Microsoft wants you to share WinMo apps with yourself; others, not so much
By Chris Ziegler 
posted May 23rd 2009 12:51PM
posted May 23rd 2009 12:51PM
With the App Store, App Catalog, App World, Ovi Store, and all shades of third-party mobile software stores out in the wild, Microsoft's undoubtedly looking at Windows Marketplace as being one of the more important features it's bringing to the table in the fanfare surrounding WinMo 6.5. Differentiating features that Redmond can pimp against the competition -- all of which sound like identical concepts from a quick glance on paper -- could be a key offensive weapon in keeping 6.5 playing with the big boys long enough to get WinMo 7 out of the door, but one thing we now know won't be a part of that is a useful app sharing concept. As it was originally understood, the idea was that the Windows Marketplace would allow you to share purchased apps with up to a total of five devices, meaning friends, family, and coworkers could exchange wares. Seems like a good idea to casually spread the word about great software, but Microsoft's now followed up to clarify: turns out you'll only be able to share the app with five of your own phones, the idea being that you'll be able to easily transfer software licenses when you upgrade to new hardware. To verify the link, you'll need to use the same Windows Live ID on all devices -- so unless you plan on sharing your htc_blue_angel_4_lyfe@hotmail.com with everyone you know, you're out of luck.
ah, makes sense now. if everyone could share apps, the developers would be out of business.
Is engadget really trying to spin that into a bad thing? Seems like that was their intent. If you can use a USB cable and google you can get most of your winmo apps for free anyway.
@timoh
yeah, totally...if you could share apps w/ 5 friends, seriously, would developers even make any money? i would just find 5 people that i know, and whenever i want an app say "hey you wanna use it w/ my .live ID? MS is one of the most successful companies in history...and doing something like that would be one of the dumbest business moves in history. So to me, this is something that should be expected. i dunno why engadget is always trying to make MS sound evil and cold bloooooded in just about every article thats written about them...this move is simply common sense. on top of that, there's still going to be people that take advantage of this, like myself, who will create a brand new MS Live ID w/ a friend (think SimbadoggandJasonandLarryandJimandKatie@live.com) just so we can share apps
The real amazing thing about this is that Chris was able to find a WiFi in Job's ass
Hey Chris, does the quota include negative articles, too? I don't see why you would report this in a negative light, just because you misunderstood the terms.
I think it's pretty generous for MS to allow transferring licenses to additional devices. With people changing every 6-12 months, it makes a lot of sense.
Since when is anyone going to be using the Windows Marketplace? I'd heard that when the Apple App Store was introduced, no self-respecting WinMo user would touch a corporate store. Why? Because WinMo users preferred going from site to site all over the internet gathering WinMo applications with no restrictions or censorship. So who cares what restrictions Windows Marketplace has. Nobody will be using it anyway. Steve Ballmer had first said that the Apple App Store was going to fail yet later decided on starting a Windows Marketplace. He should have stuck to his guns. The Windows Marketplace has no relevance to WinMo users and it will fail miserably.
Windows Marketplace will be a huge failure based on the way that WinMo users think. If WinMo users hate all forms of restriction and censorship, then why even bother to have a corporate store. They'll all head to each developers site and places like Handango and MobileTopsoft.
There will be almost no developers flocking to Windows Marketplace if they can go to places that don't charge a developers fee or take hefty cuts of their revenue. Windows Marketplace is basically dead on arrival. Microsoft is a fool for trying to copy the Apple App Store model because WinMo users don't fit the Apple iPhone user model.
Forget about a billion downloads from one place. Nobody cares about that anyway. All most WinMo users want is to get apps from wherever they can as cheaply as they can. Handango has been in business for years and they haven't achieved a billion downloads, but they're still making money and that's all that matters. I would say that their applications are somewhat costly, though, which might hinder high download rates.
All the newly opened corporate mobile download stores are doomed to failure from the beginning because their platforms are totally unrestricted as to where apps come from. Only Apple controls it's entire mobile platform and therefore can be the only successful corporate app store.
I'll be content to sit back and watch all the other corporate stores fail, one by one. The sad part is, their few users won't even care. Gypsies have no need for a corporate store.
out of subject, try this :
in the previous article about the new battery, click the "Teddy Ruxpin" link (2005 article), then click on the "reporting back to the mothership" link and you should be back to this article...
weird
yeah, weird.
Just takes me back to Engadget.com root . . .
it gets me back to the mothership!
Engadget makes it sound like the previous, assumed idea of this feature was a good deal all around. It wasn't. If one user purchases an app for $10 and shares it with five friends, that's $50 less the developer has. Even if the shared applications only work for X amount of time, it still has potential damaging side effects in terms of developer revenue.
Oh C'mon. It can easily be $50 the developer never would have had and never will - we cannot assume those 5 people would have purchased the app if purchasing were the only option.
We can just as easily theorize that those 5 people enjoy the app so much that they each tell 5 people they know about it, who in turn go out and puchase the app.
This is the RIAA arguement and isn;t valid. Just because somebody is willing to play with something (Install an application) doesn't mean that the "friend" would ever pay for that application. However, the amout of free advertiisng from the word of mount would be worth it.
Also, I think more applications would be sold if the "5 friends Circle" was used "Hey, you get this one and I get that one" sort of thing... I have bought tons of movies this way, I buy a blu-ray and friends buys another and we all have a big movie night, but nobody was going to buy all the movies unless one of us wins the lottery.
M
These "free advertisement" arguments don't hold water.
Why not just make the app cost 5x less? I would much rather spend $2 to try an app, and then tell my friends (who tell their friends, and theirs, etc.). I'm not going to pay $10 to try any app, and I'm not going to pay $10 just so my friends can get it free.
And what about their friends? "Hey man, my coworker gave me this $10 app for free. I'm glad, I wouldn't have paid that for it... but it's definitely worth a couple of bucks. Yeah, you'll have to pay the full $10 for it."
Oh thanks Engadget,
Now I'm going to get the crap spammed out of my inbox.
Engadget,
Its blatenetly obvious your site has zero journalstic intergreity. But perhaps we knew that coming in since this is a "tech blog". But c'mon, spinning this story in a negetive way? Thats pretty low even by your standards.
But I'll keep coming back because this is a great tech news site minus the nonsense you write.
Assuming an app costs 10 dollars, and you spread it with 5 friends, that's 50 dollars lost revenue.
Which, for a small developer, can add up.
I can understand how you think it sucks, but think of the small developer sometimes
@kizorblade
read his response again, slower.
Oops. Sorry.
Appollogies to all. Burn me at the stake :(
Whoaaa
that "What's New" sign is hella scary..
so is this supposed be better than the apple store?
As you'll still be able to manually install apps from anywhere, a feat the iPhone lacks completely, yes, I'd say it's better.
Yes, because if you don't like what's there, or any of its policies, you don't have to use it.
Now for a segment I like to call "REALLY!?! With Alex Padilla"
Really, Chris Ziegler, you think that Microsoft restricting the usability of purchased software to only the one who ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE SOFTWARE is a bad thing? Really? Do you really think that Microsoft would limit themselves to approximately 1/6 of their potential business with this idea? Really?! And really, you say that this is a travesty, a sham, a mockery, but did you ever once think about the developers who worked on the software? This is really low of you to spin this news negatively like this. Really!!!
You, sir, are win.
More REALLY segments please. Win win win.
Ok so if this is superior to iPhone app store this
Should gave no trouble selling 1 billion apps in 9 months , is that right ?
Will it beat app store record ?
No, it won't, go rejoice in the awesomeness of Apple and go away.
The difference is users are not stuck using the service. Some people will still get their applications by installing them from their computer or downloading and installing them through the browser.
Also, WinMo users hopefully won't be downloading the fart app a billion like their iphone counterparts.
Obviously not, WM needs a lot less un-crippling.
Dr. Watson, That's just the kind of thinking that keeps most developers from making it big. To me "share your apps with 5 of your friends" sounds like an awesome viral spread strategy.
Most developers are still mentally chained to the old business world where sold goods are physical and have manufacturing costs. When developing a software you are not dealing with manufacturing cost, but with development costs. Development costs, while ranging from anywhere from few thousands, to more average 100-300k, are a one time investment not an expense that is somehow linked to shipped units.
Whether you make 10$ or 50$ from one family or group of friends doesn't matter a lot compared to the potential benefits that developer might get from well planned viral spread. From my experience it's usually better to get a million people to try your application, than to get 100 to pay for it for sure.
lumbert...you're reasoning fails on so many levels its shocking. like, seriously...wow.
we're not talking about the developer refusing to give away free samples like many companies do (this costco and their sweet food sampling stations) you're talking about a company COMPLETELY GIVING AWAY their product. As in, hey i really like this product, jim will probably like it too. So will, kim, kathy, and susan. Now imagine if each one of the four people that i gave the app to told one person, then that one person paid and downloaded it, then gave it away to four more people. After just two three levels of your "viral campaign example" that would be 25 people with the app, and you would have only received revenue for 5 of those 25. if you fail to see the stupidity in this, then maybe i can help you some more. Imagine if for everyone 25 toyotas that toyota sold, they only got revenue for 5 of them. Imagine if for every 25 ipods apple sold, they only got revenue for 5. if any business in the world did this, they would surely fail...its a good thing you're not working in the marketing dept of any business.
where viral marketing COULD work, is if you were allowed to seamlessly and instantly share the app with someone next to you. think of the zune, and how it is able to find zunes around it, then get its share on. once you receive a shared song from someone, i believe you're able to play that track for 3 days, or 3 times upon receipt. if you really like it, you'll buy it, if you dont...no sweat off your back, you didn't pay for something that you didn't like. this would be killer for viral marketing, "hey _____ this app is awesome" "sweet, can you share it w/ me?" share it done, they really like the app after using it 3x or over 3 days, or however they wanna work it, then that person downloads the app, they get something they like, and then the dev gets paid for their hard work. this example would work, and would work well....yours is a recipe for disaster.
@Simba:
Talk about failure of reasoning, it's amusing you have to use TANGIBLE items in your analogy.
That's why developers often create trial versions of applications. Word of mouth still applies, but doesn't cut the developer's throat by giving the full application away for free. If you think that users sharing applications can help via word of mouth advertising, then the apps that one user shares with another should only be trial versions since otherwise the receiving user has no reason to ever actually purchase the software. If you gain nothing additional from spending the money, why would you spend it at all?
The point is...is doesn't matter that it doesn't cost them any extra to sell an extra product. The point is...every time they give away a product for free, that is presumably one less person who paid for it. Obviously some people will take for free what they would never buy. But plenty of people who would otherwise buy it will take it for free. If they have five friends or remote acquaintances who want the software, which plenty of people will, it's essentially lowering the price to 1/6.
Don't like "tangible" examples? Here's something less "tangible". Every movie studio, when they release videos, now start putting the video online as a free download. Videos are not tangible because a DVD costs almost nothing to make. The only real revenue they would lose it what people would pay for it otherwise. But that revenue would be a LOT.
It all goes back to the elementary school economics lesson--products are not worth the sum of their parts or how much it costs to make them. Products are worth what someone will pay for them.
@ hemmy
i use tangible items to show just how stupid the argument is. if can see it w/out my examples, great, ur not one of the stupid people its meant for, if you dont like them...well, just skip over them, its quite simple...pal.
I really hope that's not actually someone's e-mail address...
oh,again your microsoft bashing system engadget
hardly, they have turned into "fanbois" overnight.
:))
Wow, best story ever.
This is the best policy. So now I can own 5 different WinMo devices and/or upgrade my device without worrying about my software investment going to waste.
Huge difference from begging each and every developer you bought software from to reset your license. They tend to accuse you of trying to steal/share the software and you're one of those who actually paid for the software. Makes you wish you pirated the software.
This will really help people who upgrade or change phones often.
And I am now the proud owner of the address htc_blue_angel_4_lyfe@hotmail.com, feel free to spam me!
haha, really lol.
Engadget i m disappointed but i still have so much love for this site
Microsoft? Sharing? Nothing more than a point if you will...
I wonder how do developers of Linux apps make money when ALL their stuff is shared for free at their own request.
altruism pays the bills
Reading this blog just made Steve Jobs turn in his hospital bed. Apple fans talking about sharing apps with 5 friends. Bad apple fans, bad!
Just look at the screenshot. It looks like Windows 95. How can users seriously opt for that instead of S60 or iPhone? I am baffled.