attract more people, it should be free/cheap until you make a certain amount of money. They might have to put restrictions on the number of apps you submit, or charge for app reviews.

49 points by ukdm 15y ago

This is an iterative improvement. Not a revolution. Microsoft has some serious catching up to do here and I would like to see a little more innovation coming from MSFT's camp. "Hey, nobody is really using our platform, but you can save fifty-bucks" isn't really going to cut it. How about - MSFT covers all costs for the first 2 years (keep 100% of what you make)? Heck, even a contest with some real prizes would be something...

barranger 15y ago
You do realize that this is in regards to the store for Windows 8 that runs on the desktop (as well as tablets)?
- throwaway64 15y ago
  as the windows desktop store is going to be metro only, i dont see it being a roaring success
  - freehunter 15y ago
    Yup, no one uses Windows. The half-a-billion Windows 7 users will all stop buying Microsoft and their 95% marketshare momentum will come to a complete halt overnight. I believe Microsoft will be bankrupt this time next year. Or do you think it's more likely that your average user (the same market that is abandoning the desktop in favor of the iPad) doesn't share your fear of a new, more friendly (to them) interface? Remember, the Internet pooh-poohed the iPad as just an oversized iPhone. That really hurt its sales.
    - chc 15y ago
      What a bizarre false dichotomy. "Either 500 million people will upgrade to Windows 8 and prefer the new interface style or nobody will use Windows anymore." Most likely scenario in my mind: Most people stay on older versions of Windows for quite some time to come, those who do use Windows 8 prefer to stick with the Windows interface they've used for the past 16 years.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        If everyone sticks to older versions of Windows, Microsoft will stop making money. It does Microsoft no good to keep people on a legacy system. Either people upgrade to Windows 8 or Microsoft goes out of business. Have you not thought "hmm, wonder why people are buying tablets in droves, while Windows sales are declining"? People _like_ the interface. The only people who don't like it are the people most notorious for hating change of any kind, and the people who they tell to hate it. It's gotta be tiring hating things that you've never used.
        chc 15y ago
        Windows isn't even Microsoft's biggest moneymaker at the moment, much less its only one. MS didn't go out of business when Vista or ME were released, and I don't think anywhere close to 50% of users upgraded to either of those platforms. Also, people are buying iPads in droves. Other tablet sales are pretty anemic. And Metro looks nothing like the iPad, or even any of the iPad's closest competitors, so I don't know how you can conclude that "people like the interface" when people aren't using the interface.
      - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        > Most likely scenario in my mind: Most people stay on older versions of Windows for quite some time to come Remember that Vista, a major flop, was the fastest selling version of Windows at one point. The enterprise skipped Vista but consumers did not because most consumers upgrade their OS when they upgrade their computers. > those who do use Windows 8 prefer to stick with the Windows interface they've used for the past 16 years. I assume you mean they will spend most of their time in Desktop. That's fine, but that's still a potential sale. The Metro start screen can't be avoided; the old start menu doesn't exist any more. So the "Windows Store" logo will be staring at users every time they go to launch an app (whether Metro or desktop). You can do the numbers and gather that there are going to be a lot of people at least exploring the Store at some point.
mcantelon 15y ago
It's hard to believe they charge any fee for devs when they're attempting to compete against Android, which charges $0/year for tools.
- qeorge 15y ago
  True, but you have to pay to publish on Android Market. IIRC its $100/year.
  - jc4p 15y ago
    It might have changed, but when I paid for it during the first month the Android Market existed it was $25 for life. It's more of an anti-spam filter than actually getting users to pay.
  - king_jester 15y ago
    This is incorrect. There is a one time payment of $25 to publish for the Android Market. The iTunes store has a $100/year fee to publish to the iTunes store. http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=113468 http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/an...

erkin_unlu 15y ago

i still think they have to make the conditions much nicer for win developers, recognizing the gap between apple store, android market and the baby win store.

shimon_e 15y ago

Probably not going to last. When Google launched checkout it had better rates than paypal. After a few years it ended up matching paypal. When Amazon started selling music online it was 89 cents a song. Now it is on par with iTunes.

johnbender 15y ago

The $49 developer membership is less exciting when you consider that MS charges $479 for the least expensive version of Visual Studio and more for an MSDN membership. And while I'm aware the the express version is free it seems odd to me to charge for developer tools used by hobbyists and individuals at all.

dpark 15y ago
Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tools? As you said, the Express versions are free. But if you want to play with the same toys as professionals, why shouldn't you pay for them? Last I checked, Photoshop wasn't free to me just because I'm not a professional artist. Neither is anything else, really. There's not a lot of software licensed under a CC-noncommercial-style license. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee here
- king_magic 15y ago
  Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4? If a paid membership came with a VS install, that'd be one thing, but I've seen no indications of that yet. Now, I personally see no problem with charging for tools, but if Microsoft wants to drive adoption at the same (or higher) rate as iOS/OSX/Android, they are going to have to make the tools free or very cheap. And BizSpark just isn't enough. Developers are going to ignore the platform, end of story. This shouldn't be surprising. No offense, but this just strikes me as another instance of Microsoft "not getting it".
  - dpark 15y ago
    So don't buy Visual Studio. You don't have to spend $479 to develop for Windows 7, and you won't have to spend $479 to develop Metro apps for Windows 8, either. You can use the express edition for free, and until that's available, you can use the developer preview for free. (That's $4 less than Xcode!) This is kind of like saying "I'll never edit a picture because Photoshop costs $600!" Yeah, you can edit a picture in Photoshop, or you can do the same thing with a free tool.

zerostar07 15y ago

Why so small reduction? The 30% cut that apple, google and facebook require is arbitrary and absurd already. The fair cost is much less than that and should be coming down with competition now that platforms are becoming commodities. (Oddly it's something that developers don't complain much about).

dpark 15y ago
Probably because it's been demonstrated that people are willing to pay the 30%. I'm a touch surprised that Microsoft is dropping to 20% for big players, considering that's where the money is. My guess is they're keeping it at 30% for small players because that's where most of the cost will be. It costs the same to put an app through the review process whether it sells one copy or one million copies. Also, the current platforms are kind of the opposite of a commodity. Commodities are interchangeable. Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft, but have no visibility into their Windows Store pricing.

dazbradbury 15y ago

Link to Microsoft blog (source): http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2011/12/06/announcing-the-new-windows-store.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2011/12/06/anno... Already Posted (yesterday): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3322320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3322320

ebbv 15y ago

The title is misleading, you only get to the 80% level once your application is fairly successful ($25k in sales.) Below that it's 70/30 just like others. Whether this is something worth pursuing or not is hard to judge at this point as we do not know what the adoption rate of Windows 8 is going to be. In particular what the adoption rate of the new Metro interface for Windows 8 will be.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
It's going to be the default interface for every new PC. It can be a Vista style flop and still be a gigantic market for developers.

kennethologist 15y ago

Time for my to pull out my visual studio!

nsxwolf 15y ago

This reminds me a bit of the working for Radio Shack come-on... They tell you it's minimum wage plus commission. Then your first check comes and you find out it was minimum wage OR commission, whichever is higher. $25,000 is a pipe dream for the vast, vast majority of mobile apps.

freehunter 15y ago
And the vast, vast majority of mobile apps aren't worth the $0.99 they charge for them. I don't have a problem with people making fewer shitty apps.

mdonahoe 15y ago

If they want to attract more people, it should be free/cheap until you make a certain amount of money. They might have to put restrictions on the number of apps you submit, or charge for app reviews.