Developers offered 80 percent cut of Windows Store app sales(geek.com)
geek.com
Developers offered 80 percent cut of Windows Store app sales
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/developers-offered-80-percent-cut-of-windows-store-app-sales-2011127/
10 comments
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.
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.
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
Disclaimer: Microsoft employee here
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".
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".
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.
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.
I would buy Visual Studio (in fact I own a copy), but the average developer who develops for iOS/OSX/Android is going to say something like this to themselves:
"You're right. I won't buy Visual Studio. And I won't use the Express Edition, because it is seriously limited when compared to even the low-end paid version of Visual Studio. And the Express Edition is seriously limited when compared to the functionality found in Xcode/Instruments.
And as a result, you won't get revenue from any apps I develop, because I'll happily ignore your platform".
Microsoft is free to shoot themselves in the foot. They've already done it with the Zune and with their fixation on stylus-based tablets this century. Do you really want to add this to the list? It just strikes me as silly on Microsoft's part. If you want to get developers interested in your platform again, you need to make concessions to sweeten the deal.
"You're right. I won't buy Visual Studio. And I won't use the Express Edition, because it is seriously limited when compared to even the low-end paid version of Visual Studio. And the Express Edition is seriously limited when compared to the functionality found in Xcode/Instruments.
And as a result, you won't get revenue from any apps I develop, because I'll happily ignore your platform".
Microsoft is free to shoot themselves in the foot. They've already done it with the Zune and with their fixation on stylus-based tablets this century. Do you really want to add this to the list? It just strikes me as silly on Microsoft's part. If you want to get developers interested in your platform again, you need to make concessions to sweeten the deal.
Out of curiosity, what's so limited about the Express Edition? I haven't used it in a while, but last time I did it seemed quite capable.
As for your claim that developers will ignore Windows, I think that's at best unlikely. Developers have embraced Windows with the same toolset split for a long time. And iOS with its $100 signup + 30/70 split has proven that developers will pay to develop for a platform if they believe it's worthwhile.
As for your claim that developers will ignore Windows, I think that's at best unlikely. Developers have embraced Windows with the same toolset split for a long time. And iOS with its $100 signup + 30/70 split has proven that developers will pay to develop for a platform if they believe it's worthwhile.
Just off the top of my head: no extensions (no ReSharper, for example, no Nuget), no integrated source control, no memory/performance profiling, basic UX as compared to full VS - things like that.
Xcode is a full-fledged development environment. Those things come standard in Xcode. VS Express, by comparison, is a kids toy. It is not a serious development environment.
Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely". Yes, developers had embraced Windows over the past two decades, but that all started to change with iOS/Android. You cannot seriously believe that the world is the same, and that developer's attitudes towards Windows is the same.
[$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows. That price point is way to high to drive adoption.
Don't take my word for it, though - wait until developers find how disappointing the development experience is with Express.
Xcode is a full-fledged development environment. Those things come standard in Xcode. VS Express, by comparison, is a kids toy. It is not a serious development environment.
Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely". Yes, developers had embraced Windows over the past two decades, but that all started to change with iOS/Android. You cannot seriously believe that the world is the same, and that developer's attitudes towards Windows is the same.
[$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows. That price point is way to high to drive adoption.
Don't take my word for it, though - wait until developers find how disappointing the development experience is with Express.
How can you complain about the price of VS when you want to drop in a $200 extension? Seriously?
I agree those things are nice to have. I don't see that any of them are truly critical, though. The lack of these features is not crippling.
> Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely".
Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps?
> [$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows.
You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
I agree those things are nice to have. I don't see that any of them are truly critical, though. The lack of these features is not crippling.
> Microsoft also thought huge iPhone/iPad adoption rates was "at best unlikely".
Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps?
> [$100 + 30/70 split] for iOS is a completely different story than [$49 + $479 + 30/70 split] for Windows.
You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
> Doesn't that go against your argument? Didn't the iPhone prove that developers were very willing to pay to develops apps?
$99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now.
> You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done.
At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
$99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now.
> You keep insisting that the full version of VS is necessary, but that simply isn't true, and repeating it over and over again will not make it true.
As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done.
At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
VCS integration:
http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/
http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/
Profiler:
http://developer.amd.com/tools/CodeAnalyst/Pages/default.asp...
http://www.codersnotes.com/sleepy/
x86-64 compiler:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=8279
All are free.
http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/
http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/
Profiler:
http://developer.amd.com/tools/CodeAnalyst/Pages/default.asp...
http://www.codersnotes.com/sleepy/
x86-64 compiler:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=8279
All are free.
All are free.
And all are tier 2 solutions. "You can make Visual Studio work with elbow grease" isn't the way to convince anyone to jump on the MS developer bandwagon.
And all are tier 2 solutions. "You can make Visual Studio work with elbow grease" isn't the way to convince anyone to jump on the MS developer bandwagon.
What makes you say they are "tier 2" solutions? The VCS integration is right into the file system. I personally like this much more than just IDE integration, but YMMV. CodeAnalyst is a state of the art profiler, even better than the one in paid VS versions. The only thing that's more advanced is Intel's vTune. The x64 compiler is definitely not "tier 2", since it is from the standard SDK and the same as you get with paid VS versions.
You said that you needed those tools, so I tried to help. But this comment and your other comments make it clear that you don't really need them, you just want to prove a point.
You said that you needed those tools, so I tried to help. But this comment and your other comments make it clear that you don't really need them, you just want to prove a point.
> $99. And only after being able to play with the full/complete development tools and simulator for free. If that's what Visual Studio cost, I'd pay it now.
The "full" tools isn't a fair comparison. Visual Studio is much more feature-rich than Xcode. Apple does not give away the equivalent of Visual Studio for free.
Maybe Microsoft will add some of the "must-have" features to VS Express in the 2011 edition.
> As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done. At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
From what I've read, it's possible to get Express to do amd64 compilation. There seem to be some gymnastics necessary, though. I'm not sure why it doesn't work out of the box.
As for VCS and a profiler, there are other profilers available, and VCS doesn't have to be integrated. These are not necessary features for the IDE.
Having worked on Unix for several years, I find all this "must-have" stuff bizarre. The tools might be necessary, but the idea that they must be integrated is pretty weak. Having a good IDE is very nice, but a text editor and a bunch of command-line tools can get the job done. (With that said, I definitely missed VS.)
The "full" tools isn't a fair comparison. Visual Studio is much more feature-rich than Xcode. Apple does not give away the equivalent of Visual Studio for free.
Maybe Microsoft will add some of the "must-have" features to VS Express in the 2011 edition.
> As an non-MS developer that's just now working with Windows 7 and Visual Studio (C++, and the AVR Studio 5 that's built on top of the VS shell), I can state definitively that the full version is necessary to get any real work done. At the very least, I need VCS integration, a profiler, and an x86-64 compiler.
From what I've read, it's possible to get Express to do amd64 compilation. There seem to be some gymnastics necessary, though. I'm not sure why it doesn't work out of the box.
As for VCS and a profiler, there are other profilers available, and VCS doesn't have to be integrated. These are not necessary features for the IDE.
Having worked on Unix for several years, I find all this "must-have" stuff bizarre. The tools might be necessary, but the idea that they must be integrated is pretty weak. Having a good IDE is very nice, but a text editor and a bunch of command-line tools can get the job done. (With that said, I definitely missed VS.)
> Having a good IDE is very nice, but a text editor and a bunch of command-line tools can get the job done. (With that said, I definitely missed VS.)
When you're trying to attract developers, "get the job done" doesn't cut it.
I'm not a big fan of Xcode and Eclipse, but they meet my functional requirements without hoop-jumping.
When you're trying to attract developers, "get the job done" doesn't cut it.
I'm not a big fan of Xcode and Eclipse, but they meet my functional requirements without hoop-jumping.
When you're talking about "necessary" features, "get the job done" very much does cut it. Now, if you want to talk about nice-to-haves and how great it is to have integrated source code management and whatever, that's fine. But "necessary to get any real work done" is a rather large overstatement.
Also, I'm surprised you're comparing Eclipse to Visual Studio. I've always found Eclipse unpleasant, to the point that I favor a text editor and the command line. I'd much rather use VS Express than Eclipse.
Also, I'm surprised you're comparing Eclipse to Visual Studio. I've always found Eclipse unpleasant, to the point that I favor a text editor and the command line. I'd much rather use VS Express than Eclipse.
> Visual Studio is much more feature-rich than Xcode.
Now I am curious. There are many versions of VS available. Can you compare them with Xcode and point out what's missing?
Now I am curious. There are many versions of VS available. Can you compare them with Xcode and point out what's missing?
You can compare the various Visual Studio versions here:
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-ed...
Depending on how far up the hierarchy you want to go, the feature set is huge. Everything from static code analysis to virtual environment management.
Versus Xcode, the big thing is that Visual Studio has a very strong extension system. A lot of power is afforded here.
http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-ed...
Depending on how far up the hierarchy you want to go, the feature set is huge. Everything from static code analysis to virtual environment management.
Versus Xcode, the big thing is that Visual Studio has a very strong extension system. A lot of power is afforded here.
[deleted]
"Xcode is a fully-fledged development environment" - which lacks even the most basic plug-in system! Furthermore, on the far more extensible Windows OS, you can integrate source control into Windows Explorer...another program with a plugin system where Apple offers none.
For Memory/Performance profiling, go choose one of the many FREE tools available for Windows - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performance_analysis_to...
What are you left with? What does "basic UX" even mean?
For Memory/Performance profiling, go choose one of the many FREE tools available for Windows - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_performance_analysis_to...
What are you left with? What does "basic UX" even mean?
[deleted](1)
Not really relevant for this discussion, but AFAIK, Xcode never has been prized at $4. It cost $4.99 for a while (when Mac OS X Lion was in beta), but it is free again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode#4.x_series)
You can run VS on a Mac, you can't run XCode on a PC. So if you don't have a Mac, $4 doesn't quite cut it.
But if you are willing to pay US$ 500 for VS on a Mac, you should be willing to pay US$ 600 for Xcode when you have a PC. Plus, it comes with a free Mac Mini.
But you can get VS Express for free. The only major thing it doesn't have that VS Pro has is the plugin system, which XCode doesn't even have to begin with!
Seriously? Are you implying this (http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-ed...) is somehow equivalent to this (http://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/features.html)?
Exactly which feature do you think can't be had by Windows developers for free?
I suppose you could argue that "oh, with Apple I get it all in one package..." Big deal. You also have to buy an overpriced PC to run OS X and you can't even run the OS in a virtual machine via a hyper-visor.
I suppose you could argue that "oh, with Apple I get it all in one package..." Big deal. You also have to buy an overpriced PC to run OS X and you can't even run the OS in a virtual machine via a hyper-visor.
Having everything integrated into one consistent package is the reason to use an IDE.
iOS device emulation and Unix excepted, everything is sort of available from other sources, but, then, how much money would the time to assemble, learn and operate your duct-tape software development stack be worth?
iOS device emulation and Unix excepted, everything is sort of available from other sources, but, then, how much money would the time to assemble, learn and operate your duct-tape software development stack be worth?
Xcode provides the functionality you need by default, whereas you need plugins in VS just to get source control.
There's also profiling support (not included in VSE), an x86-64 compiler (also not included), etc.
There's also profiling support (not included in VSE), an x86-64 compiler (also not included), etc.
Why do people need IDE source control integration? On windows there is a perfectly good explorer integration, on OSX there is perfectly good command line.
Explorer integration on windows beats any IDE integration simply because you don't need to launch IDE with a correct project/workspace just to see if you have local changes or something. Once you have multiple sandboxes of different projects of a decent size, IDE integration doesn't cut it.
(and an unrelated rant: how come xcode can't build two completely unrelated projects at once?)
(and an unrelated rant: how come xcode can't build two completely unrelated projects at once?)
> Why do people need IDE source control integration? ...
So that I can hit cmd-option-C (in Xcode), review my diffs and commit, all in less than ~10 seconds.
> Explorer integration on windows beats any IDE integration simply because you don't need to launch IDE with a correct project/workspace just to see if you have local changes or something. Once you have multiple sandboxes of different projects of a decent size, IDE integration doesn't cut it.
If I'm working on a project, I'm going to have the IDE running anyway. It sounds like you have a significantly different working model.
On OS X I'll fall back to the terminal for VCS without the IDE running, but it's not a replacement for in-IDE VCS.
So that I can hit cmd-option-C (in Xcode), review my diffs and commit, all in less than ~10 seconds.
> Explorer integration on windows beats any IDE integration simply because you don't need to launch IDE with a correct project/workspace just to see if you have local changes or something. Once you have multiple sandboxes of different projects of a decent size, IDE integration doesn't cut it.
If I'm working on a project, I'm going to have the IDE running anyway. It sounds like you have a significantly different working model.
On OS X I'll fall back to the terminal for VCS without the IDE running, but it's not a replacement for in-IDE VCS.
I really value being able to see a real time diff vs. the latest version under source control, and to hover over the sidebar gutter to show me the previous code.
Check in / check out isn't too valuable, but having add/delete automatically ripple through to source control is nice.
Check in / check out isn't too valuable, but having add/delete automatically ripple through to source control is nice.
You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices. This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!!
Furthermore, VS Express can easily be configured to support 64 bit compilation. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1865069/compile-64-bit-ap...
Furthermore, VS Express can easily be configured to support 64 bit compilation. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1865069/compile-64-bit-ap...
> You get Subversion and Git with Xcode and that's it. Exactly 2 choices.
Fortunately, those are the only too I need. I agree that Xcode would benefit plugins, but unlike VCE, the Xcode baseline is sufficient for my (and most people's) requirements.
> This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!!
Working with AVR Studio 5 (Visual Studio-based) and Visual Studio C++, I've found that IDE support for SVN makes a huge difference -- constantly falling back to TortoiseSVN is obtuse, annoying, and time consuming.
Fortunately, those are the only too I need. I agree that Xcode would benefit plugins, but unlike VCE, the Xcode baseline is sufficient for my (and most people's) requirements.
> This is simply not a big deal in Windows where SCM can be directly integrated into the graphical file browser!!
Working with AVR Studio 5 (Visual Studio-based) and Visual Studio C++, I've found that IDE support for SVN makes a huge difference -- constantly falling back to TortoiseSVN is obtuse, annoying, and time consuming.
> Well, why should I shell out $479 for VS when I can get Xcode for $4?
$0 actually, the Xcode license is included in the OSX license. Xcode 4.0 (on Snow Leopard) was a bit of a special case, as it was a major Xcode release out of sync with OS releases and was thus sold for $5 as it was not covered by SL's Xcode 3 license[0], but it's gone back to free (and Lion only) as soon as Lion was released.
[0] all of this is according to Apple's legal and accounting, who are apparently a bunch of nutcase fruit-fuckers.
$0 actually, the Xcode license is included in the OSX license. Xcode 4.0 (on Snow Leopard) was a bit of a special case, as it was a major Xcode release out of sync with OS releases and was thus sold for $5 as it was not covered by SL's Xcode 3 license[0], but it's gone back to free (and Lion only) as soon as Lion was released.
[0] all of this is according to Apple's legal and accounting, who are apparently a bunch of nutcase fruit-fuckers.
Apple got religion about Sarbanes-Oxley when they were struck with a couple of major accounting scandals in one year.
What do you mean Bizspark isn't enough? You get every single piece of development software, operative systems, hell even server software for free. How is that not enough?
[deleted]
I'm not sure your comparison with Photoshop is great - Adobe aren't trying to get people to produce images specifically for sale in the "Adobe Photoshop Store", where Adobe would get a 20% cut of the sale price.
In this case, if an app developed by these tools and sold by Microsoft is a hit, Microsoft will be taking money from both sides.
Microsoft are free to do what they want, but if developers choose to use alternative platforms, then Microsoft lose out on the real profit centre of marketplace sales.
In this case, if an app developed by these tools and sold by Microsoft is a hit, Microsoft will be taking money from both sides.
Microsoft are free to do what they want, but if developers choose to use alternative platforms, then Microsoft lose out on the real profit centre of marketplace sales.
There are and will continue to be (I would assume) free tools for developing for Windows, including Windows 8. The Express tools are quite capable of doing the job. If you need the extra power afforded by the full version of Visual Studio, then pay for it, because you probably aren't really a hobbyist at that point.
Some of the express tool limitations are quite surprising really, like the lake of source/revision control.
You might only be a hobbyist, but source code control is still good practice.
Either way, my point isn't really that the tools cost money, but that Microsoft will make more money from good quality apps being sold through their marketplace than they ever will do from sales of Visual studio to smaller developers.
This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner.
You might only be a hobbyist, but source code control is still good practice.
Either way, my point isn't really that the tools cost money, but that Microsoft will make more money from good quality apps being sold through their marketplace than they ever will do from sales of Visual studio to smaller developers.
This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner.
The lack of source control is not an unreasonable criticism. However, it's exclusion from Visual Studio Express does not stop a developer from using source control.
> This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner.
I think you've hit on the issue. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't mind giving VS to you for free. What they mind is giving VS to most companies for free. And when you release the product as "free for personal use', it becomes a major pain to make sure companies actually pay for it. It's easier to have a normal price and make specific exceptions (DreamSpark, BizSpark, etc.).
> This is especially true given that Microsoft are willing to almost give away Visual Studio in small licence quantities if you sign up as a Microsoft business partner.
I think you've hit on the issue. My guess is that Microsoft doesn't mind giving VS to you for free. What they mind is giving VS to most companies for free. And when you release the product as "free for personal use', it becomes a major pain to make sure companies actually pay for it. It's easier to have a normal price and make specific exceptions (DreamSpark, BizSpark, etc.).
I find this idea that hobbyists don't need good tools to practice their hobbies interesting. It's like saying someone shouldn't have a good car because he/she doesn't drive a cab.
> Why shouldn't hobbyists pay for tool?
Developers are less likely (significantly so in my view) to invest their time in a platform that treats tinkerers and hobbyists as second class citizens by providing hamstrung free tools.
I've always firmly believed that the MS development stack is both impressive technically and wonderful to work in. It seems to me they could have a much more vibrant open source and free application community if they gave away full copies of Visual Studio to individuals and continued to charge businesses.
Developers are less likely (significantly so in my view) to invest their time in a platform that treats tinkerers and hobbyists as second class citizens by providing hamstrung free tools.
I've always firmly believed that the MS development stack is both impressive technically and wonderful to work in. It seems to me they could have a much more vibrant open source and free application community if they gave away full copies of Visual Studio to individuals and continued to charge businesses.
If you still maintain your college .edu email account, you could join Dreamspark and get a legit copy of Visual Studio Pro for free. If you're interested in XNA, while the regular XNA game studio is free, the student version lets you join App Hub for free (instead of the $99/year fee).
https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx
https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx
Not getting into the visual studio thing, what's the logic behind charging someone to develop apps that you get a 70% (for the first 25k at least) cut from?
Similarly, Apple charges $100/year for the iOS Developer Program. At least Xcode is only $5.
Probably because not everyone will sell the apps they developed using Visual Studio in "the store". Visual Studio is used by tons of enterprises for developing software that will not be sold directly to consumers.
It's an intentional barrier to entry. Reviewing apps costs money. Charging a nominal fee limits the number of people who submit completed-broken or pointless apps.
I would have thought it's an incentive to not get banned, so preventing spammers etc. from just signing up for a million accounts as old ones get shut down.
The express version is free and is meant for hobbyists and individuals. If you were to form a small company, you might be able to get a bit more than that for free.
http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/03/you-should-be-using-mic...
http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/12/03/you-should-be-using-mic...
They don't want to undermine the market of Windows development tools. More choice leads to happier developers. Of course they could give them away for free and recuberate the costs somewhere else but then goodbye Borland (already happend ;) )
[deleted]
The cheapest Visual Studio is totally free (Express).
I don't mind MS trashing where's it's due (crap js & imgs for code snippets for example), but don't spout total nonsense.
Also I paid nothing like the price you're quoting for my BizSpark subscription, MS offer different prices to startups. I believe there's a web focused one that's even cheaper, though I can't remember the name.
I don't mind MS trashing where's it's due (crap js & imgs for code snippets for example), but don't spout total nonsense.
Also I paid nothing like the price you're quoting for my BizSpark subscription, MS offer different prices to startups. I believe there's a web focused one that's even cheaper, though I can't remember the name.
Express is hobbled; no plugins (so you can't use SVN/git plugins), and doesn't ship with things like the 64-bit compiler.
It's basically trial-ware. I have no problem with paying for tools, especially for commercial product development.
However, the price point is high for a hobbyist tool, and the free version is frustratingly hobbled.
Given that I can use IntelliJ, Eclipse, and Xcode for free (Android/iOS) -- it will hurt broad adoption.
It's basically trial-ware. I have no problem with paying for tools, especially for commercial product development.
However, the price point is high for a hobbyist tool, and the free version is frustratingly hobbled.
Given that I can use IntelliJ, Eclipse, and Xcode for free (Android/iOS) -- it will hurt broad adoption.
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...
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...
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.
True, but you have to pay to publish on Android Market. IIRC its $100/year.
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/an...
http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/an...
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.
You do realize that this is in regards to the store for Windows 8 that runs on the desktop (as well as tablets)?
as the windows desktop store is going to be metro only, i dont see it being a roaring success
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
$25,000 is a pipe dream for the vast, vast majority of mobile apps.
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.
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.
Link to Microsoft blog (source): http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsstore/archive/2011/12/06/anno...
Already Posted (yesterday): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3322320
Already Posted (yesterday): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3322320
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Time for my to pull out my visual studio!
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.