For many (if not most) iPhone developers, the App Store's overheated competition and bloated inventory have led to scorched-earth pricing that makes it virtually impossible to parlay mobile development into a valid for-profit business model without turning to subscriptions or in-app advertising. RIM's tried to nip that behavior in the bud by
capping the minimum sale price at $2.99, and it sounds like Microsoft feels the same way in light of the flowery, motivational language being thrown the way of developers at learning sessions ahead of the
Marketplace's launch. "I know, 99 cents is interesting -- yes, consumers like to pay 99 cents for applications," admits Microsoft's Loke Uei, "but 99 cents, come on, I think your app is worth more than that." You heard it straight from the horse's mouth, people --
your app is worth more than that. Ultimately, Uei says the goal is to set the bench higher by keeping low-quality apps out of the Marketplace, but to start out and beef up, they might consider taking all the crap they can get and worrying about stroking devs' egos after the fact. If the store's client app makes it easy enough to browse, search, and get to best-of-breed content, this point should be moot anyhow.
posted Aug 20th 2009 2:54AM
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001293.html
"While there's an odd aspect of race to the bottom that I'm not sure is entirely healthy for the iPhone app ecosystem, the idea that software should be priced low enough to pass the average user's "why not" threshold is a powerful one. "
Good point, but I think there in enough of a difference between iPhone users and WinMo users that WinMo users will likely skip the $0.99 iFart or Moron Test. The cheap app model might work well for Apple, but doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into something good for Microsoft too.
you both raise good points. i think ultimately time will tell what people are willing to pay for some of these applications. it's difficult to properly speculate as to exactly how much an application is worth. like any other product, there is a trial period of give and take with the consumer needed to see what one can reasonably expect to charge.
@pina >> "Good point, but I think there in enough of a difference between iPhone users and WinMo users that WinMo users will likely skip the $0.99 iFart or Moron Test."
I will never buy a fart app. But if enough people are spending their time building fart apps... think of how many developers are making other real apps. The more apps there are... the more chance of there being a *good* app.
Why are there 200 FTP applications for Windows? You only need one. It's the same for phone apps. Lots of people make apps, and the best ones rise to the top.
@Michael Scrip
I have an iPhone and also will never buy a fart app. However, the success of iFart during the last holiday season speaks volumes about how price point can effect the popularity of an app; it's not always the best that make it to the top. I'm not saying the App Store doesn't have any quality apps (on the contrary, I think there are plenty); what I meant was that WinMo users are generally business oriented and would probably be more likely to pass on the "why not" factor. While $0.99 may be the sweet spot for many iPhone users, it could be something else for WinMo users.
>> "what I meant was that WinMo users are generally business oriented and would probably be more likely to pass on the "why not" factor."
Yeah. Thousands of games and other time wasters might not be ported from the iPhone to WinMo. But productivity apps most likely will be.
My point was that there seems to be limitless potential for apps for the iPhone... so there's a better chance of getting a good one. If there were only a handful of developers making iPhone apps... there just wouldn't be many apps at all. But there are 1000 different developers... so there are more apps to choose from.
BTW... I don't have a problem with the Fart apps. If a person can pay $1 and get a few laughs... and the developer can make $100,000 in a week... what's the problem?
But, the days of the App Store being a punchline, and only full fart apps, are over. There are now 60,000 apps, from 1000 developers. It's clearly a successful platform. And 40,000,000 devices that can use these apps.
WinMo has had apps for years... so has the Blackberry and Palm. But, what Apple did, with the ease of purchasing apps from the device, and the free or $1 price on many apps... the Apple App Store is a huge force in the market. And developers are racing towards Apple.
It might better financial sense for a developer to make a silly little game for the iPhone and sell it for $1... than make a serious app for WinMo and sell it for $10.
But you're right... WinMo is a business platform... not a gaming platform.
That's really the big problem with the apple's app store when it comes to the competition. Even if you say that the markets are somewhat different, you can't deny the fact that the app store set a very low bar for prices (and quality ;)) of apps, and I can see a lot of people skipping WinMo if they see that most apps cost more than $0.99.
Oh and btw, I couldn't believe the first post on Engadget article wasnt "first!" or some douche-y comment from a fanboi (whichever side), but actually a relevant and good point. I had to double check the domain in the url bar :)
May I just interject at this point to say that this is possibly the most civil iPhone/WinMo debate I've ever read on Engadget.
The one part of this article I don't get is the "take all comers and then sort the wheat from the chaff" angle.
SPB and others have been selling apps for between $10-$30 for years without the need of a unified marketplace. Obviously the business model for a company that makes compelling enough apps is there. Getting those apps into a unified marketplace can only be a good thing.
MS showing some love to the devs who HAVE been doing it on their own all these years only makes sense.
Tell that to infinity ward.
"I think there in enough of a difference between iPhone users and WinMo users that WinMo users will likely skip the $0.99 iFart or Moron Test." - pina
Just stop, you sound like such a tool. Trust me when I say there will simply be $1.99 fart apps. The price point will not stop someone from trying. Everybody like to have some fun. Like most haters, you have decided the best way to attack the iPhone and its AppStore is to use a straw-man argument about fart apps - like 50 fart apps will somehow keep people from finding useful apps like budget planners, subway maps, restaurant finders, games, twitter apps, Facebook, and all the multitudes of apps people regularly buy and love.
You would only be so lucky as to have to 'wade' through apps like iPhone users on the smartphone of your choice - that's how you'll know people (and the devs trying hard to reach them) are actually supporting your platform.
pina - I just saw your follow-up comment, where you fleshed out your point a bit more. Although I still disagree with the original sentiment, I would like to retract saying you sound like a tool about it.
I assumed you were one of the many people that 1) joyfully claim that there are only fart apps available for the iPhone, and 2) that a higher price point is going to keep the riff-raff out of Blackberry and WinMo app stores. THAT person is who my comment is addressed to.
I frankly somewhat welcome a higher price point for applications. Not sure if i would quite like RIMs price floor approach, but i think something is needed to keep shovelware out of app stores. Shovelware was a term that was generally just used for Wii Software in gaming, but more and more over the last two years we've been finding a huge excess of the fart apps, the twitter apps, the chat apps, etc, etc, etc.
Sure its true, that after time, all good things will rise to the top...and junk conversely sinks to the bottom. But once 6.5 goes live, i'd love to be able to just BROWSE the app store, rather than looking at only top downloaded/top rated applications.
Kinda reminds me of that guy that had like something over 600 apps (most of them infringing on other peoples IPs) just yanked from the app store. I wish apple, RIM, nokia, and windows mobile would take some approach like this. Or maybe applications that are low voted/flagged by enough people. But then again you always get into that slippery slope of interfering w/ the free market. Laissez faire is king i guess
NOT FIRST!
Good call!
Should have added not not lowest ranked too.
Will the marketplace be only for wm7 or 6.5 also?
6.0, 6.1 and 6.5, will definitely available on 7 too.
6.5 onwards only AFAIK. Not 6.1 etc.
I hope this doesnt cause the free monthly trials for things such as SPB mobile shell to actually end after a month instead of almost a year on my old trusty tilt lol. I love free trials that almost never end.
"Uei says the goal is to set the bench higher by keeping low-quality apps out of the Marketplace"
So, Microsoft has no plans to release their own software into their own marketplace?
I lol'd
It means there wont be an iTunes for WinMo.
Developers get to decide what they are willing to sell. Some apps cost $999 and some are free.
Microsoft is trying to be a big brother and tell the developers how much to sell. That's insane!
Can the Windows users tell Microsoft how much they should sell their Windows?
MICROSOFT DICTATORSHIP!!!
yeah im sure the developers are up in arms about getting more money on their apps? mhmm, probably not
I believe they should allow low price points but I can see why they would like to differentiate from Apple's App Store.
To say it is dictatorship is a bit silly. Apple rejects apps left, right and centre after a dev has spent time, effort and money developing it. They provide no way of side loading apps so said developers have no other channel of getting their apps out there. This is more like dictatorship than any pricing model that MS is choosing.
Yes, because the "other" phone OS developer allows any and all apps to appear on their phones without limitations, restrictions, or draconian control over the complete process of developing applications.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to figure out why my iPhone decided to delete my developer profiles and will not allow me to load a new one - just so I can test my latest app...
I sure do miss developing for WinMo.
Huzzah for higher prices! F*uck the consumer!
No. Lower prices look like this:
"Huzzah for lower prices! Fuck the developer!"
Without making a profit, what's the point of spending hours developing and coding? I would gladly pay 2.99 if it was a decent quality app to support the developer
It's $2.99 not $299!! Not exactly breaking a bank there..
Higher prices force apps to be of better quality. This could be good. Notice that almost all the really worthwhile apps in the appstore are more than $0.99.
99% of apps under $2.99 in the Apple Store are garbage and i am glad to see Microsoft has a little more class for itself and respect for its developers.
It is called capitalism! Should you be charged for Google search queries? It is up to Google to decide what their business model should be. Likewise, app developer should get to decide whether their app is free, 5 cents or
50 dollars, not Microsoft.
"99% of apps under $2.99 in the Apple Store are garbage"
Research shows that 73% of all statistics are made-up. The App Store currently has thousands of applications and something tells me that you haven't reviewed them all so you therefore have no business throwing out unsubstantiated statistics like this. If you can back-up your claim then feel free to share this information with us.
@Kelmon ... #1: switch to decaf ... #2 i wasn't quoting any scientific study ... i was stating my friends and i experience with the App store ... which is similar to a lot of people's. So calm down there :)
Almost all the people i know with iPhones and Touch's use it as more of a toy ... Windows Mobile is used by people that use their phone as a tool. Windows people don't want to wade through a ton of crap apps.
Microsoft is making this move to protect developers and you are attacking Microsoft for protecting the little guy.
@Berry ... ummm ... dude ... Google queries? really?
No, Microsoft ain't interested in protecting anyone. Microsoft is ONLY INTERESTED in making money from users and developers. You see Microsoft takes a small cut from developers for each sale just like Apple. However, Apple
doesn't take any cut from free app developers for obvious reason. Microsoft is enforcing all developers to pay
them by forcing them to sell at certain price so they can take a cut. No rocket science to figure this out!
You clearly don't have any response for my Google arguement because you're an idiot fanboy! LOL
@berry
"Microsoft ain't interested" .... "Microsoft is enforcing developers" ... i can't believe you even mentioned "rocket science" in your post while slaughtering the english language so badly ... i laughed so hard i almost wet myself. i love irony.
which idiot fanboy am I? I use and love my iPhone and use and love Windows 7 on my Dell PC ... hmmmm
your google "argument" fell 30 yards short of making any real sense.
Microsoft is in no way stopping anyone from making a free app ... i can't think of smaller words to use so you'll understand.
The only laughable story is you claiming to be an iPhone user! HAHAHA! LOL
Don't insult my intelligence. Your shit post below indicates who you're and your claim is making
everyone to laugh, idiot! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LOL
"Almost all the people i know with iPhones and Touch's use it as more of a toy ... Windows Mobile is used by people that use their phone as a tool. Windows people don't want to wade through a ton of crap apps."
"Microsoft has a little more class for itself and respect for its developers."
Are you really that guillable? This is about MS making more money.
Check your chin for Ballmer fluid. It is dripping.
Free apps will still probably be available
Amen! :)
Looking at the pic...
Street Fighter II for a WinMo phone? Man I dread to see what that experience actually looks and plays like...
I imagine something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLMks1NElFk#t=3m40s
Some of the next gen WinMo devices will be using the Tegra platform.. don't underestimate until you have really seen what they are capable of.
Wow, its incredible to see people complaining about microsoft big brother policy to protect developers and ensure quality software. This coming from no less apple fanboys, take a quick look at the app store or iphone in general with its policy of: hey, we want it this way, so screw everyone else, we are the creative innovators, not the user, so they shouldnt even be able to set a wallpaper to their phone without us approving it!
Yeah, microsoft is the big brother, give me a break!
WiMo that cannot fart, well that blows
There are far too many overpriced Windows Mobile applications out there. $30 is a stupid price to pay for a home screen. The fact that the Apple App Store has driven down the cost of these to something which is far more sensible is a major factor is its success.
If Microsoft and others feel that they can drive the price up on the basis of giving customers "better quality" then they think they are deluding themselves. All that will happen is that purchases will go down as the pricing will be over the threshold to make it an impulse purchase.
Pointless argument. They aren't forcing people to spend $30, they are just stopping a price war which just goes about hurting everyone that actually matters. $2.99 is nothing for an app, and its probably comforting to developers to know that they can come up with new app ideas. They can put some decent time behind it to make it high calibre, then charge that price and know there won't be some muppet come along, copy the damn thing and sell it at 99c.
@ Richard
I agree.
I think a home screen, or any "essential" app should be free or very close to it in my opinion. A premium or specialized app, different story. It was this "getting cheated" feeling of paying $20 for a music CD etc. that inspired napster. Not so sure it would have happened if they were selling them for $5. Like it or not, this is where we are. I think it's in Microsoft's best interest to make it all about the user experience. That's their biggest chance for having long term product success and a widening marketshare. That will win them loyalty, and create the fanboys they count on so very much.
Besides in this crappy economy, it is only the very best of products that are selling, and B-rated ones are getting left on the shelf. If the software makes your hardware great, for God's sake, provide the damn software.
If you look at the market that has been around for years now, you'll see clearly that the mature mobile market are selling applications for anywhere from 4.99 to $50+++ dollars. And the fact that they are still in business at least says something. I can guarantee you that 95% of all those developers on the iPhone platform will die out eventually as history has already shown.
Make low quality crap programs by the thousands and eventually after the novelty wears off, noone pays any money. They take their money to developers who actually produce something that is high quality and generally useful. Mobile apps can't stay at 99C price points. It's a nice gimmick but reality will hit soon enough.
"The minimum price for selling an application is $0.99 USD and equivalent price points for other currencies.
The maximum price for selling an application is $499 USD and equivalent price points for other currencies."
From http://developer.windowsmobile.com/Help.aspx?id=bd2276ca-7cb0-4f24-907e-4546c7e52533
Get the facts.
It's easy to slag off MS just because they do so much stuff, but at the end of the day, the first production smartphones where Palm and MS.. no Apple in there. The App Store isn't the first source of applications either...
I'd agree with the Google philosophy on this subject. There is nothing wrong with taking ideas from each other, as long as its respectful and for the point of making industry progress. If no one did this, most of the stuff you are using wouldn't exist or wouldn't be as usable. (Yes, that includes your iPods/iPhones etc)
@Adam
Actually, the first production smartphones were Symbian. MS just copied.
So, is the Microsoft app store going to use Microsoft points?
The problem with winmo apps is many are way overpriced.
Also, iPhone is not just a play toy. I am more productive with my iPhone than I ever was with my ppc. All I ever got with my ppc was over priced calendar apps and errors...not to mention it was slow as hell.
Any ways, screw MS. vista sucked balls and windows 7 should be sold for $20 bc it is practically the same edging thing as vista, with some bugs fixed. WTF is up with that MS. You guys can go to he'll you money grubbing asses.
I was going to reply to this post seriously, but about halfway through I realized what I was reading.
Artificial inflation of app prices to combat free market competition is moronic. The best iPhone apps float to the top and can make a lot of money even at $0.99. These apps are typically not meant to be huge office suites or photoshop on your phone. Your phone is not well-suited for that anyway. They are meant to be single-purpose applications like diet trackers, metronome/tuners for musicians, music recognition programs, etc.
Your app is worth what people are willing to pay. Sell it to 40M iPhone users and your $0.99 app has made you a significant amount of pocket change.
You sum it up nicely. Consumers dictate pricing, not distributors. Microsoft and RIM can empower their developers all they want, but charging 3 times more for an app could very well produce only half the earnings they would have received by only charging $1. How empowered will they feel when they're broke?
So this is a comment made by an MS employee as a suggestion which doesn't in anyway preclude the free apps that will be available, right?
A $3 fart app better smell, too.
Companies copying each other in the industry is the only way to go... If that was totally illegal or something, go ahead and enjoy your favourite Apple OS, which because of that would probably have almost everything good about it missing because someone had done it first.
Originality is not always the key to good business.
The iPhone App store has some great language/education applications that I find extremely helpful. I had Windows Mobile years ago and nothing ever came close to the quality of some of these recent apps.
"I had Windows Mobile years ago and nothing ever came close to the quality of some of these recent apps."
You don't think that maybe WinMo developers have made a few advances since "years ago" when you were using their phones... and I do believe that the iPhone apps that you find so useful now also didn't exist "years ago," as neither did the iPhone.
Comparing technology from "years ago" and now is not a fair comparison, especially in the software and mobile phone markets, where development is blazing fast.
It's the never ending battle of retail. As a developer do I charge $2.99 and get the money I feel I deserve, or do I use my app as a "loss leader" ($.99) to get my brand out there amongst a lot of people provided I have more apps to come. However, before I can do all that the app or apps have to be "good". I think it all depends on the developers intentions, get the quick money or sell your apps as a brand variable pricing to get more money as a whole. Whatever it is, make sure you are in control of your pricing.
While I don't like the principle, I think it's a good strategic decision for Microsoft. $0.99 is often used as a price point for stuff that should really be free.
JUBEI!
Great to see you!
All those Zune threads, and no baseless anti-microsoft comments to brighten my day. I missed you.
Agreed, a good search mechanism would make the plethora of dumb apps less of a pain. the App Store has to be experiencing some level of problems due to this.
tikitower iphone is 99c, I think those sell the wimo version of tikitower at $19.99 just out of their minds
The problem is that iPhone introduced this concept that mobile apps should be exceedingly simple one-trick ponies. If you write an app that has a fair amount of functionality, you should be able to charge more than 99 cents for it, but people are so used to the idea that mobile apps should be dirt cheap that they don't stop to think about value.
Microsoft's message to the general public:
"We are going to screw you because that is how we operate...let the few developers profit at the expense of everyone else."
Although considering there will probably only be a handful of app sales I guess it makes sense...$0.99 is the winning formula for everyone...if you make a worthwhile app you will sell it several hundred thousand times.
I have an HTC Fuze/Touch Pro and my Facebook app always freezes up. Anyone else having problems? It's only since Microsoft released the "official" facebook app, the one from before that worked fine. Damn it MS, why do you have to screw it up??
And thats why Microsoft will fail at winmo once again. Nobody wants to see apps with high price tags. People want to know that there are free things.
I think that WinMo has always been proud of their apps. The higher cost would be worth it if the programs are worth it. The fact is that most apps for the iPhone are not worth getting for free and that is why they are free. They sell the advertising which is annoying, but to try the app for free and check it out, I can live with that. I would be rather upset if I am paying $3 a pop to find the app is just not worth it. The other thing that a WinMo phone has been famous for is that a lot of the apps have not been transferable. So if you end up losing your phone or something happens you get to re spend your money.
My past experience with WinMo has been mixed, but with the new technology that is out there they seem to be stuck using the same structure with a fancy dress. While I am pro WinMo I grow more disappointed with the outlay of "new" technology each time they push something out in the phone market. This is just another example of the bloat that feel entitled to, not really protecting developers.
I find it a little ironic that they're bringing down XNA Indie Game pricings (and lowering the price cap) while saying this.
If Apple did this you would all be crying foul.
Well I do believe some applications should be priced at $1.00. The only application I ever bought on the iphone app store was a graphic calculator. Without I would have probably failed my math class.
"Ultimately, Uei says the goal is to set the bench higher by keeping low-quality apps out of the Marketplace"
An open market system as exists right now is the correct way to do an application marketplace. Implementing this idea would be like requiring any software you install on your PC be signed by Microsoft in order to be installed. That just isn't right. If the market has a rating system and your application is of higher quality you should be able to charge more for it. Look at Microsoft Office. It is an expensive product, but it has a very convenient user interface and currently controls a very large share of the office solution products even though there are perfectly capable free or cheaper solutions, such as Open Office.
that guy obviously has not seen the 80% of the marketplace that ARE only worth 99 cents, if that....
It's definitely a stupid move on Microsoft if they try to put a minimum price on any type of application. Just make it easy to filter and rate developers applications and let the market dictate the price.
This is a good system. The iphone has alot of fluff to it. Winmo devices can be cheaper and have a ton of variations so will take better devs to be able to cross platform of the many devices. For someone who buys an Iphone 99 cents is easy since they will literally buy into the apple mentality and say that "99 cents compared to the thousands Im shelling out each year for my plan and the like...... Thats a steal.." Meanwhile winmo users will be alot more intent on getting more out of their apps since most likely their plan and phone prices wont be the same neighborhood.
its all greed, i was all for the MS app store and was interested in the developer thing until i saw that you can only publish 5 apps with your $99 annual subscription one time, and from there on you have to pay??? no thanks, i dont know what microsoft is thinking but they just really dont want me to buy thier stuff, i would get a xbox, but you have to pay to use internet, sorry but i allready do that with comcast, im not paying twice. i was going to buy another zune, but hey they want subscription service to get music and theres no apps, basicly no support and no integration, and i would have considered developing for thier marketplace but they got greedy and decided they want US to PAY to make THEM more popular, the whole app thing is a gimmick anyways, "hey why dont you work for us but pay us to work for us, and well use all your stuff for advertising OUR product and how its so great."
MS your slippin bro, slippin up.
Oh, no CJ, he's been posting quite a bit- more than ever, actually. He's just been getting wise and sticking to posting after the comment section has basically died out or will post once there are 5 or 6 pages of comments and get on the last couple. Look at his profile. Actually, some of his comments got deleted last night because of his ridiculous claims and lack of any logical argument- he basically spammed, just copy and pasting the same comments repeatedly.
>It is called capitalism! Should you be charged for Google search queries? It is up to Google to decide what their business model should be. Likewise, app developer should get to decide whether their app is free, 5 cents or
50 dollars, not Microsoft.
Ummm...you can. Microsoft's WinMo happens to be the most open developer mobile platform there is....more so than iPhone or Android cmobined.
Microsoft is saying "through their MARKETPLACE store there will be pricing guidelines", but anyone can develop any app for WinMo phone and sell it themselves for however much they want.
As a current user of both iPhone and WinMo (6.1) I have to disagree with Uei. I have bought some great apps for $0.99 for my iPhone. Also keep in mind there is sooo much freeware for WinMo I am not inclined to buy many apps that go into $3 and above range.
If it work with both Winmo and Zune HD, it would be considered.
.99 is not for low quality apps but for affortable apps that you can actually buy
i would not spend 10$ for a twitter app but certainly spend that much trying several of them!
Back when i was a WinMo user for over 5 years ALL of my apps were pirated copies. Yes pirate copies since i could not justify paying $15-35 for applications on my phone!
I dont see a reson to pirate apps on iphone since most apps are .99 to 2.99, there is a lot more volume of purchases as well so developers are rewarded enought considering that thiet app is useful and therefore popular!