The Windows App Store Will Be the Only Source for Metro Apps

The Windows App Store Will Be the Only Source for Metro Apps

During Microsoft’s BUILD conference last week, they announced that the Windows App Store will be the only source for Metro-style apps.

Personally I think that this is not the best angle for Microsoft. Yes it could be useful to have Windows apps in a centralized location and it would be a good way to prevent users from downloading viruses. Ted Dworkin stated “We will examine every application that will be submitted to us, we will run a virus check and a malware check on every application.”

But Windows users should be able to download the kind of Apps that run on their system anywhere they want to, (Hear that Apple?) and developers should be able to upload the apps that they created to their own websites and get paid all of the money they make selling their apps.

Yes. you read correctly. Developers will not get paid completely for the Metro-style apps that they make and upload to the Windows App Store. Microsoft is taking a 30% cut of all the profits from the app sales in their store.

Microsoft is also making developers pay an annual fee to upload apps to the store, much like Apple’s iOS and Mac App developer programs which costs $99 a year, each.

Yes, the Windows App Store will help Windows lose the status of being the operating system with all the viruses. but you would definitely notice a lot fewer Metro apps being developed than traditional desktop programs.

The other thing that seems to resemble Apple is how Microsoft is imposing a limit on how many devices the app can be used on. Windows blogger Long Zheng revealed some plans for the app store in an MSDN document:
“Any customer who pays for an app can install and use that app on up to 5 Windows Developer Preview devices, so that the app can engage that customer across a range of form factors.”

This, in my opinion, is a better and more organized system to manage your apps. Before, you would buy and download an app online and enter in an activation key (or something along those lines) and most of the time, the activation key would work on just one computer. This new system will guarantee the apps installation on up to five devices be them PCs, phones, or tablets.

What doesn’t resemble Apple in any way is their decision to allow developers to list their traditional legacy apps on the Windows App Store for free.
This is a great idea! It is an organized place where Windows developers can put their software for free. Completely free.

Personally, I think that Microsoft should not make developers pay to distribute Metro-style apps. If Microsoft could just be content with the 30% cut of the profits, then that would encourage more developers to put their apps in the App Store which means Microsoft would get more money from their share of the app sale revenue, that is if you’re thinking in terms of money.

What do you think? Should Microsoft keep the annual fee to have your app in the app store? Should they open up the sale of Metro-style apps completely to the public? What do you think of the overall Windows App Store idea? Leave your comments below.

  • Owais_503

    i agree with u.  about ‘If Microsoft could just be content with the 30% cut of the profits, then that would encourage more developers to put their apps in the App Store which means Microsoft would get more money from their share of the app sale revenue, that is if you’re thinking in terms of money’.

    instead of using activation key. wouldn’t the computer already know ur email address and when u try to put that app on other devices u could just enter ur email. I think that would be better.

    • WillyThePooh

      It will cause people to sell their email address as a new business model.

  • KaptKos

    No they should not charge 99 dollars a year.  I got my first year free because of my student status but now I have to pay them on top of the 30%.  That’s BS!

    • WillyThePooh

      That $99/yr. is a way to stop kids to upload junks to MS store because every app upload causes MS money to verify. And if the apps are free, MS won’t able to get the 30% profit. Without that $99, you can imagine kids will keep uploading free programs for MS to check. Just like how kids call 911 for fun.

  • Ianvan

    They can charge 99$ per year, but they shouldn’t be taking 30% of the
    profits… That is HUGE!!! It will drive up the price of apps as
    developers try to recoup the money that MS is stealing from them. I hope
    that this goes to court. Apple too, but since MS has 90% of the market,
    mainstream developers don’t really have a choice about what platform
    to build their apps on, do they? I’m VERY disappointed. (re-post due to broken comment)

    • WillyThePooh

      I don’t think MS has 90% of app market. If it is desktop apps, the article already said it is free.