Here's how the new payment structure works:<p>> 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.<p>> When there is no CID or OCID attributed to a purchase, in the instance of a web search, you will receive 95 percent revenue.<p>So this is all about rewarding organic discovery, or paid discovery outside of Microsoft channels.<p>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.<p>And then, regardless of how it was discovered, you're paying 5% to Microsoft just for being on the platform.<p>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.
Microsoft is like a competitor in a Three-legged race (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-legged_race" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-legged_race</a>) except both runners are running in opposite directions.<p>You have one side that's actively working to make Windows obsolete and another that's flailing about trying to make it relevant somehow.<p>I'm a bitter ex-Windows Phone user, so my perspective could be colored.
I'd be interested to take the pulse of HN:<p>When you are looking for a new Windows app, does opening up the store even cross your mind?<p>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.<p>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.
Desperation move. Microsoft is probably looking at its internal Store numbers and realizing it is a failure.<p>I guess this is the final attempt. We'll see if it works.
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.<p>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.
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.<p>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.
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.
I feel like given the circumstances, Microsoft should probably make distribution free and collect no revenue, at least until the platform becomes popular.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
That's cool... assuming you can get in:<p><a href="https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-block-apps-lead-with-the-carrot.html" rel="nofollow">https://getpolarized.io/2019/02/28/dear-app-stores-dont-bloc...</a><p>I found out that our app was crushed after 2 weeks of development.<p>Basically, they won't let us in because we use Electron.<p>Electron is developed in part (primarily) due to Github which they now own.<p>TWO WEEKS I spent porting to the MS App Store only to have them just crush us ...<p>It's great that I can make 95% of zero...<p>But seriously. If anyone from Microsoft is listening - please unblock us ;)<p>I'm considering submitting this as a PWA but it's missing a lot of features as a PWA.
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.
I'm surprised it isn't 100% – it should have been so from the outset.<p>It's not like Microsoft really needs the revenue from the half-dozen apps available in their store right now. What they need is <i>momentum</i>.<p>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...