@
convergent
First, I may have too specifically focused on W10M here. I generally take an app to be a small piece of software built for mobile devices. If it was built for a desktop OS I'd not call it an app. The OP mentioned "apps", and in the thread title the OP mentioned "W10M". Since there is a lot of developer interest in W10 (just not in the UWP platform), I assumed we're really only talking about W10M. If that is incorrect
the OP should probably clarify.
In theory we shouldn't have to differ between Windows mobile apps and desktop software, but we're still far away from those being the same thing, so in practice we must still differ. You seem to have taken the opposite approach and assumed we're talking mainly about the W10 Store. So we're really just not talking about the same thing. That accounts for some of the differences, as both platforms must be understood and explained in very different ways. As far as I can tell we're pretty much in agreement on everything relating to those issues.
HOWEVER, my two main points really had nothing to do with either the W10M or W10 ecosystems. They were:
- Developer involvement has absolutely nothing to do with "warm fuzzies" and being "valued" by MS.
- The only way to raise developer interest is by raising demand.
You haven't contradicted the first. The points you make support it. I assume we're therefore really only arguing about the second point.
As far as I can tell your counter-position is based singularly on the idea that MS can and should pay for app development. This is an old and tired idea. What you're suggesting is that MS foster a centrally controlled app ecosystem, where MS chooses which projects get sponsored and which don't. In a more political context we'd call that "picking winners and losers". The entire model could be directly pulled from a primer on communism. The idea is doomed to fail for the same reasons communism did.
I suspect the software industry is also more complicated than you are making it out to be. A few years ago I spent, as part of my job, weeks talking with various CTO's about their plans to develop for W10M. The results were pretty sobering. Nobody was willing to do it, not even if MS payed them for it, because they didn't want to be saddled with the maintenance costs (two thirds of the costs of software are typically incurred after the initial release as part of maintenance). If MS had payed for that as well, they still would have refused, because nobody wanted to hire additional staff just to support MS' endeavors. Contracting W10M app development out to a 3rd party seemed like the logical conclusion, but most refused that too, because they were not comfortable giving 3rd parties access to their IT backend infrastructure.
If that still doesn't convince you, consider that MS already tried the approach. Not only did it fail but in some cases it actually back fired. Some companies who would have developed for W10M ended up cancelling their efforts. Why? Because if MS is paying companies to bring their app to MS' store, then any notable company would be stupid to release their app without having the MS money man come by first. They basically held their own app for ransom.
Even in the situation where everything works out perfectly, it still fails. Why? Because in a free market, developers make apps because they hope to gain something from it via customers. That is why they are motivated to make the best possible app they can. That's an entirely different approach from making an app that is just good enough to cash MS' check! If MS is paying for app development, this is the best we'll ever get, and if you think that can be contractually prevented (specifications, requirements, etc) then you've definitely never developed software. ;-)
Having MS pay other companies to develop apps sounds plausible, but only until you understand what is really going on behind the curtains. It's a terrible idea that deserved to fail and did. It will not work. Never has. Never will.
I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything in this area. I think I understand it better than most. Create demand or go home. That's all there is to it.