The dude is in Europe. Most people in Europe don't even have credit cards, really. Credit card infrastruture is way less developed in Europe. (Let alone 'less developed' parts of the world, which still have developers). The whole world is not the US.
Dude, have you been to Europe? Because credit cards are freakin' everywhere there and have super-advanced James Bond anti-fraud smartchips in them. You don't even have to reach for a cheque book (that's how they spell it in Euroland) because the cards do everything.
UK ATMs even have two slots in them: one is labeled "CIVILISED PEOPLE" and has a smartchip reader; the other is labeled "YANKEE TOSSERS" and has a magstripe reader.
I think most of those fancy debit/check cards do not have visa or mastercard serials, and thus can not be used to pay American websites that take credit cards (unlike American debit cards that have visa serials and use the same processing network as credit cards).
Oh, the pains of spending all day filling out forms and spending $180 in licensing to become set up in the Windows store. The agony!
This sounds like the same signup process is in use for both M and Desktop apps. You could probably start making M-ui based programs too, and even host them in the store!
Why ARE you going through all of this effort, since you're so quick to point out the small the benefit to you? Why not just forget it all and just sell your programs from your own website? Do you regularly place yourself in disadvantaged situations so you'll have a reason to be angry later?
Not quite $180. More like $300 dollars for the first year, and potentially at least $800 a year after that. Apple's offer is generous by comparison. Or did you miss the part where the pricing is introductory on the required certificates?
>Now, about live accounts. You might know this: live accounts are tied to everything you do with Microsoft. So if you have an MSDN subscription, e.g. the one which costs over $5000.-, it's tied to this same live account. But the fun thing is, you can login with your live account to the MSDN subscriptions with just the account id and password. No additional code is mailed to you. While it gives you access to all Microsoft software available, including your licenses.
>Why the draconian security theater with this Windows Store, while all I want is to publish some desktop applications while on other Microsoft sites it's OK to simply sign in with your live account: no codes needed, no verification and no certificates?
Cannot believe he's serious. Doesn't he see the massive malware problem with Windows applications? Microsoft is going to such great lengths so that anyone submitting applications with malware, disguised or not, will have some accountability later. i.e Expect MS and/or law enforcement to come after you, that's why all the identity checking. Also, this discourages fly-by-night operations from trying to submit malware to the store.
Comparing that to MSDN login is a pretty invalid comparison. If someone hacks in to your MSDN account, MS potentially loses a few thousand worth of software. If people are able to distribute malware through Windows Store, care to estimate the damage caused by the inevitable headline "Microsoft Windows Store distributes malware" even though MS just links to the software ?
Apple's answer to this was to heavily sandbox OS X apps, due to which there was a lot of outcry with developers jumping ship to normal distribution.
Also note that Microsoft is not forcing developers to pay 30% of the desktop software sale price like Apple is, so the cost of those certificates might pay for itself down the line.
I believe the issues he is mentionning is the seemingly 'obscure' and convulted hoops you have to jump through. Security is of course very important, especially regarding the dissemination of malware.
However, security doesn't have to make you miserable as a developer, especially that MS desperately needs some apps to fill up it's 'shelves' on Win8.
In this case, if the flow of events and various milestones needed to sign up had been shown to the developer BEFORE he actually starts the process, it would save him many headaches and MS wouldn't seem like such an unwilling participant and making it's OWN platform looking so shoddy in the process.
You're talking about Metro(WinRT) apps which are hosted and distributed by Microsoft.
The OP and the article are talking about desktop apps, which the store will only have a link to the developers website. The cut is zero for desktop apps.
i for one feel that microsoft is completely justified in actually being stricter with these desktop listings in the windows store..
these apps don't go through the same certification processes as do the modern apps that sit alongside them in the store, but they get all the discoverability from being in there.. to a consumer, all apps via an app store are assumed to be stable and safe (even if they link to an external site to complete payment). just the fact that they're listed there in the windows store provides a de-facto stamp of approval that these apps are vetted by microsoft.
if they aren't sufficiently strict and maleware (or process-hogging apps) get through it would undermine both trust in microsoft and in the reliability of the app store which would probably hurt all devs.
This goes back to the beginning of the internet, where folks were reluctant to link to other sites because they might have 'bad stuff'. Does anybody alive think Microsoft is responsible for stuff they link to? When you have to buy the stuff on some obviously-3rd-party website?
Paying to link to a 3rd rate store is not worth any of the money or hassle Microsoft put the guy through. Its exactly as if a bloated corporation overdesigned the process - full of arrogant assumptions and pointless theatre.
that may make sense to you, but for the average consumer i doubt they'll differentiate. microsoft has built and will be promoting the windows app store as the place to find and download apps (and on some devices, windows rt tablets, it will be the only place)
ios popularized the app store and their model, which has defined it as a safe reliable place to find apps that won't fuck-up your system, has become the standard (many may suck, but they're generally not harmful). microsoft is doing the same with the windows store and in the case of metro/modern apps, that holds true. but for desktop apps (which many people do, and will still, want) that’s not true. they have deeper-access to the system and are not sandboxed. so it makes sense to try to differentiate malware and crap from valuable desktop-style applications, which is exactly what they’re trying to do..
and microsoft does not charge for these desktop application ‘store listings’, and they are not required. they do however look like a good option for desktop application developers to showcase their offerings within (the increasingly common model of) a managed store, improving discoverability. if they let anyone publish apps without trying hard to verify the identity of the developer and reliability of the application (as they're not 'certifying' these like the metro apps) then it would entirely undermine the whole point of the store..
Is it simply difficult to make a good developer signup workflow, or are both of these companies unmotivated to make any effort on the front?