
Developers: Don't Treat the Windows Store like the iOS App Store - Aaronontheweb
http://blog.markedup.com/2012/10/win8-developers-dont-make-the-terrible-mistake-of-treating-the-windows-store-like-the-ios-app-store/
======
mickrobk
I don't know - the underlying argument here, that developers need to avoid a
race to the bottom isn't particularly new, new to Microsoft [0], or in my
opinion convincing. This article seems like a strange mix of a Microsoft
marketing piece, and a call for app developer collusion. In other industries
it seems almost by definition that the worth of the product is what it's
selling for -- .99 cents for most apps. Arguments along the lines of "surely
apps are worth more because, c'mon look at the price of coffee," use only
emotion based on how much work we see go into those as developers not the
value provided to users. It's very easy to blame poor revenue as a marketplace
problem rather than a product problem and it's this type of thinking that
drives this conclusion rather than proper analysis.

A hit driven industry can be brutal but I'm not convinced that the app store
is more of one than traditional software, social websites, marketplaces, and
games all spring to mind as places where success is very hit driven. Even
outside our industry: books, television, movies, music, fashion - these all
all hit driven because that is what fits best with where the demand is.

* In the television industry most shows have both higher production costs and lower prices than software, does this mean this industry is broken?

* Increasingly for app store purchases with higher prices I hear about the apps from avenues other than the Apple featured list (ex drawing apps, higher priced games.) It seems that the marketing channel that is being provided for free is being mistaken for the only way to market.

Fundamentally as a developer if I want my app to sell for more money, I should
make it bring more value to the customer, not hope for minimum pricing
constraints on all apps. It's a great thing as a consumer that distribution
and marketing channels like the app store have made it possible for me to use
more software, and spend more money on software than I ever did on a pc.

[0] See minimum pricing of Xbox live games on both Xbox and Windows Phone

~~~
Aaronontheweb
"This article seems like a strange mix of a Microsoft marketing piece, and a
call for app developer collusion."

Author here; definitely not asking for collusion. More specifically, here is
what I said:

"Look, you’re a developer – not a rodent in a maze. You should be able to
recognize the pattern and the habit-forming behavior from a distance: if you
bring iOS’s terrible economics to Windows 8, then Win8 will have similarly
terrible economics.

Microsoft set the minimum price of an app in the Windows Store to $1.49 for a
reason: to give developers a clean slate on app economics. You want a better
opportunity than iOS? Then don’t ship iOS-utility (low-utility) apps with iOS
prices on a platform that is purposefully engineered to do better!"

What I'm asking developers to do is: don't ship fart apps and other toys that
pollute the iOS app store. Do what Router .CoCPit did and take advantage of
WinRT's rich feature set (UPnP support in that particular instance) to deliver
apps that are higher utility and thus worth more.

WinRT's native capabilities give developers access to a lot of things that
could only be done through traditional desktop apps previously, and combines
it with an App Store distribution model that has some new twists on pricing
and monetization (expiring in-app purchases, for instance.)

I'm telling developers to take advantage of that and not blindly replicate
what they did on iOS or Android.

WinRT will create opportunities for developers to build sustainable businesses
off of higher utility, higher price,d and highly targeted applications - apps
that are used by 10s of thousands, not millions.

The hit-driven mentality that pervades iOS need not apply here if we realize
what we have in front of us.

Does that make more sense?

~~~
ssebro
I think you don't understand individuals. We just want to eat - Individual
developers really only care about making money.

If a fart app is going to make an individual developer good money, nothing you
can say will stop them from being made.

If developers can seemingly make more money by charging less, nothing you can
say will make them stop charging less.

Microsoft set a price floor to attract developers who aren't thinking about 1
year in the future, when Microsoft will either remove that floor because their
platform is successful enough (they don't have to court developers), or they
will kill the platform itself (and your app).

~~~
gurkendoktor
> Individual developers really only care about making money.

I think it is worse than this, (some) individual developers care about getting
rich with one lucky, undeserved hit app. If they cared about a good _average_
income, they would get a proper job as an iOS developer instead.

The bad news for Windows 8 is that this behavior will be at its peak right
after opening the store. On the rather mature market of iOS, I haven't heard
of overnight fart-app millionaires in a while.

------
soup10
The developers have nothing to do with it. The types of apps and pricing
structure that will appear in the store depends entirely on how the store
owner curates and presents the apps. Developers will obviously just price to
maximize/revenue or exposure depending on their goals.

Steam for example has none of the same problems as the app store because they
very actively curate, and they don't let the riff raff in, which erodes
consumer confidence in shopping in the store.

Apple on the other hand, actively structures their store to drive down prices.
The busiest, most profitable placement in the store is the top volume charts.
Which naturally means that developers will lower their prices to climb the
charts and get better placement. Additionally they don't curate much, or allow
demos, so consumer confidence that they will like the app they buy is low.

~~~
akurtzhs
> "Steam for example has none of the same problems as the app store because
> they very actively curate, and they don't let the riff raff in, which erodes
> consumer confidence in shopping in the store."

I love Steam, but they don't police it as much as you think.

First off, pre-orders are always problematic as Steam doesn't know if a new
game is going to be good or an unfinished tech demo that was released one year
too early, which was the case for a game I pre-ordered last year. If it's bad
enough they'll do refunds, but you need to push them and they won't always
grant them if you don't ask in a timely manner.

More troubling, they sell games that they know are broken. Full Spectrum
Warrior is one example that I can think of. The game tries to resolve a no-
longer existing address hundreds of times a second and lags horribly. It's
easily fixed but Steam support doesn't care because it's not Valve's game.

Steam does a lot of things right, but it's very much a buyer beware situation,
and for higher stakes than a $0.99 app.

~~~
jgoewert
Yeah, the games will have problems, but you don't need to sift through
hundreds of lame cash-in microapps that make early-2000 era "punch the monkey"
Flash adds look gameplay rich to deal with.

I was assuming the meaning for that statement was on that point, not on a
developer supporting an 8 year old game.

------
zmmmmm
I've thought for a while that the Apple app store has become very problematic
for independent software developers. Somehow the consumer expectation for the
reasonable price of an app has been driven below $2 no matter how much utility
it provides. I hear people regularly complaining when apps they will use for
hundreds of hours cost more than $3. Or bitching because the developer of such
an app did not reply to their email (when the time spent answering such an
email might be $5 - $10 based on a reasonable wage for the developer). We have
major hit games that would have cost $50 on a console or PC coming out for $3
- $5 on phones and tablets. The prices to me are just not sustainable. At the
moment, the excitement and opportunity of working in the mobile software
industry is still driving developers to be willing to ship things way under
cost just to develop their skills, gain a foothold and to participate in
something they enjoy. But this can't last forever, and I'm not sure how it is
going to correct itself.

------
notlisted
Somewhat relevant, how it all started on OSX:
[http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/06/first-wave-of-mac-app-
st...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/06/first-wave-of-mac-app-store-apps-
features-broad-range-of-prices/)

@Author: for the latest numbers: [http://www.distimo.com/leaderboards/apple-
mac-app-store/unit...](http://www.distimo.com/leaderboards/apple-mac-app-
store/united-states/business/paid)

App store pricing is a function of intrinsic value to the customer and
competition in the market. No matter what you propose, the race to the bottom
(optimal) can only be avoided if similarly skilled developers in cheaper
countries can be kept out of the store. Good luck with that...

Initial market leaders have limited choices: out-market, out-innovate, out-
price or out-service the competition. Deliver value or perish. It's a 'win'
for the consumer, who can vote with their wallets (now transparent) and their
reviews (also transparent). In general, it's a win in terms of quality and
experience for the consumer, and for the small developer as well.

I am very happy about this. Big name companies can no longer get away with
crappy software and crappy support. Little guys can shine. For most developers
amongst us, this is an opportunity, not a threat.

PS Though I like the feature of 15min review on Android, I think this breaks
the feedback and quality cycle (who bothers to complain if you got your money
back?!?). They should abandon this mechanism.

------
programminggeek
Smart developers will charge money one way or another, but there _will_ be a
race to the bottom for most verticals. Now that a single individual for $100
can get a distribution license and ship an app that does something, the
barrier is too low to force higher prices or higher quality. As long as that
individual is willing to sell their product for cheaper than the next product,
eventually there is a race to the bottom.

Software's incremental cost is $0 on the app store, so you can sell it for $0
and throw a few ads on it, and if the dev makes > $0 they might be happy with
that, and if they aren't they'll adjust prices upward until they get what they
want.

Also, this doesn't happen with physical distribution usually because things
can't sell for less than the cost to manufacture, distribute, and sell. At
least, the price for physical goods doesn't hit $0.

------
ckluis
Slightly rough characterization of iOS apps, but I must agree that apps on
Windows 8 desktop can essentially be viewed as full software products. Plus,
it will frequently be backed by businesses so money may not be as sensitive.

Personally, I hope that tradition PC game makers take advantage of the MS Shop
and continue to charge the same as they currently do. This could translate
very well for other software products/apps as the games largely drove the $.99
revolution.

~~~
Aaronontheweb
Exactly - developers doing Windows 8 need to take advantage of the fact that
they get inexpensive distribution directly onto desktops and laptops, where
their apps can be treated like "full software" products, as you put it, and
not mobile apps.

------
venomsnake
Really? Even now in its juvenile stage the Windows 8 store suffers from most
of the problems of the that plague the AppStore - the microsoft imposed
censorship, guarantees that some interesting apps will never be made. And
never be payed for. So you are left with yet another bland clone.

The other thing that the store gives you is low visibility. Because there is
one and one only channel of distribution for these apps - currently if I take
only the most popular games - it is a list of 60 or 90 titles. I cannot read
the titles of the games, let alone try some non-free. There are no humble
bundles, gogs, desuras, gamersgate or key-sites from which to obtain or which
can increase the visibility and renown. And no - review sites are not good
enough because the seller loyalty lays with the customer. The professional
reviewer usually with the company that pays the bills.

The problem with apps is there are too many of them. You get overloaded. Where
as with an open platform you can tune to the distribution channel that serves
your needs best in the app store world this is impossible.

------
JanneVee
I've said in other places and I'll say it again. One of the problems is that
Microsoft also takes a lot of money for their dev tools. The express editions
are limited with the things that can help your apps shine. AFAIK profiling is
only available in VS 2012 Professional and up. $500 can be hard to justify for
a moonlighting app dev. Heck I've even worked at companies where $500 for a
dev tool was too much.

This is actually contrary to Apple where they give you every opportunity with
their tools to make shiny apps and make their platform a joy to use.

And also I'm not saying that Microsoft should give away their tools for free.
I just think that the cost is too prohibitive to individual developers who
would like to make their apps "great" instead of "good enough". This could
mean that the store would be full of "good enough" apps. And if it is only
"good enough" why charge more?

~~~
FigBug
Visual Studio Premium is the first version with a profiler. It's currently
$6200.

~~~
JanneVee
According to
[http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/compare#f...](http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/compare#feature-
chart-heading) it is professional for VS 2012. But it is still expensive
unless you are dedicated.

------
SoftwareMaven
I hope this works out for the Windows developers, but I have a suspicion that
it wasn't the developers alone who ruined the iOS App Store.

And, unfortunately, it really is "ruined"[1]. I started my current project as
an iPhone app, then decided to move to an iPad, but, six months ago, after
really evaluating the market, I realized I needed to make my product a web-
based subscription with mobile features (probably embodied as apps). There was
no way I could charge enough for my app to make a business, since I'm not
creating a product that caters to the tens of millions.

1\. It is ruined in the context of being able to make a living on an app
without getting insanely lucky. There is little a company can do to market
around the luck factor, and prices are so low that there is no middle ground.

~~~
partisan
"It is ruined in the context of being able to make a living on an app without
getting insanely lucky."

That was a moment in time, really. It wasn't long enough to get nostalgic
about it. The market was just developing. In any case, you had to be insanely
lucky to create the right app at the right time then as well.

------
columbo
>The iOS App Store is a Race to the Bottom

It is very easy to build something the 2nd time especially when your
competitor has invested heavily into working out the kinks. For many software-
chop-shops it makes sense to find something with high downloads and without
much competition, rip it off, and sell it at 1/2 the price. Repeat ad nauseum.

I think the only way to curb this race to the bottom is to re-introduce brand
recognition to the consumer base. If software company X is known for producing
well-tested-reliable software then I wouldn't hesitate to pay 20-50% more for
their version of the software. Unless Windows Software does this I think it'll
just be another lowest-bidder-wins marketplace.

~~~
unoti
Cool idea, except 20-50% more of 99 cents is still squarely in the race-to-
the-bottom category, in my book.

------
stevenwei
The Mac App Store is a _much_ better comparison than iOS, and it's far from a
race to the bottom there. If you look at the Top 100 Grossing apps, only 10 or
so are priced at $4.99 or less.

Most of the apps are closer to the traditional desktop software pricing range
of $19.99 - $99.99.

------
HardyLeung
Despite all the criticism in this thread, I thank you for writing this, and I
hope you are right.

------
fennecfoxen
This article is a useful combination of "here are some very real reasons the
Windows app store is different" and "waaaaah i don't like competition don't
make things cheap and impair my ability to make a living off of users; you'd
better collude to make things more expensive or you're bad people." To the
first part, I say, bravo. To the second, I say, call me a waa-mbulance. :P

~~~
Aaronontheweb
Author here; I don't feel that way about #2 at all.

You know what I don't want? To read bunch of stories about how the Windows
Store is a "terrible opportunity for developers" and "no one is making money"
because developers recreated the same economic problems that plague the iOS
app store in the Windows Store.

Developers learn from their mistakes when they screw up their code; they
should similarly learn from their mistakes when they screw up their marketing
and pricing. So far, haven't seen much of the latter looking at what's
currently available in the Windows Store.

The bottom line is: as an app publisher, how you set price / payment
expectations with your user is almost more important than what your app
actually does if your goal is to build a sustainable business for yourself.
Taking the time to survey the ecosystem and realize that the market forces of
Windows 8 are different and potentially much more lucrative is well worth the
investment.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Well yes, and bravo to those sentiments, which are insightful and worthy of
praise... but then you say a bunch of things like: _"If developers like you
don’t screw it up, that is."_ "Your goal is to not do what your careless
friends in iOS-land did and create a hopeless ghetto of a marketplace." "You
as a developer have a responsibility when it comes to the economics of the
Windows Store."

I'm not the only one here who felt your "call to action" felt like a call to
collusion or bitterness at not being able to squeeze more money off the Apple
app store. If I make apps for the Windows store, I'll charge what I feel like
charging, thank you very much, and I'll have no one's moralizing lectures.
Thanks. :)

~~~
Aaronontheweb
"I'm not the only one here who felt your "call to action" felt like a call to
collusion or bitterness at not being able to squeeze more money off the Apple
app store."

Sorry you felt that way, but that's not what I said :)

You can charge what you want; just don't be surprised by the results if you
don't attempt to learn the market and realize your own value.

------
micah63
There are so many apps I might buy if I could try them, but I will never buy
apps that I can't try. The ad model sucks and the lite model (2 different
apps) sucks.

You should be able to install, use for 3 days, then it would get deleted from
your device if you don't buy it.

~~~
drcube
Wrong. NOBODY should have the power to delete things from my hard drive
without my permission.

~~~
eropple
Then you wouldn't get to use the store. There is no conflict.

------
emehrkay
Author doesn't seem to know about the Mac App Store
(<http://www.apple.com/osx/apps/app-store.html>)

~~~
Aaronontheweb
Author here; I love the Mac App Store and want to eventually use MonoMac to
port some of my Windows stuff over to it :)

<http://www.mono-project.com/MonoMac>

I had A LOT of trouble finding publicly available data on how the Mac App
Store is used. Sales figures, installs per day, price distribution, etc...

If you know something I don't, post it here and I'll do a follow-up.

~~~
eropple
_> Author here; I love the Mac App Store and want to eventually use MonoMac to
port some of my Windows stuff over to it :)_

I personally don't recommend this. I've been a big, big Mono booster over the
years, but I have a hard time trusting the developers behind it. (For an
illustrative example as to why, take a look at MonoTouch's problems with iOS
6. That bit my employer in the ass. It hasn't happened with MonoMac, but to me
there's a "yet" involved.)

As un-sexy as it is, C or C++ seem to be the way to go. It's what I'm doing
now, with a platform-appropriate hat on top that uses as little Objective-C
(on OS X) as possible.

------
cooldeal
Good points in the article, although I didn't like the condescending tone of
"step into my office for a talk".

Reminds me of the Sparrow mail client[1], which shut down in spite of having a
great product. Also, allowing a trial period and own in-app purchases is a
good move by Microsoft.

Also, how are the Mac OS X App Store developers and prices faring? I think
that's an important point of comparison that the author failed to make.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/you-
sh...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/you-shall-know-
google-by-its-trail-of-dead-a-sparrow-users-lament/)

~~~
Aaronontheweb
Author here; sorry that you didn't like the tone - was trying to do something
different stylistically and I can see how it comes across as condescending.
That was not my intention :(

I don't have as much data on the OS X app store - but prices do trend towards
traditional desktop economics moreso than native app economics.

Windows 8 will be interesting, because it's not just the desktop ecosystem -
it's also tablet and phone too. However, as I pointed out - I think the
dominant devices in market will be X86 and X64 for some time to come.

------
cmccabe
Don't worry, I won't "screw up" the Windows Store by accidentally developing
anything for it.

By the way, Adam Smith called. He wants to have a chat with you. Maybe you
should "step into his office."

