|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: 1. Hosting - it is very cheap nowadays...
Well, that really depends. Yes, you can get cheap hosting but getting hosting that supports failover, etc, is a massive headache and can rapidly escalate costs.Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: 2. Payment processing - all you need is a PayPal (or similar) account, and you solved all the management/taxing problems
I find that one a funny one. You'll be surprised how many businesses won't buy from you if your only payment option is PayPal, or perhaps you won't be surprised. Yes, if you're only dealing with B2C, you might be able to get away with this, but B2B then you are probably going to have to roll out a much more robust payment system.Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: 3. Both can be solved in one place if you are using some cloud, like Amazon E3...
I thought you were talking about cheap options. Cloud options can run up some very nasty costs, very quickly. There is no such thing as a free lunch here.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I find that one a funny one. You'll be surprised how many businesses won't buy from you if your only payment option is PayPal, or perhaps you won't be surprised. Yes, if you're only dealing with B2C, you might be able to get away with this, but B2B then you are probably going to have to roll out a much more robust payment system.
For that there's always Western Union: thousands of thriving businesses in far away places like Ukraine, Russia and even remote countries like Nigeria with unreliable internet have had no problem taking suckers getting money that way.
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Microsoft's "more eyeballs" argument has never been terribly convincing amongst developers (IMO), given the "success" of the store.
But if they can make managing payment their problem, and not yours, then it's a great thing to get out of the way. Perhaps this is what Microsoft should emphasize when they try to pitch the store to developers.
|
|
|
|
|
Getting more eyeballs to your product listing/site/etc. is almost never a bad thing. You just need to figure out what pain is required to get listed in the Windows Store, and then decide if it's worth the pain to get the extra eyeballs.
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Yes finally you have to be true.
First I really must be stupid to ask the question in the first place.
I think inside me I have already make the choice and I was searching some comfort to justify my choice.
Thanks to all of you anyway.
What I will do is to start with my own Web site and with Windows store at the same time.
I promise you that if I do some sales I will give you the results in six months.
Many Thanks to all.
|
|
|
|
|
The first question is, whether you move on to WPF. The next is, whether you move on to Universal Windows Platform (UWP). And then comes the Store question.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't need to move your winforms app to WPF or UWP.
You can use the Microsoft desktop converter.
|
|
|
|
|
this isn't an either/or question; you can continue your online business AND get a store listing. There's a lot of support from Microsoft to help you join. You know about desktop converter already. The conversion isn't difficult, the only thorn is changing your registration code
I did it some months ago, and although the sales aren't spectacular, they do exist. In the future Microsoft may force everybody to go on the store, if you believe the news
I believe that to be successful in the Store, you must offer a free/very cheap version, and make money through in-app purchases. Mine is quite expensive for store terms
Along the way you will find that many things are broken, it is very sad, but there could be an advantage for the future jumping on board early
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some cases where it might help:
- Updates: it makes it easier for your customers to get updates for your app
- Visibility: being a popular app in the store increases your chances of your app being recommended to - other users through the "Picks for you" or "Popular apps" categories on the store
- Let's say you have a new feature to your new app and want to roll the update only to a few of your customers before releasing it to everyone. Windows store makes hat easier for you.
- Notifications
- Analytics/Crashes/Hangs are easily visible in your Dev Center
- Easily distributing your app in multiple languages
As stated, the downside is that 30% of the acquisitions made through your app go to Microsoft
|
|
|
|
|
30% ?! 
|
|
|
|
|
It's the same on App Store and Play Store. So, why so shocked?
|
|
|
|
|
uhhhh, because i didn't know it's so stupidly outrageous on any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Industry standard for digital storefronts is 30%.
Steam, for example, might take more than that.
|
|
|
|
|
If it ends up being sold in the Microsoft store, I'll never see it! In the first 2-3 years of the store I didn't find a single 'App' that I'd want to use so I just stopped looking. Most of my computer tech friends don't use the store either, they seem to see it as a waste land.
|
|
|
|
|
Cons:
1. Percentage of sales go to Microsoft.
2. Not sure if non-UWP apps can be sold via the store, but I think they can be distributed privately.
3. There are some other minimal requirements such as passing a certification test and providing several logos of various sizes, but these aren’t difficult and are actually beneficial.
4. You’re subject to potential restrictions on how you classify your application.
5. No support for Win7.
Pros:
1. You don’t have to host a site and users don’t have to wonder if they can trust your site.
2. Once you successfully submit an app, updating it is extremely easy.
3. In most cases, updates are automatically downloaded by your users.
4. All financial transactions are handled for you.
5. Many analytics available via DevCenter (download stats, advertising performance, usage stats, crash logs, user reviews, ratings, feedback, etc.)
6. You can provide links to your app that directly open the Windows Store (which is most likely in the center of a user’s taskbar) right to your app.
For me, the risk-free ease of hosting and distributing my apps is the best part. I had to embrace UWP, but its similarity to WinForms made it easier and now I have apps that run on and automatically scale to multiple Windows devices.
|
|
|
|
|
I, too, develop Winforms applications.
To answer your question, though, it depends on your audience. My guess is that you're trying to sell something you've written and want the widest possible audience. In that case then, you might consider it. In my particular case, I write applications under contract (customized). The "store" wouldn't be of much use in that context.
So, as I said, the answer is: "depends". 
Bruce W. Roeser
www.simplesoftwarebydesign.com
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I like Microsoft and I like the idea of a store - I worry about the idea of downloading random code from the internet and paying for it, although I have done both. The problem is that the Windows store is a wasteland of under-designed and poorly thought out applications. If possible I would prioritize a web application. That said, a well designed and well marketed app in the Windows Store could really be a differentiator. Rudy Huyn makes pretty decent money producing windows apps.
Idaho Edokpayi
|
|
|
|
|
I recently published my app (a UWP) on the Windows Store and I think there are big advantages compared to traditional MSI installers:
- People will be less hesitant to install an app from the store (bc it has a stamp of approval), which is better if you're a small time developer with no recognition
- You don't need to mess with installers or code signing certificates
- You can easily push updates (mandatory if you want) to all your users instantaneously (I've found that updates are generally processed and made available overnight)
- You can get analytics on installations, usage and crashes
Yes there is a cost (MSFT takes a cut of your revenues) but I think it significantly simplifies distribution
|
|
|
|
|
Why do people use it?
I could sort of see it being used if you have to type in the URL (but even then...typing gobbledygook correctly is not all that much easier than typing real words), but why use it for links someone is just going to click?
Especially when a lot of systems have all sorts of "sensing" software on the network, and you don't know what you're going to be caught trying to access until after you click and the You're A Bad Boy screen pops up.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of the time, people use this for Twitter. It is useful when you have a limited number of characters to play with.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
That makes sense.
But what prompted it was a "tinyurl" link here in the Lounge. 
|
|
|
|
|
In those cases it's so you won't know where you are going, and will maybe click on it to find out.
Doesn't work with me, but it does with enough to make it worth doing apparently.
Are you more likely to click on "tinyurl.com/a1723erw" or "nigerianprinceneedsyourbankaccount.com"? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 555 7777 666 0 8 9 666 0 8 44 88 6 22 0 55 33 999 444 66 4
Take you back?
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Twitter is one, but it arrived before that mainly for mobiles, its still not as easy as it should be to quickly easily transfer a link to/from mobile to other devices, a 6/8 character URL is far easier to type than some of the monstrosities that appear.
Finally some sites still seem to embed War & Peace in the URL, so even ignoring mobiles, URL shorteners are useful.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
