Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdmiralAsshat | Hacker News Reader

> That said, it sucks that I cannot tell people they can also download Krita from krita.org.

As in, you've signed an NDA literally forbidding you from mentioning as such? Or you're simply not allowed to put the URL anywhere in the Windows Store description?

View on HN

The second option, keep in mind speaking from reading and not from experience

False. The URL is currently in the Microsoft Store description.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/krita/9n6x57zgrw96

I mean in practice you can also list links to your site on the Apple App Store but you aren’t allowed to mention a cheaper price or another purchasing option.

It seems to me there is some price arbitrage opportunity for a 3rd party who can figure out how to get affiliate payments.

If the app developer can't advertise that one of their store options is cheaper, a 3rd party isn't limited by the same contractual obligation.

I'd imagine it's more that Microsoft takes a smaller cut if they come to the store via krita.org versus finding it through the store itself, so they don't want to give that up.

Krita on Windows' store costs (I think) around 10 dollars. Directly from Krita's site, 0 dollars. Windows has a similar policy as Apple that the app creators cannot tell the users on the store page to go somewhere else to get it cheaper/free.

The commenter above was making a slightly different point. Some digital stores take a large cut if the user finds the app organically while browsing their Store, vs if they came to the store page from a link on the owner's site.

The former means Windows helped the user find the app, whereas the latter means the author did and Microsoft is just providing a way for the user to download the app.

Which stores? Does the Microsoft store work this way? When you respond to a specific and pointed question with theoretical knowledge of how things "could work," it just starts to muddy the waters.

That is how Microsoft Store works, yes.

In my app most downloads are from direct links, so I am happy about that policy.

https://twitter.com/ductionist/status/1102990274203127811

Which makes sense. If they find it through the store, they’ve played a role in acquiring that user.

How do they stand on subscriptions though? That’s one of the areas that Apple has been terrible with.

It sounds so convoluted. Like providing service for customers is not enough. Applications is the reason people use Windows.

Paying customers may be product too.

> Paying customers may be product too.

That was implied ever since Microsoft decided to make Windows 10 free or at a very low cost to a majority of users. And, why not, as long as their fee is not outrageous for application developers and they don't restrict the users' ability to install software from other sources.

It is not free https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/windows

So paying yet product. And varying price is something I would expect from airlines, not from respectable business.

When it was released they offered a free upgrade. You are still able to use the same method to upgrade for free: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-download-windows-10-for-f...

Free upgrade from paid product to paid product. Still paying yet product.

I question wisdom of the original term. What if "shut up and take money" is not enough? If so was it on purpose or by accident? First time in my life I think of conspiracy theories.

My take on catchy phrases:

- You are a product for for-profit

- You are a product if don't fight for your freedoms

> It is not free https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/windows

Most people either upgraded for free to a new version (the same operation was paid before), or get Windows through a subsidized OEM version. Subsidized is pretty clear: you pay less, in exchange for something else.

> varying price is something I would expect from airlines, not from respectable business.

Why should we expect a software company to be more ethical, for varying definitions of ethical, than an airline company?

> which makes sense

But what if the user literally just enters the apps name in the search. In this case the app store only played the negligible role of an trivial looking indeed. Is it really reasonable to then thanks a larger cut?

Edit: but then the cut for extremely driven aquisation is 5% which compared to some other stores is really low. So I really shouldn't complain ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com