Microsoft drops plan to charge for WinMo updates

Microsoft has backed off plans to charge Windows Mobile developers $99 for submitting even minor updates to their applications.

Last week, Microsoft said that unless developers submitted updates to their applications within 7 days of their release, the company would charge developers $99 to get those updates onto the Windows Marketplace for Mobile application store, which is expected to debut later this year. But the company has decided to back off that policy, which did not seem like it would be all that popular with mobile developers trying to decide where to focus their attention amid lots of competition.

Now all updates or version upgrades for applications that have already been submitted to the store will be accepted free of charge, a Microsoft representative confirmed. This applies to minor bug fixes as well as second-generation releases that add new features or capabilities.

Microsoft still plans to charge developers $99 a year, plus $99 per application, to submit applications to Windows Marketplace for Mobile, though this year, developers are being allowed to submit up to five applications free of charge for that $99 yearly fee.

Charging for updates could have resulted in either developer apathy at the prospect of having to fork over $99 every time they discovered a bug, or a host of buggy applications frozen in time in order to avoid the update fees.

Windows Marketplace for Mobile is expected to launch later this year with the release of Windows Mobile 6.5.

[Seaspray0]

Good! They must have read my comment I left on what a bad idea I thought it was and decided I was right. :-D

[slickuser]

Microsoft can't even copy Apple's ideas properly...

[Vegaman_Dan]

True enough- Microsoft wrote an email client for mobile PDA's and smart phones that actually works well and without problems unlike Apple's own iPhone /Touch client.

I *hate* the email client that the iPhone / Touch has. But unfortunately Apple won't allow anyone else to write one so I'm stuck using theirs. :/

[timber2005]

Well at least I don't have to depend on a third party to HACK my phone to let me install a application!

Microsoft is at least allowing BOTH an officially supported store AND companies to provide applications as they always have... hosted on their own site, free to install without need to modify.

[eltoro2827]

you sir, are a *****. (slickuser)

[slickuser]

same to you!

[timber2005]

(Shh, there is a "reply to this comment button for a reason")

[totocalimero]

That means someone at MS is reading blogs like this one and figured out (duh!) that this would be a terrible idea that would simply prevent developers from even considering this MS platform.

Now that they have moved in the right direction on these BS fees (by removing them), what about code signing to avoid easy piracy of the apps?

If someone at MS is reading this, let me put this clearly: If you don't provide a decent mechanism to prevent the piracy of the apps we build, there is no point developing on this platform. In order to compete with Apple, MS MUST provide a mechanism to limit piracy of the apps.

[another_cissp]

It is not Microsoft responsibility to protect your application from piracy. You, as the programmer should put some sort of serial number in it or something. If you are not satisfied with that solution, why don?t you develop for the iPhone or some other locked phone OS vendor.

[totocalimero]

Oh boy! Do you have any idea how long a serial number protection can last? About 2 hours nowadays. After that, you have "cracked" versions all over the web.

It's not MS responsibility? Why not? And yes, I develop for the iPhone and the code signing mechanism is actually very useful. Not perfect, but it certainly limits piracy.

Are you one of those clowns who thinks everything should be free and developers should spend their time building apps for your enjoyment for free? Let me guess, you still live in your parents' basement and they pay your bills? Guess what? Adults have to pay their own bills at some point. If our apps get pirated, we'll lose revenues and we'll simply stop creating them. Duh!

[Vegaman_Dan]

totcaliermo worte:

"In order to compete with Apple, MS MUST provide a mechanism to limit piracy of the apps. "

I wonder how that applies to Apple when they approve an app for the Appstore, then a few months later take it off only to release the same functionality as part of their own product later? Is Apple having developers do their work for them and then stealing it away themselves?

Of course not. But that is one of the observations that has been going around lacking any word from Apple.

People tend to complain about DRM, so I would not be surprised to see companies trying to avoid even touching that subject.

[Synthmeister]

"I wonder how that applies to Apple when they approve an app for the Appstore, then a few months later take it off only to release the same functionality as part of their own product later? Is Apple having developers do their work for them and then stealing it away themselves? "

Can you provide examples? Yes, Apple does not allow apps which duplicate its core apps like iTunes, Mail and Calendar and to some extent Safari. But I haven't heard of Apple yanking an app and then copying someone's idea.

[topgunb2]

"Yes, Apple does not allow apps which duplicate its core apps like iTunes," @ Synthmeister is this acceptable to you, what about freedom to choose what ever you want?

[tgrenier]

I have long held the belief that MS should give away all the development tools. How many beginners are going to shell out the dough for Visual Studio. I guess MS makes money selling development tools but it can't be much compared to the revenue from selling the servers and workstations and devices that those apps could run on.

[ZetaZeta_]

You head onto MSDN and grab Visual Studio express for free, right? Or you get a full version through your educational institution or business? (Actually, I'm not exactly sure what the differences are between Express and VS 2008).

[DrtyDogg]

so you have long held a belief that MS should do what it already does?

[MR-Bear]

1: Many of MS dev apps are available free of charge, search "Visual Studio Express", while not as fully featured as the full boat Visual Studio, it is WAY more than enough for "Beginners"
2: I just do not get the point here, so I must be missing something, if so let me know where my logic strays from reality... If you write an app for WinMo why would you pay MS for their marketplace??? Just distribute it via your preferred distro method. I have a WinMo 6 Device, if I see an app I wish to install I can DL it to the device, or copy the installer to the device via USB teather, they are not locked like the crapple iPhone. (but what do I know... the iPhone kicks the bejebus out of pretty much anything on the (US) market and is doing quite well AFAIK)

[totocalimero]

Well, the nice thing about the iPhone (from a developer's perspective) is that the code is signed so it limits piracy (not perfect) and the business model means that the developers can expect to get paid for their work.

So, on your WinMo thingy, do you pay for the apps you want to use? Or do you simply look up a "cracked" version on the web for free?

It takes time to build these apps and polish them (assuming it is a bit more sophisticated than a iFart app of course) so if developers cannot get revenues from their work, because most people can simply download a "cracked" version, then developers will stop building them.

This is the same concept as downloading mp3's without paying for them.

[DrtyDogg]

FYI it took about 2 weeks before Apples app store DRM was cracked.

[lifeinhd]

Haha, like M$ needed the money in the first place.

[ZetaZeta_]

That's not how free market works. It's not your place to judge whether or not someone deserves money. The market will decide that.

That said, I can see benefits of distributing my application myself, and through Microsoft's store, and why it could cost money to have Microsoft distribute it. I guess you have to decide for yourself if the $99 is worth it. If you don't think so, then don't pay the $99.

[Renegade Knight]

The app store is ok, but why charge to be there, then skim profits off other's work? Oh wait, that's because Apple locked everone in since it's the ONLY way to do it on that side of the fence.

[Synthmeister]

Apple doesn't skim any more profits off the top than anyone else. Developers get a distribution, advertising, billing, copy protection and automatic updates as part of the deal for $100 per year, NOT per app. You can call it "lock in" but it's a heck of a lot better than any other mobile developer platform so far. This Apple app store is on track for $1 billion in revenue by 2010.

You've got brand new, solo developers making hundreds of thousands of dollars off of $2.99 apps and you got companies like Pangea making millions.

Meanwhile Microsoft doesn't even have their app store up and running yet. That is simply amazing.

[getwired]

Take a look at the wholesale/retail cuts involved in taking a software or hardware product to physical market - to get your book on the shelf at B&N, software on the shelf at a retailer, hardware at Best Buy - the deal Apple gives for a ZERO WORK channel is a steal. You might want to learn a bit about business.

[faceless128]

what's all this talk about code signing and no piracy about?

an idiot in a few clicks can jailbreak an iphone or ipod touch, and it's also dirt easy to install cracked apps via itunes or even right from the ipod touch or iphone itself.

and i'm not saying that it's somehow harder on winmo, it's just as easy, i'm saying they're both easy platforms to pirate apps on. yet, somehow, some devs seem to make money despite piracy.

when developers fail, they're always quick to blame piracy, but even with rampant piracy, some developers seem to make tons of money while others don't. maybe there's something else wrong with their product or marketing?

[1363nd0f1337]

Charging for updates is such a monumentally stupid idea. I can't believe that they even considered it.