

The Windows Store... why did I sign up with this mess again? - nhebb
http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2012/09/12/the-windows-store-why-did-i-sign-up-with-this-mess-again.aspx

======
aparadja
This sounded awfully much like Apple's app store process. Different details,
but a horrible and unintuitive experience nonetheless.

Is it simply difficult to make a good developer signup workflow, or are both
of these companies unmotivated to make any effort on the front?

------
bitwize
Is your bank run by like a 90-year-old man?

Because I have a bank-issued credit card also, and I can log in and see my
activity, even pending purchases that haven't cleared yet.

~~~
jrochkind1
The dude is in Europe. Most people in Europe don't even have credit cards,
really. Credit card infrastruture is way less developed in Europe. (Let alone
'less developed' parts of the world, which still have developers). The whole
world is not the US.

~~~
bitwize
Dude, have you _been_ to Europe? Because credit cards are freakin' everywhere
there and have super-advanced James Bond anti-fraud smartchips in them. You
don't even have to reach for a cheque book (that's how they spell it in
Euroland) because the cards do everything.

UK ATMs even have two slots in them: one is labeled "CIVILISED PEOPLE" and has
a smartchip reader; the other is labeled "YANKEE TOSSERS" and has a magstripe
reader.

~~~
jrochkind1
you sure those aren't debit/check cards? May also vary in different European
countries.

[http://www.foreignersfinances.com/money-around-the-world-
cre...](http://www.foreignersfinances.com/money-around-the-world-credit-card-
use-in-europe/)

I think most of those fancy debit/check cards do not have visa or mastercard
serials, and thus can not be used to pay American websites that take credit
cards (unlike American debit cards that have visa serials and use the same
processing network as credit cards).

------
stephengillie
Oh, the pains of spending all day filling out forms and spending $180 in
licensing to become set up in the Windows store. The agony!

This sounds like the same signup process is in use for both M and Desktop
apps. You could probably start making M-ui based programs too, and even host
them in the store!

Why ARE you going through all of this effort, since you're so quick to point
out the small the benefit to you? Why not just forget it all and just sell
your programs from your own website? Do you regularly place yourself in
disadvantaged situations so you'll have a reason to be angry later?

~~~
binarycrusader
Not quite $180. More like $300 dollars for the first year, and potentially at
least $800 a year after that. Apple's offer is generous by comparison. Or did
you miss the part where the pricing is introductory on the required
certificates?

------
cooldeal
>Now, about live accounts. You might know this: live accounts are tied to
everything you do with Microsoft. So if you have an MSDN subscription, e.g.
the one which costs over $5000.-, it's tied to this same live account. But the
fun thing is, you can login with your live account to the MSDN subscriptions
with just the account id and password. No additional code is mailed to you.
While it gives you access to all Microsoft software available, including your
licenses.

>Why the draconian security theater with this Windows Store, while all I want
is to publish some desktop applications while on other Microsoft sites it's OK
to simply sign in with your live account: no codes needed, no verification and
no certificates?

Cannot believe he's serious. Doesn't he see the massive malware problem with
Windows applications? Microsoft is going to such great lengths so that anyone
submitting applications with malware, disguised or not, will have some
accountability later. i.e Expect MS and/or law enforcement to come after you,
that's why all the identity checking. Also, this discourages fly-by-night
operations from trying to submit malware to the store.

Comparing that to MSDN login is a pretty invalid comparison. If someone hacks
in to your MSDN account, MS potentially loses a few thousand worth of
software. If people are able to distribute malware through Windows Store, care
to estimate the damage caused by the inevitable headline "Microsoft Windows
Store distributes malware" even though MS just links to the software ?

Apple's answer to this was to heavily sandbox OS X apps, due to which there
was a lot of outcry with developers jumping ship to normal distribution.

Also note that Microsoft is not forcing developers to pay 30% of the desktop
software sale price like Apple is, so the cost of those certificates might pay
for itself down the line.

~~~
TillE
> Also note that Microsoft is not forcing developers to pay 30% of the desktop
> software sale price like Apple is

"That percentage is 30%, unless and until your app takes in total Net Receipts
of USD$25,000, after which time the percentage is 20% for that app."

So there's little or no difference for smaller developers.

~~~
recoiledsnake
You're talking about Metro(WinRT) apps which are hosted and distributed by
Microsoft.

The OP and the article are talking about desktop apps, which the store will
only have a link to the developers website. The cut is zero for desktop apps.

------
vaultboy21
i for one feel that microsoft is completely justified in actually being
stricter with these desktop listings in the windows store..

these apps don't go through the same certification processes as do the modern
apps that sit alongside them in the store, but they get all the
discoverability from being in there.. to a consumer, all apps via an app store
are assumed to be stable and safe (even if they link to an external site to
complete payment). just the fact that they're listed there in the _windows_
store provides a de-facto stamp of approval that these apps are vetted by
microsoft.

if they aren't sufficiently strict and maleware (or process-hogging apps) get
through it would undermine both trust in microsoft and in the reliability of
the app store which would probably hurt all devs.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
"Reliability of the app store"????

This goes back to the beginning of the internet, where folks were reluctant to
link to other sites because they might have 'bad stuff'. Does anybody alive
think Microsoft is responsible for stuff they link to? When you have to buy
the stuff on some obviously-3rd-party website?

Paying to link to a 3rd rate store is not worth any of the money or hassle
Microsoft put the guy through. Its exactly as if a bloated corporation
overdesigned the process - full of arrogant assumptions and pointless theatre.

~~~
vaultboy21
that may make sense to you, but for the average consumer i doubt they'll
differentiate. microsoft has built and will be promoting the windows app store
as _the_ place to find and download apps (and on some devices, windows rt
tablets, it will be the only place)

ios popularized the app store and their model, which has defined it as a safe
reliable place to find apps that won't fuck-up your system, has become the
standard (many may suck, but they're generally not harmful). microsoft is
doing the same with the windows store and in the case of metro/modern apps,
that holds true. but for desktop apps (which many people do, and will still,
want) that’s not true. they have deeper-access to the system and are not
sandboxed. so it makes sense to try to differentiate malware and crap from
valuable desktop-style applications, which is exactly what they’re trying to
do..

and microsoft does not charge for these desktop application ‘store listings’,
and they are not required. they do however look like a good option for desktop
application developers to showcase their offerings within (the increasingly
common model of) a managed store, improving discoverability. if they let
anyone publish apps without trying hard to verify the identity of the
developer and reliability of the application (as they're not 'certifying'
these like the metro apps) then it would entirely undermine the whole point of
the store..

