Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share (windows.com)
179 points by ductionist 15 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 107 comments

Here's how the new payment structure works:

> When Microsoft delivers a customer through other methods (tracked by an OCID), such as when the customer discovers the app in a Microsoft Store collection, through Microsoft Store search, or through any other Microsoft-owned properties, then you will receive 85 percent of the revenue from that purchase.

> When there is no CID or OCID attributed to a purchase, in the instance of a web search, you will receive 95 percent revenue.

So this is all about rewarding organic discovery, or paid discovery outside of Microsoft channels.

In other words, by allowing your app to be discovered first through the Microsoft Store search, you're paying Microsoft what amounts to a 10% commission.

And then, regardless of how it was discovered, you're paying 5% to Microsoft just for being on the platform.

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the ecosystem. On the one hand, it seems like a reasonable shifting of costs. If you rely mostly on Microsoft for acquiring new customers, then Microsoft should get a little bit more of a cut, and if you rely mostly on your own marketing methods, then it should get less. But on the other hand, part of the strength of an ecosystem-based business model is that it's a one-stop shop, and one would think that Microsoft would want to incentivize discovery happening within that ecosystem, not to disincentivize it.

That sounds about right, although 5% (or 15%) is a pretty good deal IMO for worldwide payment processing, installer and update distribution, DRM, and their built-in tools like crash reporting, push notifications, analytics, affiliation, and attribution.

>...and their built-in tools like crash reporting...

I'm assuming you mean if it has Azure Analytics packaged into it? Otherwise, I've never heard of WER (read: Watson) being available external of Microsoft; which could have been (and still could be, plausibly) a huge trove of information (if we're talking purely on a bug trends for various devices/flavours perspective).

If you're registered on their developer portal, you can upload public symbols (exports only) of your builds and receive stacks & problem signatures of any matching WER dump. I work for a small-to-mid-sized infosec company (with no special Microsoft partnership) and we've gotten WER crash reports of our UI component this way.

It’s insanely good deal. MSFT has to be losing money on that.

What? How?

Of the services on offer, only payment processing has significant cost to Microsoft. Things like crash reporting are solved problems whose cost should be approximately equal to the cost of hosting the data.

PayPal has established the absolute rock-bottom industry-floor of 2.9% + $0.30 for payment processing + fraud reduction.

Fraud reduction accounts for the majority of that percentage.

Patreon has established that they will completely go out of business at 5%.

Steam is taking 30% and Epic is taking 12%. Salaries, servers and regulation are expensive.

Microsoft offering 5% is a steal.

> PayPal has established the absolute rock-bottom industry-floor of 2.9% + $0.30 for payment processing + fraud reduction.

This is neither unique to PayPal or the actual floor.

2.9% + (roughly) $0.30 is pretty much the standard across all public facing credit card processors like PayPal (and their subsidiary Braintree), Stripe, Amazon Pay, Authorize.net, and more. I have heard rumors Stripe offers rates as low as 1.8% for large volume processors. Adyen charges $0.12 + 0.6% + interchange fee making them extremely lucrative for their customers (including Uber, Netflix, Etsy, Spotify).

Given Microsoft's size and expertise, I'd anticipate they are operating close to interchange rates around $0.10 + between 0.8% and 1.6%.

In Europe Stripe offers 1.4% + 25eurocent for EU cards, with the same 2.9% for non EU cards. Stripe actually charges US customers an extra 1% to process EU cards (3.9% total), plus a hefty forex fee. For a company like MS with a major EU presence the average rate will be skewed lower than what the market looks like.

The actual cost for credit/debit card processing is interchange itself, which averages to ~1% for grocers & about 2% for everyone else if your doing north of $200k a year in volume. High risk industries like cruises, concerts & similar will pay close to 5% (or more), as when the event doesn't pan out, all that cash will need to be refunded.

Fraud reduction is largely irrelevant on non tangible products though, especially when licenses can be revoked online.

Fraud reduction includes having to refund money, not just revoking licenses if the payment is reversed.

And paying exorbitant chargeback fees.

Chargeback fees to credit cards are still massive (even if you "win" the dispute)

Those are negotiable and even stripe and Braintree only charge $15.

Microsoft is probably big enough to negotiate really good terms for themselves.

I'd add hosting on top of that - like Apple, Google, etc., they don't charge you for distributing your app (which could be hefty, per paid transaction, if you have a low-converting trial or freemium app).

Even if Hosting many terabytes of data and paying for thousands of terabytes of downloads worldwide was free, people aren’t. It takes people to build and maintain hundreds of store fronts, localize them in dozens of languages, run marketing programs, provide support, developer tools, etc, etc, etc.

Like all digital goods, the marginal cost of MSFT doing this is zero. I don't think they are losing money on this, in terms of pure margins, its probably quite lucrative (though in absolute revenue, maybe not so much).

Credit card processing is not a digital good, per se. Microsoft has to pay Visa and Mastercard their x% + y cents, and has to deal with returns and fraud and whatnot. Which is not to say that they're losing money, but this isn't the true zero-marginal-cost scenario like a Google web search.

Truly though in accounting terms I think it falls under fixed negotiated cost and not marginal the fees are known and negotiated as a flat rate and adjusted gross selling prices reflects that so selling more goods does not increase the price of that cost

It's obvious from that structure that Microsoft realizes they are part of a larger ecosystem and that they aren't a dominant channel.

> if you rely mostly on your own marketing methods, then it should get less

That's usually how it is. You rely on your own website and blog for organic results and Google or Facebook or some other channel (billboards, TV, podcasts, etc.) for paid advertising. Microsoft and other app stores don't really fit into this equation, they're only good for partnership deals and SEO is harder to do in an app store.

Microsoft is just recognizing the reality for customers and realizing that they can possibly make up for it in volume. If I'm saving 10% from this new fee structure, that's more cash that I can re-invest into advertising in outside channels.

> That's usually how it is.

That's usually how it should be.

But if you collect payments through Apple App Store or Google Play because your apps are available on their platforms, even if customers didn't discover it from the stores but through your own marketing methods, the platforms get the full 30%. There are some ways to circumvent this, but not really.

[assumed flow is potential customer sees marketing/advertisement, clicks to website/ad, or goes to app store and searches for your app to download it, pays from within the app]

The Mac would be a better comparison than iOS. On the Mac, developers are free to circumvent the Mac App Store entirely and keep 100% of the revenue (minus whatever it costs them to process the payments, distribute the binaries, etc.)

And in fact this change specifically excludes Xbox (and, curiously, all games in general), which is the (remaining) Microsoft platform that's closest to iOS in terms of being locked down.

Mac is not a better comparison because we're talking about the Microsoft Windows Store in particular here, not "all software that can be run on Windows computers."

You are still free to circumvent all royalties to Microsoft by not listing your product on their store at all and marketing externally and keep 100% of the revenue, which is similar to the Mac, but the Windows Store is more akin to iTunes or Google Play.

So if they are browsing your website, decide they’ll probably purchase it, but then later they open up the Microsoft store and search for it there, you lose money you would’ve had if they’d immediately downloaded it from a link on your website?


Same if the customer thinks of buying your product at your own brand store, but then forgets, later they see it in a different store and buy it there. They pay the same RRP, but you see a smaller slice because the store keeps a cut.

Is this a problem? Not necessarily, if you're so sure customers would come back to your store then you can just refuse to sell it to other stores except as a retail product (so they couldn't afford to offer the same price as you)

It can be a problem if the store owner has some special privileges you don't have. Maybe they're the only one licensed to sell booze in the whole country. Or, take Apple, the only ones able to sell apps that actually work out of the box in an iPhone.

So far as I know, Microsoft aren't yet as abusive as Apple here. But I suppose that isn't helped by the fact that Microsoft's store isn't exactly a wild success.

If they click your link (that includes the `?cid` parameter) while they're on your website, I believe the `cid` value is cookied/stored with their Microsoft Store profile, and will be respected even if they buy later directly from the Store.

If they visit your website but don't click the link, then there's no way for the Store to attribute the sale to your website, so you'll probably be charged full freight (15%).

Can you just include an invisible iframe with that link so the cookie gets placed?

This is the problem that is common with most last-click attribution models, and isn't unique to this Microsoft store.

Hmm, I'm not sure what the case is, but it feels like direct search for an app by name shouldn't count. I'm not sure if there's an easy way though to differentiate a direct search and a general search term, depending on the app name.

Either way, it's better than 30% commission.

Well, Microsoft is at an impasse here: I work for a large Enterprise, and we of course use Windows almost exclusively, and perhaps this is not their target, yet I will say this: None of our apps are going through that store. They're all coming from direct from vendor purchases, of which Microsoft gets Zero.

under this model, it encourages (perhaps) some of the smaller/medium Enterprise vendors to give up having to deal with a payment system at all, in exchange for simplified distribution (if I read this correctly) and no more payment handling, and in exchange MS gets a 5% cut.

This to me makes complete sense. Most of the Windows ecosystem for software is mostly out side of Microsoft's hands. Indeed, it is the #1 strength of the platform beside its ubiquity.

I actually think this is a brilliant insight on the side of Microsoft, by inverting this model they get a non-zero slice of a a pie they previously did not have.

It also encourages more vendors to uptake the distribution model via their Store, which I think is ultimately what they want more than a cut of sales in aggregate.

Say nothing of the home user, who beyond MS Office perhaps never transacts at all with Microsoft when they buy other software.

So it’s worth 10% if someone uses the search bar in the store? Or if it’s on a top100 list? Those top100 are probably the apps that are most likely to push back against a 15% cut though.

Considering it's only half of the cut Apple takes 15% isn't very high

Live of the momentum, I don't think so.

I see a lot of Google ads going to apps and once they are there. Stop the ads.

Smart move

They might have backdoor negotiations on the revshare any ways.

The app is going to be in the Store either way tho, it's only a question of how the user ends up there.

Microsoft is like a competitor in a Three-legged race (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-legged_race) except both runners are running in opposite directions.

You have one side that's actively working to make Windows obsolete and another that's flailing about trying to make it relevant somehow.

I'm a bitter ex-Windows Phone user, so my perspective could be colored.

I was a WP7&8 user as well as developer and yes the whole story left me a bitter taste, especially at the end. I had fun getting phones for free, participating at MS hackhatons, making friends and of course learning to develop mobile apps but it seems every decisions by MS during after Mango have been against the consumer. Also at the time the store took 30% as well...

I'd be interested to take the pulse of HN:

When you are looking for a new Windows app, does opening up the store even cross your mind?

I nearly always go to a web search + download first. Or if it's something dev-centric I look at scoop or chocolatey. The Windows Store is far, far behind in my mindshare.

There are a few glimmers of hope though. Python has begun to distribute via the store which is cool. And the Linux distros available are helpful in some edge cases or for a quick dev environment.

My issues with the store apps are that most of them act like "apps" and not like "programs/applications". For example, they close on their own with no warning. I tried to use the store version of the Pandora app, but it would be closed when I left it paused for too long. Same with Facebook's Messenger. I don't want that. I want to be able to control when I open and close a program.

If you want to be in control, Windows is the wrong platform for you.

Yes, for example I am using Adobe XD and Paint.NET installed from the store.

I also have a couple of other games and utility apps.

Having the sandbox around is really nice from my user point of view.

Then as Windows/Web dev, I do like the rebooted version of COM as well.

I have - once opened up the app store to search for things on windows. It was after searching the web - but I barely use windows so the fact that I did at all is pretty remarkable really.

I found things closer to what I was looking for than I did on the web too, but still came to the conclusion that what I was looking for doesn't exist (a good non-mobile app for marking up pdf's with a stylus - the closest I've found is Microsoft Edge of all things).

I've started to install stuff from the store when it's awailable in the past year. Stuff like WinSCP is great - it's always current, it's 1-click, and developer also got some money from me for the effort.

Desperation move. Microsoft is probably looking at its internal Store numbers and realizing it is a failure.

I guess this is the final attempt. We'll see if it works.

They were talking about this change in 2017, and actually said it will come in 2018,so they kind of actually took too long to implement this.

That said, I'd say the Store is not breaking any records. It looks like their reaction to that is to allow other stores on Windows while taking a step back and concentrating on being a good platform.

I can understand Microsoft having an app store when Windows Phone and Windows RT were still around, but now Windows is all x86, so people aren't even installing desktop apps anymore outside of games and work-specific apps (say, R), that wouldn't appear on the app store anyway.

What's the most popular app on Windows Store anyway? I use Windows 10 every day and I've never noticed anything outside of Bejeweled, Candy Crush and other "mobile" type games.

A lot of classic x86 Win32 apps are in the Store these days, too. It is a safer way to buy and install such things. (Photoshop, iTunes, Office, etc.)

Windows is continuing to expand to ARM even without phones right now. The HoloLens 2 is reported to be built around a Qualcomm Snapdragon.

Windows 10 ARM tablets/netbooks are a product again, in trying to compete with Chrome OS, and it isn't a repeat of the Windows "RT" tablets because Windows 10 on ARM now supports x86 emulation and a lot of classic 32-bit Win32 applications.

Just because you currently don't have a use for the Store doesn't mean that no one has a use for the Store. It's nice finally having a proper central app installer/updater without every application developer installing their own baroque updater and running it on every Windows startup. Getting rid of the Apple Updater alone by installing iTunes from the Windows Store is such a relief.

This is an amazing deal for Win devs and one of many needed efforts if MS intends for the Microsoft Store to remain the number one platform for software downloads on Windows.

Currently I'm seeing much more dev excitement for platforms like Electron where you can slap a wrapper around your existing web tech but damn would I love to see a renaissance for native Windows apps. I feel like Microsoft botched native Windows dev by having many and competing eco systems, some which feel incredibly outdated. It says a lot when even they prefer Electron for stuff like Visual Studio Code.

Nice move! I hope that Google & Apple will reduce their 30% tax someday..

I think this system would work well for game platforms too, such as Steam. A big point of contention for Steam is, how much the platform does for advertising your game. By having two separate taxes depending on how the game was found, you can have the best of both worlds. If you do your own brand building and advertising, then those sales get a better cut, while the platform can also get their cut for the advertising they do.

This also aligns the incentives on what the platforms advertises, to some extent.

Steam already relinquishes their cut if the game is bought via a third party retailer. It costs nothing to generate or activate Steam keys outside the Steam store.

30% take is pretty standard across a lot of industries when dealing with affiliate arrangements.

I tried adding a web app to the store. Its extremely complicated compared to adding a hosted web app to chrome, where you just need an app manifest. For the windows store you need a bunch of xml files and it seems you must use their IDE. I want to build the package manually via command line so I can understand each step and then automate it.

>The new fee structure excludes all games and any purchases on Xbox consoles.

Interesting considering the rise of Epic Store

The Microsoft App Store is a complete graveyard so it hardly matters what they do or don’t do with it.

I feel like given the circumstances, Microsoft should probably make distribution free and collect no revenue, at least until the platform becomes popular.

There are costs to targeting the Windows platform, especially if you're doing things their new preferred way (UWP). Primarily a slow, difficult to work with development kit. Lots of mysterious crashes that you can't do much about, lots of leaky abstractions over COM.

If anything, Microsoft should be paying developers to target their store. I do personally prefer modern apps and the experience of the store, I just know not to reach for it first. As a customer I would appreciate more apps, they need to figure out a way to make the platform more appealing for developers.

They've attempted to do that before: https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/19/4124548/microsoft-paying-...

All that lead to was a bunch of similar looking apps of questionable quality flooding the store.

The damage done by that campaign is still ongoing. The Microsoft Store is flooded with copycat apps, web site shells, and rebranded versions of open-source software.

You can get a sense of the problem by browsing their "new and rising" feed:


That's a little different, because there was guaranteed money for just creating an app. If Microsoft took a 0% cut, it wouldn't be that different for app spammers - they'd still have to get people to pay for the app at some point.

Ultimately I don't think the difference between 15%, 5%, or 0% is that meaningful to an app developer. It's not going to turn your small number of Windows customers into a huge number, and 95% of a small dollar amount is not much less than 100% of a small dollar amount.

That was absolutely retarded. I remember they went around universities handing out Lumia 925 mobiles to anybody who uploaded a few apps... imagine the quality of the apps.

If only they had spent that money on actually making the OS better. Imagine that.

> If only they had spent that money on actually making the OS better. Imagine that.

What do you think they were trying to do? Apps are what make an OS good. Even if they caused 10,000 trash apps to be created and only 100 good ones, that's still 100 more good apps than they had before.

Not having a new toolkit every version would've been good. Allowing users of WP 7.* to update to 8, good too. Allowing all users of 8.1 to update to 10.

Also their own apps were poor. I remember Skype for WP 8 was absolutely unusable. MS is composed of many teams and many of them clearly didn't give a shit about WP.

They don't force you to do UWP any more. You can publish Win32 apps to the Store. For what it's wort, doesn't seem like lots of developers are doing it.

You can also publish command line apps to the store. Which is cool...

You can also make UWP command line apps https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/launch-resume/c...

Are there any stats on how successful / unsuccessful their store is?

I had to request refunds on half of the apps that I purchased because they disappeared or completely ceased functioning?

I only bought items on the Windows Store because I had a few $25 Windows Store vouchers as well.

They stopped selling Music around January 2018?

What was Microsoft's cut before?

30% on one-off purchases of apps and IAPs, and 15% of subscriptions.

Will this kill Steam? I suspect that's their main adversary as in mobile space they are non-existing, yet they can't dominate gaming space on PC.

Games are still 30%, so no.

Apparently Microsoft believes that there is demand for a Windows Store and its apps, but games on the Windows Store are so successful that they don't need the cut.

I would not have thought that possible, but I don't have access to Microsoft's business metrics.

I thought the same thing, but there's a rumor suggesting Microsoft may make Xbox One games available on Windows via the Windows Store. It seems a bit far fetched to me, but not impossible. If true, they might be right about not needing to cut it and still be able to threaten Steam.

Maybe, but from a user perspective steam is incredible. They were the first major game distributor to introduce a 2 week no-questions-asked refund period, in-home streaming works amazingly (even shooting games work at an acceptable level), their DRM isn't egregious (for example, charging back only revokes the licences that were charged back on, it doesn't close your entire account like on Xbox), and the updates Valve releases for the client are consistently good. The only problem I can remember them having is their entire lack of support, and apparently they have great support now. Unless people stop offering games on Steam, I don't plan to buy them anywhere else.

It's not about buyers, but publishers. If a publisher gets 95% of revenue by being exclusively marketed by MS, versus 70% on Steam, they might team up with MS instead. Surely if MS dominates the space after some time, they increase fee, but nobody thinks more than a quarter-two ahead in gaming industry.

I think in most cases you're correct, but store exclusives are somewhat common right now, and users tend to hate it (google "metro exodus controversy" and you'll see what I mean - and that wasn't even exclusive to one store, you just got a discount for buying it from Epic).

That said, I don't have access to any data about sales - it's possible that just as many people buy it regardless of what store it's sold on. But I would suspect that is unlikely given how easy it is to pirate something and gamers' tendencies to believe they're owed a game.

They don't quite require that you log into your desktop with an online account to use the store, but the route around this is non-obvious.

If only they did this while Windows Phone was still a thing, maybe (and a big MAYBE) it would have fared better in terms of developer engagement compared to iOS and Android.

That's cool... assuming you can get in:


I found out that our app was crushed after 2 weeks of development.

Basically, they won't let us in because we use Electron.

Electron is developed in part (primarily) due to Github which they now own.

TWO WEEKS I spent porting to the MS App Store only to have them just crush us ...

It's great that I can make 95% of zero...

But seriously. If anyone from Microsoft is listening - please unblock us ;)

I'm considering submitting this as a PWA but it's missing a lot of features as a PWA.

Hi, I'm a Microsoft employee and own the certification for apps. Electron is allowed. I checked with my team it. The failure is related to browsing capabilities which have to comply with 10.2.1.

No vested interest in this whatsoever - just wanted to let you know that it's cool you picked this up on HN, followed it up internally and responded publicly to clarify the situation.

That kind of transparency really helps build confidence in Microsoft Store as a platform. It's important to show that the team is accessible (and, frankly, human). It also helps to correct misleading narratives (e.g. "MS Store doesn't Electron apps").

Definitely thanks for following up.

We were eventually approved!!! so if you had any impact here I really really appreciate it!

This strikes me as a very deceptive post - I hope not intentionally.

They aren't rejecting your code because you use Electron. They are rejecting your code because you use Electron to browse the web.

To see why this is a bad idea, one only has to look so far as the third post currently on the from page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321775 Do you think that microsoft can reasonably rely on this patch being promptly applied to all the electron apps in it's store?

Electron may primarily be developed by GitHub, a recent acquisition, but it is not well suited for this purpose.

You can see that this post is tricking other people in the replies to it, e.g. the one discussing slack, the first reaction of the microsoft employee that kindly replied, and the person who replied saying "I have a electron app in the microsoft store".

In fact, while I may be mistaken, it looks to me like you are currently serving binaries vulnerable to the exploit linked, which is known to be being attacked in the wild.

Your package-lock.json references electron 3.1.3, which was released at the end of January, while that vulnerability was only patched Feb 27. I think (but you should check) that 3.1.5 includes the patch. Edit: It doesn't. The only way to get this patch seems to be to update to Electron 5.x.

Yes.. I disclose this in the post that I linked to...

It's not even a disclosure. I don't claim it's because they're blocking electron apps as a blanket.

Heh. This reminds me of something else with using Microsoft. My employer uses Office365 with a smart card authentication for email. In order to use the encryption features, you have to enable an activeX plugin from Microsoft. Microsoft Edge does not trust the Microsoft published plugin and disables it every time I boot up Edge (EDIT: I should note even when I attempt to enable it, it shows up as "disabled" on the extension tabs, and I have never gotten encryption/signing working on Edge). It only works on Internet Explorer (which Microsoft is actively trying to get people off).

I get the impression they don't do extensive Q&A with their products.

Eh, half the problem is that there are far too many options to maintain, many of them legacy. Smart card authentication has worked great in Edge on Office 365 for years without any plugins at Microsoft, so I imagine your employer has got the wrong box checked somewhere triggering a fall back to ActiveX.

   Eh, half the problem is that there are far too many options to maintain
In microsofts case, this is partially self-inflicted, and cultural.

Enterprises want options. How else are they going to disable solitaire and make work as miserable as possible?

So the smart card authentication works (I can log in), it's using the smart card to encrypt/sign emails.

Oh, I could certainly see that. I don't recall encryption/signing working very well in the best of cases. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest submitting a bug report (I think there's a button somewhere in the O365 web interface). ActiveX is very deprecated and likely will be removed from Edge as part of the move to Chromium (just my personal speculation - I don't know if that's the official plan).

Seems like there might be more to it than that, since Slack is written in Electron and is in the Windows Store.

There is something more to it: Slack is really popular and MS really wanted it on the store so they let them ignore the rule.

Slack isn't the only Electron app in the MS Store. There's an entire guide on building Electron apps for the Store:


Microsoft devs have even contributed to the tool mentioned in that article (and Microsoft is listed in the MIT license copyright statement):


The "more to it" is covered in the article.

They don't want things 'browsing the web' without you being forced to use MS Edge.

Does your application allow arbitrary web browsing, or just display its own content in a web view?

You preview content on the web, then capture it locally.

It's not really 'browsing' as you give it one URL and if that URL works you 'capture' it for offline storage.

Call it whatever you want, you're running untrusted third party code in electron, which is exactly what they should be worried about and preventing.

You weren't even blocking code from common malware providers such as ad networks last I checked... Glancing at the code it looks like you still aren't.

I do have an electron app on the Windows Store which is not particularly popular. I don't think Electron is just the reason why you were rejected. They might reject you once but keep trying might work. Do provide reason why your electron app is using something native that a normal website cannot achieve.

It is not surprising that in terms of develop engagement, Microsoft is at a huge disadvantage. They need some differentiation to attract developers.

I think that's part of it. It's also a more open platform, so they have to compete with, say, Stripe or Digital River etc. on their commission percentages to get the big Windows software titles on board.

This is a smart move that will drive more traffic to the Windows Store. They should have done this ages ago!

I'm surprised it isn't 100% – it should have been so from the outset.

It's not like Microsoft really needs the revenue from the half-dozen apps available in their store right now. What they need is momentum.

If I were in charge of making this decision I would pull the levers on every incentive I can give developers, cause God knows most people don't even remember the MS Store exists...

Compared to the massive cut Apple takes on their app stores Microsoft's revenue split seems pretty generous.

I downvoted your comment because you aren't being intellectually honest to suggest it makes sense for them to provide payment processing, update management and DRM for free to app developers when at the very least they'd be losing big on the credit card processing side. So your comment reads as an elitist jab against Microsoft and not actual constructive criticism.

I am being intellectually honest. Users make the platform. Microsoft should recognize they are dead last in this race and bite the bullet to provide developers with a clear incentive to develop for the MS store.

Apple takes the massive cut they do in their app store because developers can't really afford not to pay for that level of access to users.

One day when (IF!) Microsoft's store becomes relevant like that, they can think about what share they're entitled to

Finally, but also importantly, I don't know where in God's green world you got "elitism" from... which is pretty rich coming from someone calling my comment intellectually dishonest and "not actual constructive criticism".

I read the comment as a suggestion to temporarily subsidise the cost of providing payment processing, update management and DRM for free to app developers in exchange for momentum/traction which I find intellectualy honest criticism of MS play. In reality this revenue sharing strategy may have evolved from temporarily subsidise into reduce our margins and landed on the 15/5 pc royalty described in this announcement.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact