Microsoft sells restrictive new WiMo Marketplace via iPhone ads

[AppleInsider]

With the release of Windows Mobile 6.5 and its new Marketplace app store fast approaching, Microsoft has resorted to buying ads within iPhone apps to attract the attention of developers.

Even so, the company's new store plans to be even more restrictive than Apple's App Store, charging developers $99 per app submitted while killing off many existing WiMo titles and banning Java. Microsoft has reportedly approached some iPhone developers directly, offering them cash to port their iPhone apps to Windows Mobile. The new iPhone ads actually target app users however, encouraging them to click on the banner to "submit app."



Somewhat ironically, Microsoft is promoting its belated response to the iPhone App Store, which opened fifteen months ago, as a "Race to Market Challenge." The company's late entry into the mobile app market promises developers who participate the chance to win "exciting prizes" for submitting new Windows Mobile apps, including a Microsoft Surface table, online marketing and promotion and "a one-of-a-kind trophy."



$99 per submission

Microsoft's development program is patterned after Apple's in some respects, with the same $99 annual fee to participate in its program as a registered developer. However, Microsoft will also be charging an additional $99 fee per application submitted for both free and paid apps, after an initial grace period through the end of 2009 that permits five free app submissions.

"We will run a rigorous certification process to ensure an optimal end user experience, and that the device and network resources are not used in a malicious way," Microsoft says in its Marketplace information page. "This certification process bears a significant cost. We believe that $99 is an acceptable cost of doing business, in order to gain access to millions of customers interested in purchasing applications."

Apple does not charge developers any additional fees to submit their apps, which has resulted in a crushing submission approvals workload that has left a few dozen developers publicly enraged by delays and inconsistencies in the approval process. The vast majority of the 75,000 applications in the App Store library are approved within two weeks, and at no cost, by Apple's staff of reviewers. In July, Apple reported to the FCC that it handles 8,500 app submissions and updates every week.

Microsoft's store rules tells developers, "if your app is rejected, you will receive an adequate explanation and any associative tests or policy rules that have failed. As the developer, you are expected to address these issues before submitting the app again. Submission fees are not refundable, and you’ll have to repay the [$99] submission fee for each time you submit the app."

Additionally, "Microsoft reserves the right to remove your app from Windows Marketplace for Mobile at any time. An app may be pulled if its content is unsuitable or if the app has an unusually high rate of customer refund requests." At the same time, the company says, "you’re not required to provide support for apps that are no longer available on Windows Marketplace for Mobile."

Clarification: comments have raised questions about whether Microsoft will charge extra for each additional app update submitted, after having already paid the initial $99 (and $99 for each rejected submission). Microsoft currently says it won't charge for app update submissions, after initially stating that updates would only be free to submit when presented within 7 days of submitting the original. The original article did not fathom that Microsoft would charge for app updates.

No alternative stores

Microsoft's restrictions on Marketplace submissions have other similarities to Apple's SDK rules, including a prohibition on trying to sell other content or upgrades of any kind in competition with Microsoft's own store. This includes:

"Applications that are or distribute alternate marketplaces for content types (applications, games, themes etc.) that are sold or otherwise distributed through Windows Marketplace for Mobile."

"Applications that link to, incent users to download, or otherwise promote alternate marketplaces."

"Applications that promote or link users to a website, or contain functionality within the application itself, which encourages or requires the user to purchase or pay to upgrade the application outside of Windows Marketplace for Mobile."

Unlike the iPhone and its App Store however, Microsoft is erecting its competition-restricted software storefront for an existing platform that is already a decade old. This risks significant backlash by the WiMo software stores that have already gone into business with Microsoft's blessings, along with developers who already sell their Windows Mobile apps using an adware or subscription upgrade business model.

No mobile VoIP, no Google Voice

Also prohibited is a familiar-sounding ban against enabling "VoIP (Voice over IP) services over a mobile operator network" or efforts to "replace, remove or modify the default dialer, SMS, or MMS interface." That's clearly a preemptive strike on Google Voice, which has met similar resistance from Apple's mobile provider partners.

Apple has caught heat over its delay in approving the native version of the Google Voice app and its delisting of third party apps that tied into Google's GV service. Still, the iPhone has never been advertised as a wide open platform, as Windows Mobile is.

Additionally, Windows Mobile is already saturated with third party apps that replicate and improve upon the built in features of its interface. This makes Microsoft's attempt to set up a mobile shop modeled after Apple's a tough sell. It may even risk killing off Microsoft's existing mobile partnerships without any guarantee of solo success, just as the Zune destroyed the PlaysForSure ecosystem of media stores and hardware partners in its fruitless bid to compete with Apple's iPod. Microsoft is also expected to introduce its own new Windows Mobile phone next year, further disrupting its WiMo ecosystem of partners.

No alternative browsers, no search, no media players

Microsoft's new Marketplace rules also prohibit any apps that attempt to "change the default browser, search client, or media player on the device."

Apple has been criticized for bringing the iPhone to market as a closed device with a default browser, default links to Yahoo and Google, and its own QuickTime-based embedded media player. At the same time, when it opened up the App Store a year after the iPhone hit the market, there was little demand for an alternative browser, search client, or media player because the ones Apple provided were already among the best available on any smartphone platform.

On the other hand, Microsoft's Windows Mobile has been on the market for many years with lots of third party alternatives to its Pocket Internet Explorer web browser, search functions, and media playback app. The Windows Mobile browser is derided by even Microsoft's closest proponents, who often recommend that users download NetFront, Opera, or other alternative browsers.

Entering an established, competitive market and issuing a new prohibition on the popular alternatives everyone already uses is a big departure from what Apple has done, and a more egregiously anticompetitive step than simply bundling an option that can't be removed, as Microsoft did when it introduced Internet Explorer on Windows to kill off Netscape's browser.

No Java apps

Similarly, Microsoft's new prohibition against "Applications that run code outside Microsoft runtimes (native, managed, and widgets)" is identical in intent to Apple's rules against alternative runtimes, frameworks and plugin code that seek to avoid the use of the iPhone's native Cocoa Touch APIs.

The big difference is that Windows Mobile apps are already being written using Java and other runtimes. Sun will be surprised to find that Microsoft plans to simply wish away its JavaFX for Windows Mobile, along with the Mysaifu JVM, CrE-ME, and the phoneME runtime.

At the same time, Microsoft will also be promoting Flash Lite support in its browser, because its own Flash alternative for mobile devices isn't ready yet. Once the mobile version of Silverlight becomes available, will Adobe's runtime be similarly banned after the fact? Possibly; Microsoft says it reserves the right to modify its store rules at any time.

Other conflicts of interest

Microsoft also runs other businesses that Apple doesn't, introducing new impediments in its ability to simply copy Apple's App Store. For example, Apple has no Internet search or web advertising business. The iPhone offers users a choice between Google and Yahoo for web search, and allows third parties to introduce their own search apps; Microsoft offers iPhone developers the ability to tie into its own Bing engine, for example.

Apple also enables third parties to offer various in-app advertising programs to monetize developers' free apps. Microsoft runs its own ad business, so while it says it will allow other companies to sell ads in WiMo software, those companies will not be on an equal playing field with the platform's own vendor.

Microsoft also runs its own mapping services in competition with Google, another example of a business Apple where remains neutral on the iPhone. Third party iPhone apps can and already do both draw upon Google Maps or use Microsoft's instead.

Prospects for the WiMo Marketplace

Microsoft's rigid new rules don't seem to take into consideration the company's shrinking share of the smartphone market. In the most recent quarter reported by Canalys, Windows Mobile has fallen into fourth place globally with just a 9% share.

Just a few years ago, Microsoft could claim nearly a quarter of the global market for smartphones. Now it can't even claim that big of a slice of the American market. The US the market is now dominated by RIM and Apple, which own a combined 75.3% of the market. With its window of opportunity squeezing shut, new store rules that pinch off existing developers and crush competing stores are not likely to help Microsoft turn its game around.

At the same time, Microsoft won't be able to leverage the existing installed base it does have because its new Windows Mobile Marketplace requires Windows Mobile 6.5. The vast majority of existing WiMo phones are not eligible for any type of upgrade to the new operating system, apart from a few models Microsoft highlighted back in February as being specifically designed to run the new 6.5 update, such as HTC's Touch Pro2 and Diamond2.

This limits the potential audience for Microsoft's new Marketplace store to users of select WiMo phones sold this year. It also alienates many buyers who have invested in expensive WiMo devices over the past year or two, many priced in the neighborhood of $700. Some of those users can risk bricking their device to install an unauthorized, unsupported WiMo 6.5 ROM image, but there's no general upgrade option.

Zune, meet Windows Mobile

Microsoft is also doing nothing to bind its Windows Mobile smartphones together with Zune sales to create a larger, unified software market for Windows CE-based devices. The Zune team isn't even really operating a software store, but instead only allowing a few select developers to offer free software titles. While the Zune HD packaging highlights its ability to play games, there will be no real market promoting the creation of games for users to play.

Brian Seitz, the Zune's marketing manager, says the Zune HD is focused on music and video playback. That's a particularly strange position for Microsoft to take, given that the company has heavily promoted PC gaming and literally poured billions into its Xbox franchise just to establish a position in the console gaming business. When asked about the company's Zune HD software store plans in relation to new WiMo Marketplace, Seitz, spoke of Windows Mobile as if it were a different company.

"Right now our product roadmaps didn't line up perfectly for us to snap to what they're doing [in the Windows Mobile Marketplace] or vice versa. That being said, we know people want things like this on their devices so we're going to build them ourselves, they're going to be super high-quality, and they're going to be free. Down the road if there's a way we can work with Windows Mobile or another group inside the company that's building an app store and take advantage of that, that's something we'll look into."

In contrast, Apple still officially supports every iPhone and iPod touch ever built since 2007 with its latest iPhone 3.1 software and in the App Store, resulting in an installed base of 50,000,000 devices for iPhone developers to reach. That has created a library of 75,000 apps, including over 21,000 games. It's no wonder why Microsoft is working to get their attention.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[frugality]

Big Brother vs. Big Brother in the octagon.....gotta love it....

[slapppy]

Well I guess this is appropriate then for Microsoft. "FAIL"

[timgriff84]

The $99 submission price will be annoying for developers if they have to keep paying for each submission. But at the same time it could be good for everyone:

1. One of my hates about the app store is there is so much crap, this would stop a lot of crap being submitted
2. Compared to how much an app should actually make $99 isn't a whole lot of cash
3. If there's a financial risk of submitting an app that isn't really ready developers will do it less

On the whole I think this may just help filter out a lot of the crap that makes it onto Apples App Store, as there will be less people just submitting something they made in a few hours in the hope it will make money.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

When asked about the company's Zune HD software store plans in relation to new WiMo Marketplace, Seitz, spoke of Windows Mobile as if it were a different company.

That's just how Microsoft works, rather than operating as one company with one vision and going down one path. Microsoft divides its workforce up often lets different teams work on effectively the same idea just to see who does a better job and goes with that. It's an odd approach but as innovation is hard for big companies (hence Apple and Microsoft both buy a lot of the ideas they come out with) its a good way to try an ensure your products are going to be better.

[NasserAE]

Unlike the iPhone and its App Store however, Microsoft is erecting its competition-restricted software storefront for an existing platform that is already a decade old. This risks significant backlash by the WiMo software stores that have already gone into business with Microsoft's blessings, along with developers who already sell their Windows Mobile apps using an adware or subscription upgrade business model.

Typical MS treatment of their partners.

[Psych_guy]

I wonder of the same 'softie trolls will come out for this article too. You know, the ones who had less than 5 posts and were probably paid by Microsoft to spew their talking points here?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by timgriff84

The $99 submission price will be annoying for developers if they have to keep paying for each submission. But at the same time it could be good for everyone:

1. One of my hates about the app store is there is so much crap, this would stop a lot of crap being submitted
2. Compared to how much an app should actually make $99 isn't a whole lot of cash
3. If there's a financial risk of submitting an app that isn't really ready developers will do it less

It's ridiculous!

this will prevent small developers from participating. It will also prevent developers from coming out with timely updates to fix bugs and to add minor features. With the App Store, I sometimes get updates from a developer a couple of times a week until they get the problems all taken care of or add features quickly.

If a company wants to make ten updates in a year for a program, which is not uncommon, that will cost them $1,000. And if some get sent back, it will be another $99 for each.

This will limit the number of apps for sure, but unlike what MS is saying, it won't assure quality.

On the whole I think this may just help filter out a lot of the crap that makes it onto Apples App Store, as there will be less people just submitting something they made in a few hours in the hope it will make money.

It will also filter out most of the good ones as well.

That's just how Microsoft works, rather than operating as one company with one vision and going down one path. Microsoft divides its workforce up often lets different teams work on effectively the same idea just to see who does a better job and goes with that. It's an odd approach but as innovation is hard for big companies (hence Apple and Microsoft both buy a lot of the ideas they come out with) its a good way to try an ensure your products are going to be better.

Yeah. It's dumb. Invent the wheel time after time, but don't let anyone else use it. Great idea.

[emulator]

from a developer's point of view, what's the point of submitting free apps if they charge the same $99? will there be any of them? also, do M$ get a cut from the sale price?

[ThinkAdrian]

Their banner isn't even fitted for the iPhone's default screen width. C'mon, Mircorosft, stop sucking at design!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Psych_guy

I wonder of the same 'softie trolls will come out for this article too. You know, the ones who had less than 5 posts and were probably paid by Microsoft to spew their talking points here?

They don't have to be paid. There are psychos' in all platforms.

The Mac Fanatics

The Windows Weenies

and my own

The Linux Loonies©

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by slapppy

Well I guess this is appropriate then for Microsoft. "FAIL"

They hear it everyday. With Ballmer= EPIC FAIL!

[irnchriz]

Not really any different from their xbox live arcade business model. You would imagine that Microsoft would have to be even more careful with their app store than apple as they are hated even more than apple by the self righteous script kiddies and hackers/jail breakers out there who think that they are special.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by melgross

they don't have to be paid. There are psychos' in all platforms.

The mac fanatics

the windows weenies

and my own

the linux loonies©

:d haha!

[Gwydion]

Originally Posted by melgross

If a company wants to make ten updates in a year for a program, which is not uncommon, that will cost them $1,000. And if some get sent back, it will be another $99 for each.

It's an one time fee, submitting updates is free.

[RichL]

There's one big difference that Prince fails to point out - the traditional method of installing apps on WinMo will still be open to application developers. Don't like the $99 fee or the restrictions? Distribute your app through your website.

The real problem for Microsoft is that carriers like Verizon want to replace Microsoft's app store with their own. That's only going to confuse consumers.

Originally Posted by Prince McLean

At the same time, Microsoft won't be able to leverage the existing installed base it does have because its new Windows Mobile Marketplace requires Windows Mobile 6.5

Actually, it's coming to 6.1 (and possible 6.0) phones too.

[stonefree]

the bit about the "one of a kind trophy" was killing me. A bronze bust of Ballmer's head maybe?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"Right now our product roadmaps didn't line up perfectly for us to snap to what they're doing [in the Windows Mobile Marketplace] or vice versa. That being said, we know people want things like this on their devices so we're going to build them ourselves, they're going to be super high-quality, and they're going to be free. Down the road if there's a way we can work with Windows Mobile or another group inside the company that's building an app store and take advantage of that, that's something we'll look into."

Do they ever expect to have a winner when they compartmentalize that much of their company. They really need a restructuring. If not the whole company, at least with their mobile division so they can get back into the game before it’s too late.

Originally Posted by timgriff84

On the whole I think this may just help filter out a lot of the crap that makes it onto Apples App Store, as there will be less people just submitting something they made in a few hours in the hope it will make money.

I wish that were true, but if you look at apps from other platforms that charge more than Apple of MS will there are plenty of crappy apps. Granted there SDKs aren’t as nice, they don’t have such a powerful OS with powerful frameworks to use, but you could tell if an app was poorly made or well made.

They won’t get nearly as many apps or developers, which will hurt them, but I think the likely result will be developers charging more per app in order to compensate for these additional fees. If these apps are on Android, WebOS or the iPhone OS and they cost more this won’t look good for MS. Does there SDK allow for HW level access?

Originally Posted by Gwydion

It's an one time fee, submitting updates is free.

According to the article, that is not how MS will be handling it. There is the yearly fee of $99, just like with Apple’s App Store, and then the per app submission of $99 for free or paid apps, regardless if the first app submission, a resubmission due rejection or just doing a bug update. Maybe it’s wrong because that sounds very hostile toward developers.

[ascii]

Charging per submission is actually a good idea, it might stop people from app spamming, such as the "Ring John," "Ring Jane" apps, or a whole army of apps that contain one open source novel each.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ascii

Charging per submission is actually a good idea, it might stop people from app spamming, such as the "Ring John," "Ring Jane" apps, or a whole army of apps that contain one open source novel each.

True, but this setup will also get them to not update as often and likely charge more than for other platforms. Even if it was a one-time fee for a new app submittal with all updates being free, I think that would be a more beneficial balance for the consumer.

[8CoreWhore]

What a joke. A bad joke.

[RichL]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Does there SDK allow for HW level access?

The current Windows Mobile SDKs do. They offer more access than Android or iPhone and slightly less than Symbian.

According to the article, that is not how MS will be handling it. There is the yearly fee of $99, just like with Apple’s App Store, and then the per app submission of $99 for free or paid apps, regardless if the first app submission, a resubmission due rejection or just doing a bug update. Maybe it’s wrong because that sounds very hostile toward developers.

It's wrong. Once again, don't believe Prince McLean's FUD.

[shadow]

Originally Posted by RichL

The current Windows Mobile SDKs do. They offer more access than Android or iPhone and slightly less than Symbian.

The problem is, there are so many devices that developers have problems to make even the official APIs work on different phones.

Originally Posted by RichL

Once again, don't believe Prince McLean's FUD.

What he says is that when the app is re-submitted because of rejection, you pay again. And he quotes the rules. You (and others above) are talking about application updates. Read carefully before playing the judge.

[talksense101]

I wonder if Apple will eventually charge some money for reviews. But the money Apple makes from downloads of paid applications hopefully will make it easier to offset the review cost. Apple is driving to get volume, M$ is playing the quality trump card.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by RichL

The current Windows Mobile SDKs do. They offer more access than Android or iPhone and slightly less than Symbian.

It's wrong. Once again, don't believe Prince McLean's FUD.

This Prince bloke is really really denigrating my opinion of AppleInsider with some of his recent FUDfest posts. There's just no class, and it doesn't really provide anything of value to the readers apart from confused flamefests in the comments.

Personally I think WinMo 6.5 will crash and burn due to being an out of date mobile platform with an out of date user interface. That's why I wouldn't develop for it. I have, in the past, developed Java apps for WinMo devices (running on IBM's J9 JVM), and thus have used the devices far too much for my personal liking, and they are primitive, clunky things. A new application launcher and some glitz doesn't fix those issues.

[hdasmith]

"Applications that link to, incent users to download, or otherwise promote alternate marketplaces."

That's a bit rich considering they're advertising their store on an "alternate marketplace"!

[Quadra 610]

This is gonna be a mess.

"Right now our product roadmaps didn't line up perfectly for us to snap to what they're doing [in the Windows Mobile Marketplace] or vice versa. That being said, we know people want things like this on their devices so we're going to build them ourselves, they're going to be super high-quality, and they're going to be free. Down the road if there's a way we can work with Windows Mobile or another group inside the company that's building an app store and take advantage of that, that's something we'll look into."

In other words:

"We don't know WTF we're doing."

As far as Prince Mclean goes . . . more power to him. The more MS gets trashed along with the third-rate products they foist on users, the better. Prince calls them as he sees them, and more often than not, the guy is right on the money.

[Gwydion]

Originally Posted by solipsism

According to the article, that is not how MS will be handling it. There is the yearly fee of $99, just like with Apple’s App Store, and then the per app submission of $99 for free or paid apps, regardless if the first app submission, a resubmission due rejection or just doing a bug update. Maybe it’s wrong because that sounds very hostile toward developers.

"Q: Do I need to pay the $99 fee again to submit an application update?
A: No. If your application has been previously certified and published in the catalog, you can submit subsequent updates without incurring any additional fees. The application update will be made available through Windows Marketplace for Mobile to all customers that have downloaded your application."

[christopher126]

My how times change...does any one see the irony here? Remember way back when, when you would walk into compUSA and see isle after isle of Windows software and only a small shelf of Apple Software?

Apple fans, me included, would say, 'yeah, less software for Apple, but the software available is best in class, one choice of accounting software, one game choice (Myst) where Windows you had a lot more choice but most of it was crap!'

Now the roles are reversed in the Mobile Arena. Apple's App store has the most choice and I would have to agree, a lot of crap software. WinMobile will have a lot less choice, and irony of all ironies the few titles they have won't be that good mainly due to the WinMobile clunky platform!

Trouble is for MS the mobile market is the fastest growing market and MS is, yet again, reduced to making poor copies of Apple products/software innovations.

Anyway, I can see Apple's App store getting even bigger with Apps for the new Tablet and eventually Apps for AppleTV along the lines of App store for the iPhone. Huge opportunity there. MS's App Store perhaps....er....not so much!

[Owl]

Guess what the $99 submission screams out. Little to no free apps! Why would a developer spend time developing a free app, only to have to pay upwards of $99 to submit just once? If it gets rejected, even more money goes down the drain and the developer then sees it's not financially viable to give out the app for free.

[Dlux]

Originally Posted by talksense101

M$ is playing the quality trump card.

Something is only a 'trump card' if it has strategic value to the situation at hand. For Microsoft to play 'the quality trump card' you are assuming they have a measure of quality in the first place.

[christopher126]

Originally Posted by Owl

Guess what the $99 submission screams out. Little to no free apps! Why would a developer spend time developing a free app, only to have to pay upwards of $99 to submit just once? If it gets rejected, even more money goes down the drain and the developer then sees it's not financially viable to give out the app for free.

Agreed, in a way it could attract the iPhone developers with Apps that have 'proven money makers.' This would benefit MS. I could see iPhone developers doing an analysis to see if they can make money on the MS App store. I mean, if they are making money with a proven money making iPhone App, $99 is not that much, especially if they are 'first' in the MS store. Me, personally, I would stay as far away from MS as I could.

As you say, why would a developer develop a free App for MS?

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by ThinkAdrian

Their banner isn't even fitted for the iPhone's default screen width. C'mon, Mircorosft, stop sucking at design!

What! After 30 years of it ...

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by hdasmith

That's a bit rich considering they're advertising their store on an "alternate marketplace"!

Yep, "Do as I say not as I do"

[columbus]

Originally Posted by RichL

There's one big difference that Prince fails to point out - the traditional method of installing apps on WinMo will still be open to application developers. Don't like the $99 fee or the restrictions? Distribute your app through your website.

But that hasn't been a winning formula in the past. It obviously hasn't attracted the number of developers or apps to the platform as Microsoft had hoped in the past 10 years, otherwise they would be sitting pretty with no need for this marketplace initiative. There are other drawbacks to the DIY approach, such as additional expenses and piracy.

[shadow]

Originally Posted by Gwydion

"Q: Do I need to pay the $99 fee again to submit an application update?
A: No. If your application has been previously certified and published in the catalog, you can submit subsequent updates without incurring any additional fees. The application update will be made available through Windows Marketplace for Mobile to all customers that have downloaded your application."

As I noted above, there is still confusion on this thread on two different cases:
- the re-submission of the app will be charged
- the submission of the update will NOT be charged

Still a high entry barrier IMO. If the "focusing on quality" is not just a marketing crap to excuse the minuscule number of the apps, and MS is making some QA, not just approval, then you might expect rejections. Nobody likes paying extra. $99 is not a lot of money, but before developers get to the point that they will pay those, they need to jump to the WinMo bandwagon in the first place. This policy may have more significant negative effect when evaluating the prospects of developing for WinMo than the actual developer expenses and meaningful profits for MS.

These $99 are more of a money for many countries outside US and Western Europe. I think the number of iPhone developers there is pretty small, because you need a Mac, and the macs are not popular, but for MS this is not the case. MS is loosing tens of thousands Chinese, Russian and Indian developers who could otherwise give WinMo a try, copying the most popular iPhone apps, if nothing else.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by Owl

Guess what the $99 submission screams out. Little to no free apps! Why would a developer spend time developing a free app, only to have to pay upwards of $99 to submit just once? If it gets rejected, even more money goes down the drain and the developer then sees it's not financially viable to give out the app for free.

the biggest barrier to writing iphone apps is that you need a Mac. that's at least $1000.

$99 might sound like a lot but Visual Studio will run on any cheapo PC you can find from the last 5 years. you can even get Visual Studio Express for free from MSDN

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

the biggest barrier to writing iphone apps is that you need a Mac. that's at least $1000.

$99 might sound like a lot but Visual Studio will run on any cheapo PC you can find from the last 5 years. you can even get Visual Studio Express for free from MSDN

Remember there are many 'used' Macs out there there. A two or three year old Mac is still a great computer and will run the latest OS most times.

[al_bundy]

why would anyone want a used computer?

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

why would anyone want a used computer?

In the context of a developer for iPhone apps not being able to afford a new one. Sorry it wasn't explained more clearly.

[talksense101]

Originally Posted by Dlux

Something is only a 'trump card' if it has strategic value to the situation at hand. For Microsoft to play 'the quality trump card' you are assuming they have a measure of quality in the first place.

How did Apple compete when Microsoft was running all over them? They became a "premium" provider. They survived because they were able to deliver value. Microsoft is trying this to survive against the iPhone and Android. They have little to lose.