Microsoft to Charge Developers a Submission Token/Fee Per App Update?

[Darius Wey]

<p><em>"On a related note, the presentation confirmed that the new Windows Marketplace for Mobile will apply application updates directly on the device. However it also appears application updates will require developers to resubmit their application for approval which would then cost a submission token or fee and take time to process."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/ppct/auto/1237542954.usr2.jpg" /></p><p>Allow me to place&nbsp;<a href="http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090320/mix09-windows-mobile-65-shows-more-polish/" target="_blank">Long Zheng's words</a>&nbsp;(quoted above) into context. When Microsoft unveiled the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/mar09/03-11WMMDevelopersPR.mspx" target="_blank">Windows Marketplace for Mobile</a> a week ago, it outlined details pertaining to program enrollment and the application submission process. To join the program, developers pay an annual registration fee of $99. That fee includes five application submissions per year. When a developer consumes all five submission tokens in a given year, each additional application submission within the same year costs $99, whether it's a free or paid application.</p><p>Now, this probably wouldn't restrict the average developer too much, as he or she is unlikely to release five new applications in a given year. However, a real problem emerges once these submission tokens are applied to application updates as well as new applications, which is actually the case, if Long's words speak the truth. It's not uncommon for developers, especially those who actively respond to customer feedback, to release more than five application updates in a given year. But who can blame a developer for being discouraged when they're being slapped with a $99 fee per update after the fifth update?</p><p><MORE /></p><p>I can only see these draconian policies resulting in one of four outcomes: (1) the frequency of application updates declines, so bug fixes and new features are delivered at a much slower pace; (2) developers, particularly those struggling to make a decent return on investment, pass these costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices; (3) developers withdraw from the Windows Marketplace for Mobile and stick to third-party or self-established storefronts; or (4) developers switch to a different platform with more inviting application store and developer program policies.</p><p>Consumers aren't going to like the first and second outcomes. The third outcome conflicts with the very purpose of Microsoft establishing its own marketplace. And generally, all outcomes are highly undesirable if Microsoft aims to stave off the competition, and make Windows Mobile as appealing as possible to the average consumer.</p><p>Your thoughts?</p>

[emuelle1]

As a 6 year Windows Mobile user, I'm honestly not hearing anything from Microsoft or it's "partners" that is making me consider not ditching the platform for the iPhone.

Does anyone know if Microsoft is going to lock out the current model, where you can buy applications (and update them) directly from the developers, or through a service like Handango.com? If Microsoft tries to lock users and developers into an app store format with rules like that, I'm not convinced that they'll maintain the market share that they currently enjoy. Personally, I'm getting disillusioned with the platform.

[Darius Wey]

Does anyone know if Microsoft is going to lock out the current model, where you can buy applications (and update them) directly from the developers, or through a service like Handango.com?

To my understanding, that model will still exist; developers will still be able to sell their application directly to the consumer or through third-party storefronts like MobiHand and Handango.

[Phillip Dyson]

But who can blame a developer for being discouraged when they're being slapped with a $99 fee per update after the fifth update?

If I were WebIS or SBSH I would be very concerned about this. These companies have multiple popular applications and frequently release minor updates for fixes or new features.

Come to think of it, as a customer or said companies, I'm very concerned. Will this discourage their updates? I don't know what their revenue streams look like but part of me would think that its a relatively small impact.

Perhaps Microsoft would modify their fee model to account for free updates versus paid upgrades.

[Stinger]

I can see Microsoft's logic here. It's Microsoft's shop and ultimately they're responsible for the content on it. They've got to make sure that none of the apps on their store are doing anything naughty. It doesn't matter if it's a new app or an update - someone at Microsoft will have to test it.

However, it'll certainly be detrimental to third party developers and consumers. I can see developers simply withholding updates. Apps that were once updated six times a year might only be updated once a year.

[emuelle1]

I'm likely, if I don't ditch Windows Mobile, to just avoid the app store. It works for Apple because Apple does spend a lot of time thinking about the usability. Microsoft has a habit of saying "hey, somebody else is making lots of money at this, so we should too!" Advertising and search are two things I can think of off the top of my head, neither of which Microsoft has done well at all. Live search is useless. If I need to find a page on Microsoft's site, I can find it a lot faster on Google than I can on Microsoft's Live search engine.

Apple rolled out the App store after spending some time thinking that they would eventually have to allow 3rd party applications on the iPhone but wanted to maintain control over the platform. I see no indication that Microsoft has processed this any farther than "Hey, Apple did really good at this. If we duplicate the concept, we can make lots of money too!"

I want to be wrong, but I have little confidence that a Windows Mobile app store will provide any benefit to users or developers.

[efjay]

MS just doesnt seem to get it, do they? They always manage to make their offerings just that bit more undesirable than their competitors, time after time after time. Devs saying they are leaving to other platforms, consumers flocking to competitors, WM websites now switching over to cover the iphone - much as I like WM for the freedom it affords me its becoming clear, WM is definitely on the decline, it may not die completely but it is certainly on its way to becoming the last choice for mobile consumers.

[frazell]

I'm not sure why Microsoft seems to get so much hatred. No matter what they do people seem to yell at them in anger...

As a new company entering the mobile app space I'm not angry with the way Micrsoft is structuring pricing. If anything, I'm actually quite pleased with it. The pricing model is very affordable.

For starters... They have to charge you on each update. The application, even an update, has to be re-signed with the digital certificate and they have to ensure the store quality guidelines are being met. If they didn't do it this way then there would be no incentive for developers to maintain compliance with the store guideliness other than for their initial listing. This is a plus for consumers! It means you'll get the more stable updates through the app store, as it should be. You won't be seeing beta releases thrown up.

As a developer, you don't have any losses here. The advanced user can be targeted with updates directly from your website and the basic user can get a solid testing update throught the app store.

I Think this story blows it all out of proportion as the App Store is a fantastic setup as implemented.

Not to mention, seriously $100 a year is nothing. Unless your app is free if it isn't making more than $100 a year you've got more problems than being charged for an update.

[Birdsoft]

I am excited and yet a little concerned on this and would love to get some clarification.

1. Im starting with over 5 applications in my catalog that are not end of lifed and work great on WM6+ but wont submit them all until I see the performance of the store, thus already greatly limiting the quality titles in their store if other developers feel the same.

2. On just one of my programs I did over 7 updates last year(and felt this was a comparitively slow year for updates). I would really hope that those tokens dont count towards updates, or yes feature/fix updates will be limited for budgetary concerns. If this is the case they didnt really study the existing market that is in place as this is not a good idea.

And just like on the current distributors, if you have policed us coming into the program there is no super reason to completely re-test every update. The distributors like Handango and MobiHand are just as responsible for the content and they don't re-test every application to verify that something isnt snuck in under their nose. There needs to be some level of trust there and so update testing(which can be done) doesnt need to be as thorough a process and should not cost $99 to cover. It should be covered just fine in their 30%....

In the worst case that Ive NEVER heard happen, if a developer tries to game the system by "Sneaking in Porn" or anything like that, you remove the application once its caught and dont pay them and even if need be kick them out of the store.

3. I have applications that are on both Standard and Professional so do I have to burn a token on each. In that case I can submit like 2.5 applications total before Im being charged per submission.

4. If the seamless approval is like Mobile 2 Market and the current signing process, then I hope they do better documenting and explanations. The only reason I have not done M2M is because the documentation was unclear as to whether I would be rejected for small things that were done on purpose but may not follow exactly a certain vague UI rule, and if I would have to pay again to have the process started over. And I have went through the process and can do signing but that uses a token system and limited development and updates after you jumped through all the hoops of even getting it setup. And there was no good source to get a hold of for my questions.

5. It appears that they are taking away the shareware/trial nature of WM through the store so all applications will have to be re-written to be full versions. Im not sure how good a model that is, its the source of a lot of the mess on iPhone's AppStore. Hopefully they link "Free" trial versions into the main application's product page in the store and not treat it as a separate program like AppStore.

[superrrguy]

I think this is a good idea. Having thousands of useless apps is not beneficial for anyone. I much prefer 10 apps or under that are $99 each.

I'd pay $99 for WinFart if I knew that it was put through a vigorous and expensive approval process.

[frazell]

Let me answer your concerns (from my perspective and understanding as I don't work for MS) in context...

I am excited and yet a little concerned on this and would love to get some clarification.

1. Im starting with over 5 applications in my catalog that are not end of lifed and work great on WM6+ but wont submit them all until I see the performance of the store, thus already greatly limiting the quality titles in their store if other developers feel the same.


It makes sense to do that and I'm sure the majority of developers will to. You'd put your best and most popular stuff on there and let that drive your plans initially. Once you're stabalized your good to go with the rest.


2. On just one of my programs I did over 7 updates last year(and felt this was a comparitively slow year for updates). I would really hope that those tokens dont count towards updates, or yes feature/fix updates will be limited for budgetary concerns. If this is the case they didnt really study the existing market that is in place as this is not a good idea.

And just like on the current distributors, if you have policed us coming into the program there is no super reason to completely re-test every update. The distributors like Handango and MobiHand are just as responsible for the content and they don't re-test every application to verify that something isnt snuck in under their nose. There needs to be some level of trust there and so update testing(which can be done) doesnt need to be as thorough a process and should not cost $99 to cover. It should be covered just fine in their 30%....

In the worst case that Ive NEVER heard happen, if a developer tries to game the system by "Sneaking in Porn" or anything like that, you remove the application once its caught and dont pay them and even if need be kick them out of the store.

I don't agree... Microsoft HAS to retest every application and its updates in my honest opinion. There is a Windows Logo program that attempts to assure customers of a certain experience level on their devices. That has to be ensured when you're marketing to the masses.

If Microsoft didn't test updates and you added an update to your program on the store and your update happened to have a memory leak, for instance. Your app could destroy the perception of customers of what products are like in the App Store. There has to be a certain quality bar that Microsoft has to meet. Remember this App Store will be open to every consumer in 29 countries. Handango and etc. usually only pull in the more technical crowd. Not every Windows Mobile user is a techno nut.

I don't see why their charging you on updates is a big deal anyway. I'm sure you'll still be able to release your own updates via your website if you see that as needed. You could then release regular updates through your site allowing your technical users to get them fastest and updating the version in the App Store every few months or so.

Also, reputations are easy to destroy. To you it might be as simple thing of "police after the fact", as in your porn example, but doing doing can cause grave consequences. If a customer ran into Porn in the App Store they may never purchase any app from the App Store again as they may never visit it again. They'll then spread that onto their close contacts and so on. It is better to police it right before it gets in.


3. I have applications that are on both Standard and Professional so do I have to burn a token on each. In that case I can submit like 2.5 applications total before Im being charged per submission.


Probably not if you can wrap them in the same cab file, otherwise I'd assume you'd loose two tokens.


4. If the seamless approval is like Mobile 2 Market and the current signing process, then I hope they do better documenting and explanations. The only reason I have not done M2M is because the documentation was unclear as to whether I would be rejected for small things that were done on purpose but may not follow exactly a certain vague UI rule, and if I would have to pay again to have the process started over. And I have went through the process and can do signing but that uses a token system and limited development and updates after you jumped through all the hoops of even getting it setup. And there was no good source to get a hold of for my questions.

It will be a lot clearer. Microsoft wants us all in :D.

I'd say read the certification guidelines and stick to them, as it should be. If Microsoft doesn't allow you to do something you see as needed then you're best bet is to talk to them directly. The logo program exist for a reason and Microsoft decided to create the limits on what apps should do for a reason. The only programs in the App Store should be programs that adhere 100% to the Designed for Windows Mobile logo requirements.

I see a lot of apps that are out now that don't adhere to them and it is annoying and makes the programmer look like lazy really.


5. It appears that they are taking away the shareware/trial nature of WM through the store so all applications will have to be re-written to be full versions. Im not sure how good a model that is, its the source of a lot of the mess on iPhone's AppStore. Hopefully they link "Free" trial versions into the main application's product page in the store and not treat it as a separate program like AppStore.
Yea I'm not sure how they'll handle that really. We will see...

This is an evolving wheel so it will get better once us developers get the chance to give them suggestions and they see what consumers say too.

[LegacyHH]

Not to throw my 2 cents in where it doesn't belong, but take a look at what happens if you drop the 5 app/upgrade limit.

Right now Microsoft runs a similar process for the XNA Game creators for XBOX Live. You pay the annual fee of $99, but you can submit as many applications as you want in that year. As long as they pass some content rules/tests, they are approved and added to the Game Community section. The problem has become that now there are so many garbage applications on the community, they over shadow the quality applications that do exist.

I think by restricting the number of applications and updates a publisher can pump out in a year they are promoting more polished applications initially, and less "junk", for lack of a better term, entering the marketplace.

Well, that's my thought..

Regards,

[pocketmax]

I'd say read the certification guidelines and stick to them, as it should be. If Microsoft doesn't allow you to do something you see as needed then you're best bet is to talk to them directly. The logo program exist for a reason and Microsoft decided to create the limits on what apps should do for a reason.Adding an "Exit" menu option to your application is NOT permitted by logo program

I'm sure Microsoft knows best on this ;)

[whydidnt]

It seems to me that Microsoft could build a lot of traction with the store and gain market share by excluding updates from the count. I like the idea of charging developers after "x" number of apps as it will hopefully keep those developers who release 20 different apps that essentially do the same thing at bay, an maybe even keep the number of fart apps to a minimum. However, upgrades to previously purchased applications are another story. I'd hate to see developers holding back on upgrades or bug-fixes just because they cost too much to deliver.

Let's not forget Microsoft is collecting 30% off the top on every sold application, they need to make the experience a good one for everyone in order to make the store a success.

[maxnix]

If MS is charging a developer a fee for every in series upgrade, this will accelerate the decline of WM applications and thus WM presence in the market place.

Is Jim Jones running MS now? Someone's serving some terribly flawed KoolAid in Redmond.

[frazell]

Adding an "Exit" menu option to your application is NOT permitted by logo program

I'm sure Microsoft knows best on this ;)

That is a non-issue. The majority of Windows Mobile phones now ship with a utility to do that at the users request (like the HTC Task Manager). They are also shipping with a LOT more RAM than they used to. My HTC Touch Pro with 288MB of RAM feels like I'm in too much RAM territory. I no longer close off apps and I let Windows Mobile do it if it wants too as I never get out of memory errors anymore.

If each app individually decides when it closes and when it doesn't it causes problems for users in consistency. They don't know which apps will do what.

[JKingGrim]

That is a non-issue. The majority of Windows Mobile phones now ship with a utility to do that at the users request (like the HTC Task Manager). They are also shipping with a LOT more RAM than they used to. My HTC Touch Pro with 288MB of RAM feels like I'm in too much RAM territory. I no longer close off apps and I let Windows Mobile do it if it wants too as I never get out of memory errors anymore.

If each app individually decides when it closes and when it doesn't it causes problems for users in consistency. They don't know which apps will do what.

Yes, I find I too am more lenient about closing apps, but there are two things that still make me prefer closing. One is screen rotation speed. Do apps in the background still consume a lot of cpu cycles when the screen flips? I guess I never tested to see if rotation was slower with a lot of background tasks running but the device does seem over all more sluggish with lots of programs running. I never really tried however with my X1 to see if this is still the case now that I have plenty of RAM. The other thing is that most apps dont save their settings until completely close. So if I open an app and change some settings or if I use my media player and dont close the app, if for some reason I soft reset my settings for that app are lost and the media player forgets what track I was on. This is the developer's fault though, a they should save settings when minimized. Regardless of who's fault it is though, it is still a problem.

I agree consistency is best though. If I want my apps to close, I will install a task manager to do so. If apps were consistent they would all respond to the task manager the same way.

[Rocco Augusto]

If I were WebIS or SBSH I would be very concerned about this. These companies have multiple popular applications and frequently release minor updates for fixes or new features.

I would think some of the bigger software companies such as WebIS would not have any problem paying the fees.

At first I was a little annoyed by the cost of entry to play in Microsoft's realm, but then I started thinking of all of the developers that are charging anywhere from $19.99-$29.99 for extremely basic programs. The reason why a lot of developers get away with this is because they are selling to the corporate or professional user that can afford to have their company buy the app for them. I know I for one had the previous company I work for buy several apps that could have helped me be more productive at work.

At the same time, while I understand the reasoning to having a price system the way it is, it also feels like Microsoft didn't really properly think this through or give the idea much time to be fleshed out and improved upon. What about brand new developers starting out that don't have that kind of money? What about developers for other platforms that want to port their new popular apps to WM and don't want to pay the outrageous cost? What about the high school kid that is just futzing around in his room and makes the next great thing?

There are good and bad things about what Microsoft is doing. I just wish they gave the Marketplace more thought and consideration and maybe even involved a few developers - small and large - into their meetings to flesh out the most beneficial solution for everyone and not just a few.

[frazell]

...
At the same time, while I understand the reasoning to having a price system the way it is, it also feels like Microsoft didn't really properly think this through or give the idea much time to be fleshed out and improved upon. What about brand new developers starting out that don't have that kind of money? What about developers for other platforms that want to port their new popular apps to WM and don't want to pay the outrageous cost? What about the high school kid that is just futzing around in his room and makes the next great thing?
...

I'm a start up developer and I don't see these costs as insane costs. Looking at this realistically... A developer could put up an app for $99 + 4 free updates to that are included and sell it at $.99 a copy. The developer would onl need to sell 142 copies to break even. That is 142 copies in a store that will reach 29 million potential customers...

Big companies like Coca Cola and General Mills have to pay millions per year just to get shelf space at super markets to reach markets of similar size. This is a bargain realistically...

Also, Microsoft has already solved the student developer problem. Students registered for Microsoft Dreamspark get their apps included free. Microsoft will cover those basic fees for them...

http://blogs.msdn.com/pblog/archive/2009/03/12/windows-marketplace-for-mobile-great-news-especially-for-students.aspx

[Rocco Augusto]

The developer would onl need to sell 142 copies to break even. That is 142 copies in a store that will reach 29 million potential customers...

You have to sell 142 copies to break even in a store with millions of other software titles. I'm not trying to be a downer but as a developer I know first hand that just because your product is good doesn't mean it will not drown in all of the surrounding noise.

Take the iPhone for instance. Apple loves to brag about the thousand of applications that they have in their app store and how developers are making thousands of dollars each month, but what they fail to point out is that it is only a select group of developers making that and all of the developers that are making that kind of money are doing so with some form of push from Apple.

There is the opportunity to make some money through the online stores, but not everyone is going to be able to pay the cost of entry. High School students are the perfect example as they can get software for free via the DreamSpark program but to qualify for that program the schools administrators have to first register their high school and wait for validation. This means that not every student will be invited to participate as I'm sure there are some students out there that will get left in the cold as their administrators are not technically suavy enough to know about this program or sign-up for this program. :(

[doogald]

I'm not quite sure I understand why it's not $99 for 5 apps and $20 an app after?