Microsoft: Windows 8 app store business model was just a placeholder

Earlier this week, Neowin reported that Microsoft was planning to take 30 percent of the revenues from sales of downloadable apps from the Windows Store. The app store will be one of the big new features in Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8 operating system. This is the same revenue cut that Apple offers creators of programs made for its iOS app store. The info came from last week's BUILD Conference where Microsoft showed off a slide during one of their presentations that had those Windows Store revenue percentage numbers.

Now a Microsoft spokesperson has contacted Neowin via email to offer a clarification on this story. The spokesperson admitted, " ... that was actually a placeholder we neglected to remove (realize it was a mistake). We will have more to share about economics when the Windows Store goes live."

That admission means that, at least at the moment, Microsoft has yet to set a revenue split for third party apps released for the Windows Store. It also means that Microsoft could, in theory, offer better financial terms for Windows Store app sales than Apple currently provides for its iOS app store.

The spokesperson didn't dispute other parts of the article which included word that the Windows Store will be the only place that users will be able to purchase and download apps made for the Metro-style touch screen user interface for Windows 8. Microsoft will also offer non-Metro based apps via the Windows Store. Microsoft will also be checking every Windows Store app for viruses and malware before those apps are released to the public.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Adobe Flash Player 11 and AIR 3 coming in early October

Next Story

Zynga announces Mafia Wars 2

11 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't understand. During the BUILD keynote, didn't Sinofsky mention Microsoft will be taking a 0% cut from stuff in the store, followed by a cheer from the crowd?

This is what I don't understand about all this talk about 30%. It's like everyone suffered mass amnesia, and nobody remembers them saying they won't take a cut.

people making rumors and/or dramas over an unfinished and obviously not even RC.. wait... not even beta product?... that's not a surprise

just like ribbon, some people/blogs "those orange circles look ugly, i don't like ribbon" and it was obviously a placeholder.

sometimes humans brains don't understand the reason for placeholders


Funny thing is that Paul Thurrott talked to Steven Sinofsky and Sinofsky said that they wouldn't be taking any cut. I'm just saying what Paul said.

Zedox said,
Funny thing is that Paul Thurrott talked to Steven Sinofsky and Sinofsky said that they wouldn't be taking any cut. I'm just saying what Paul said.

They're not taking any cut for desktop apps that are sold online from a 3rd partys online website. Like how Adobe or someone else lets you buy their apps on their websites and just download it etc, in those cases MS won't get any cut. But apps, well metro apps, that it does host on it's own system it'll take a cut of. Now if it's 30% or, and it'll probably be lower I think, we'll just have to wait and find out.

GP007 said,

They're not taking any cut for desktop apps that are sold online from a 3rd partys online website. Like how Adobe or someone else lets you buy their apps on their websites and just download it etc, in those cases MS won't get any cut. But apps, well metro apps, that it does host on it's own system it'll take a cut of. Now if it's 30% or, and it'll probably be lower I think, we'll just have to wait and find out.

I know that. We'll definitely have to wait and see. Which I don't mind...we have a long road before Windows 8 is RTM'd

Rafyelzz said,
I really hope this extra income will mean lower OS price.

The most complex piece of software ever written that manages every aspect of your software, hardware, and information - and you really want it to be 'cheap'?

OSes used to cost a LOT of money, and the company that changed this was Microsoft. (They also changed SDK availability and costs, which is one reason Windows was successful.)

Go look up the pre-OSS versions of UNIX, and other OSes of the late 80s and early 90s.

You couldn't just buy an OS to run on a custom made computer, as even in the IBM 'compatible' x86 world, there were incompatibilities that was borderline insane. And OSes were not designed to have 'flexible' kernel/driver models to support much beyond the pure OS basics (Allocation, Monitoring, Scheduling).
*Again a concept that Microsoft changed, as they moved more 'functionality' into operations of modern OSes.

So, it may seem odd that Windows costs $100 on average, but compared to 'competitive' products from the early 90s, it was then and still is rather cheap. Even DOS cost over $100, and OS/2 started out in the $300 range.

If you want to scare yourself, go look up OSes like AS/400, Solaris, VMS, etc. (Just the OS pricing). They were still selling for several thousand per CPU in the 90s, and were less functional than Windows NT's desktop version. (This is how IBM and others got people to but into licensing/maintenance for 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars a year because there were no discounts for upgrades and 'fixes/updates' were not free.)

If the $100 for Windows is out of your price range, there are options from Microsoft to get Windows for 'test' and non-commercial use for virtually nothing. Most technical people that test, review, and develop use these methods, as they need several licenses for testing.

Microsoft spends a lot of money on advancing technology, and considering how important an OS to users, I don't find the price out of line as long as they keep advancing technology, and moving the entire hardware and software industry forward.

Windows is the most complex piece of software in the world, and despite the ramblings of goofs, is the most advanced OS technology. So $100 isn't bad.


(PS Windows Starter is around $20-30 bucks, and Ultimate can be bought for as little as $150.)