Opinions on new Windows 8 licensing

I have recently been trying to establish the licensing for Windows 8 and I was wondering what everyones opinion on it is?

Put simply there are now two developer licences that you need to buy if you want to distribute on any windows 8 platform

1) Windows Phone, $99 + 30% royalties
2) Windows Desktop $99 + 30% royalties

So to develop for both you need TWO licences costing $198 a year! Then anything you do sell will have 30% knocked off it.

Personally I think its a huge mistake for Microsoft to do this, most developers dont make a fortune out of apps and now this will take away any profits they did make. As a developer I feel my best option is to avoid Windows 8 alltogether and stick with the more established and cheaper Apple and Android market places. Considering Microsoft blamed a lack of apps/developers for their failiure with Windows 7 phone its seems a little cheeky to now try and charge more money and expect people to come bounding.

So who here will develop for Windows 8, do you see it as a good market to get into?

Bodwad

It's an interesting subject, especially considering that any apps I write for either one will be not for profit apps written for some branch of government use. I wonder how they structure that, though I don't wonder so much that I have bothered looking, yet.

I was under the impression that the MS app market was actually cheaper than the Apple market with a decreasing share taken by MS as the number of users increases, or something like that.

I am actually waiting for a reply about one of my own queries as to wether they offer "Joint licensing" packages. I currently make Xbox Indie games so I already pay a $99 licence (which used to include win 7 phone but apparently I dont get that anymore!). Effectively to expand into windows 8 it will cost me $297 a year in developer fees + the royalties charge. I will let you know what the outcome is as it might help you :o)

As to the lower than Apple thing I think they might be refering to the bit that says if you sell over $25,000 the royalty drops to 20%. It sounds very good but not many apps reach that amount

Well! If I'm not mistaken that cheaper than the license for Apple development by about $1. Do a lot people code for Windows phone?

Quote:

---

its seems a little cheeky to now try and charge more money and expect people to come bounding

---

They saw your avatar and figured they could get away with it.

From my understand (which is sketchy at best) those license fees are only to have your work distributed via the market place, is that right? I think you can still develop and distribute via the more traditioanl channels if you want to. I really haven't investigated this much because the market place just isn't on radar for the sort of stuff I do ("in house" stuff) and I've just assumed I can just carry on as normal.

All of the applications I write on my own are freeware apps that I've been distributing through my website (which is mostly friends and family who use them) and I would like to be able to offer them for free through the Microsoft store, but if there's any kind of fee then it's simply not worth it to me to have to pay anything to distribute them.

The fee structure is basically the same as Apple: $99 a year and they take a 30% cut. They also have an individual developer level which is $49 a year. Microsoft upped (downed?) the ante by reducing the cut to 20% once you sell $25,000 worth of an app. I didn't think that you needed separate accounts to publish Metro apps and Desktop apps, but to publish desktop apps, you needed the $99 (company) account.

Note that these a fees to post in their store: the 'metro' apps (Store Apps) MUST go through the store. Desktop apps do NOT need to go through Microsoft - you can continue to do what you have always done when distributing.

Here's a useful link:

Publishing your app to the store (Windows)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr.../jj657972.aspx

As far as in-house apps go - I'm not sure that you need the Company License ($99), but to deploy a Metro app, you cannot necessarily short-circuit the authentication (signing) of the app.

It all seems pretty complicated, but no more complicated than, say, filling out your taxes. Indeed, that is an important part of the signup process - 1099s, EINs, VAT and all that fun stuff (if you are an accountant), so Microsoft can generate the correct IRS forms. It is, of course, different in each country, but remember that Microsoft are taking a cut of the sales, so they have tax implications, also.

Apparently, there are over 10,000 apps in the store. Someone is paying the $49/$99. That's not a lot, so far, but it's very early.

Forrester finds mixed prospects for Windows 8 in the enterprise

Quote:

---

From the IT hardware buyer's perspective, the news isn't positive. "The first is that Windows 8 is seeing roughly half of the interest from IT hardware decision-makers that Windows 7 saw at the same point in its release cycle," according to a November 15 blog post from Forrester analyst David Johnson.

---

And Windows 7 hasn't exactly been embraced either. There is a ton of XP out there yet - even at this late date.

But as the rest of the article says, things are more nuanced than that. It even shows that many "information workers" (?) still don't have a clue and think they have the option of Win7 on small light tablets - which means the whole ARM/RT thing is still a mystery to so many box jockeys.

Yes, Win7 (and now Win8) "real" Windows tablets exist but that's not where the discussion is these days. That product category will probably die off by the end of the yet-to-be-released (Jan. 2013?) Surface Pro's product cycle ends in a year.

If you've ever worked in a large organization you'll realize developers generally have ZERO input into things like OS decision making. This should be astounding but it is taken for granted.


I still haven't figured out where the Windows Store comes in for non-Metro applications. Perhaps it just acts as an advertising space for those?

Metro/RT/whatever they're called now ("Windows Store?") applications are another story. I have no idea where all this talk about certificates come in. See:

Publishing Your Game to the Windows Store is as Easy as 1, 2, 3!

Note that the "certification" process does not involve "certificates." Is this where the confusion comes from? Language? <insert gratuitious Pulp Fiction quote here>


In any large organization you can expect the whole "enterprise deployment" thing to be a rat's nest of bureaucracy and thus effectively unavailable for internal applications. Small outfits won't have the infrastructure. So you'll probably only see Metro apps being produced for outward-facing consumer/customer usage like so many corporate phone "apps" today.


How many of those "10,000 apps" are simplistic variations on silly Upset Avian games?

hmm. I can see the fee for selling your apps through the app store but I would hope that they still allow for other means of distribution without fees as they always have in the past.

Given the number of people you may be able to reach through the MS store the fee would be worthwhile for apps you choose to sell this way but if they are restricting what I can send/sell to a customer that is a contact of mine then that would definitely not be a good thing.

I would like to see some more info on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataMiser

hmm. I can see the fee for selling your apps through the app store but I would hope that they still allow for other means of distribution without fees as they always have in the past.

Given the number of people you may be able to reach through the MS store the fee would be worthwhile for apps you choose to sell this way but if they are restricting what I can send/sell to a customer that is a contact of mine then that would definitely not be a good thing.

I would like to see some more info on the subject.

---

Microsoft is discouraging developers from distributing their apps outside the Microsoft Store. They have now introduced a new "reputation" parameter (I still have to understand what criteria it is based on) which almost prevents an app from being installed if it is downloaded from an independent developer's Web site. What is crazy is the fact that, after being downloaded, the app is checked by the antivirus software embedded in the browser but, even if it is found clean, it is blocked anyway by the Windows 8 Smartscreen filter. What sense does it make? I mean, if the app does not contain viruses, why block it?

Apple did something very similar to MS when they released Mountain Lion (the latest version of the OS for the Mac). Shortly speaking, if an app is unsigned, something like Win8 Smartscreen (called Gatekeeper) makes it very difficult to install it.

Together with some other developers, I decided to inform the European Commission about what I believed was a monopoly abuse by Apple but the EC replied to my letter saying that Apple cannot be sued because they don't have the monopoly of operating systems. Attached you can find my letter to the EC and their reply. And this is the link to the forum where I discussed the issue:

http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/in...c,16799.0.html

I wonder if Microsoft could be sued instead.

So does that mean that people will not be able to install software from CD/DVD that was written for Windows XP/Vista/7 or .... That would be a major issue if that were the case. I develop custom software directly for a specific end user, selling through the app store for this type of thing is not an option and I sure would not want to share any revenue for this type of app with MS or any other 3rd party.

For apps that are written for the masses and distributed via the MS store there is no problem from my POV so long as we still have other avenues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataMiser

So does that mean that people will not be able to install software from CD/DVD that was written for Windows XP/Vista/7 or .... That would be a major issue if that were the case. I develop custom software directly for a specific end user, selling through the app store for this type of thing is not an option and I sure would not want to share any revenue for this type of app with MS or any other 3rd party.

For apps that are written for the masses and distributed via the MS store there is no problem from my POV so long as we still have other avenues.

---

Don't worry, you are safe. Both Smartscreen and Gatekeeper intervene only if the app was downloaded from the Web. If you distribute your software through CDs or USB sticks, it can be installed without any problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esposito

Don't worry, you are safe. Both Smartscreen and Gatekeeper intervene only if the app was downloaded from the Web. If you distribute your software through CDs or USB sticks, it can be installed without any problems.

---

I had the idea this isn't true for Metro applets though. Don't these require installing from either the Store or an internal Enterprise Store-let unless you go through a kind of "jailbreaking" process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

I had the idea this isn't true for Metro applets though. Don't these require installing from either the Store or an internal Enterprise Store-let unless you go through a kind of "jailbreaking" process?

---

I was under the impression that DataMiser was referring to desktop applications, not those for WinRT, since he asked, "So does that mean that people will not be able to install software from CD/DVD that was written for Windows XP/Vista/7?"

Obviously, WinRT is a completely different beast that looks very much like the iPad. I think you are perfectly right when you say that the only way you can install apps for WinRT is through the MS Store.

Yes you are correct, I got the two things entagled with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

Yes you are correct, I got the two things entagled with each other.

---

That is part of the problem, I think. A single 'unified' operating system is all well and good, but it really isn't. This is where Apple can make things 'the same but different': they can target a specific device by name; e.g. This app runs on the iPhone, iPod and iPad.

Operating systems just need to go away. no one really cares: it's just a commodity. However, as I've noted before, people are told that they are dumb when it comes to computers, so all this complexity (which it is) reinforces that notion. Apple focuses on the device, not the software running it. Of course, MS don't have that luxury, just yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

Operating systems just need to go away. no one really cares: it's just a commodity.

---

Sorry, but I don't agree. Each operating system is optimized for a particular use. For example, I would never use my iPad to write a complex text document, even though iOS allows you to create that type of file. Only a fool could replace his office desktop PC with a tablet, simply because the latter does not allow you to work in multitasking mode keeping two or three windows open at the same time.

In my opinion, the most serious mistake MS is making with Win8 is that they want to force users to get accustomed to the Metro interface with full-screen windows also on their desktop PCs. While it makes a lot of sense to use big tiles instead of small icons on a tablet, it is extremely uncomfortable to be able to open only one or two apps maximum at a time on a desktop PC. I may like to work on a text file while keeping my e-mail software and Facebook page open in the corners of the screen.

In order to pursue their commercial objectives, MS is penalizing those who don't care about tablets or smart phones. That's why I have a feeling MS may be digging their own grave.

I don't care for the metro type interface at all. I guess it makes sense for a smart phone but not for a desktop. It is not uncommon for me to have 4 or more apps running at once and very common to have 2 or more visible at the same time. Loosing the option to do this would be a big step backwards.

I would not even consider buying an iPad or anythign else produced by Apple, IMO they are all overpriced and for my needs useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataMiser

I don't care for the metro type interface at all. I guess it makes sense for a smart phone but not for a desktop. It is not uncommon for me to have 4 or more apps running at once and very common to have 2 or more visible at the same time. Loosing the option to do this would be a big step backwards.

---

I couldn't agree more.

Moved to the Modern Windows Experience forum.

Am I missing something? This https://dev.windowsphone.com/en-us/join implies that it costs 19USD (15UKP) for an annual subscription is it a typo or have Microsoft 'relented'?

Quote:

---

After you register for an annual Dev Center subscription, you’ll get to submit unlimited paid apps to Windows Phone Store. You can also submit up to 100 free apps. To register, you need a valid credit card, a PayPal account, or a promo code. Registration is $19 or free if you’re a DreamSpark student.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doogle

Am I missing something?

---

Windows Phone is a different thing.

Maybe see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr.../jj863494.aspx instead.