WP8 store and the stealing of apps

[iamtim]

Can you please stop saying that we don't own the software but only a license to use it?
Even monkeys know that, and you just look someone without anything useful to say continuing pointing out this.

And this post was SO useful.

 

[iamtim]

leaving users without any option to reacquire the software they paid for

I might look like I have nothing useful to say by repeating myself, but you look ignorant by not accepting the truth: users do not pay for software, they pay for a license to use software. There is a HUGE difference there.

 

[Lendo]

Hrm... maybe I spoke too soon. Seems this may get a little heated after all. :winktongue:

 

[John20212]

Really? I need to read the legalese? Check App Developer Agreement (Windows) - this is the full text of the App Developer Agreement an app publisher makes with Microsoft.

In section 3(a), it clearly states, "You, not Microsoft, will license the right to install and use each app to customers." In summary, it further states that if you do not provide a specific license to the end-user, that which is presented as Exhibit A on that page will be enforced.

Exhibit A clearly states, "BY DOWNLOADING OR USING THE APPLICATION, OR ATTEMPTING TO DO ANY OF THESE, YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AND MUST NOT DOWNLOAD OR USE THE APPLICATION. " It also says, " The application is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the application."

It ain't Microsoft folks. It's the app publisher. All right there, all black and white. You don't own a single application you download from the Store, unless you wrote it. Hell, I'm pretty sure you don't even own the Windows Phone OS on your phone; I'm pretty sure Microsoft licenses - not sells - every piece of software they produce.

EDIT: Note I am not talking about Microsoft's ability to pull an app from the store for legal and/or technical reasons. Of course they're going to have the ability to do that, and if they do it for technical or legal reasons I would expect that the app shouldn't be made available after that.

We all know software is licensed not owned, lets stop picking at semantics, you own the license after all.
The fact that seems to be lost on some people is that there are various types of licenses, and the type of license you have makes a huge difference.
The Microsoft user agreement does not go into specifics on license types and the rights of the respective parties; as mentioned before it is rather vague.
And while app developers can have users agree to their specific license, there are very few app developers I have seen that actually present the user with a license separate from the general Microsoft license that users agree to when they use the store and apps.

marcomura summed it up pretty well above http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-phone-8/251950-2.htm#post2240673

 

[John20212]

The bottom line is that the app publisher can decide to unpublish an app, and you wouldn't be able to reinstall it.

And that is the whole problem with the current system; and if Microsoft does not address this soon, allowing users to back up and reinstall purchased apps at any time in the future, it will come to bite them in the ***.
There are plenty of digital software stores operating today (such as Steam) without any of these issues of users loosing access to their purchased content; maybe Microsoft should lean something from them when it comes to digital content distribution and support.

 

[John20212]

Still this complain is mute. You don't buy the piece of software. you buy a license to use it. Software is intellectual property like a book song etc. You don't own it by buying it. You buy a license to use it. If in that license it is stated as in all EULA licenses that there is no guaranty of any kind all complains are mute.

I am sorry, but this is the most ill-informed argument I have read.

The EULA is not the LAW, companies can't simply contract out of all their legal responsibilities through clever clause drafting. Microsoft and any other company can put whatever they want into a licensing agreement, however that does not mean it will be enforced by the courts or valid under the law.
There is consumer protection legislation that in many countries specifically prevents companies from screwing over people. One way in which that is done is by striking out certain contractual clauses that put the consumer at a disadvantage.

That is why you often find wording such as "Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation" in contracts.

 

[marcomura]

I might look like I have nothing useful to say by repeating myself, but you look ignorant by not accepting the truth: users do not pay for software, they pay for a license to use software. There is a HUGE difference there.

And how am I supposed to use my license to use that software if I'm not able to reacquire it?
You are continuing saying that users don't own the software but only a license to use it, but this is completely irrelevant now. We are talking about the right to USE the software, not the right to resell/rent/decompile/whatever comes from the intellectual property of it.

 

[MyNL822]

It is possible to Redownload apps on iOS and that is a feature I loved. Also, it was possible to get a refund if you had a reasonable reasons and I think under 60 days. Reasons like fake apps, removal, and not compatible.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

I believe Iamtim is correct; in truth, we have the right to the license only. Inconvenient, but i believe it works like this on all platforms. I know on Android, apps I paid for were pulled; however, I did have backups I could install, plus, Amazon Appstore carries the app.

 

[Reflexx]

Unfortunately no, this is not a solution.
Making the app "hidden" don't prevent new people finding and purchasing it. It cannot be found searching through the store, but it can be found in other ways: direct url through forums, searching on google, etc.

The hidden app should state its non-published status in its description.

 

[iamtim]

And how am I supposed to use my license to use that software if I'm not able to reacquire it?

If the app is unpublished - thusly ending the license - you can't reacquire it. Your license is now null and void. The end.

 

[John20212]

I believe Iamtim is correct; in truth, we have the right to the license only. Inconvenient, but i believe it works like this on all platforms. I know on Android, apps I paid for were pulled; however, I did have backups I could install, plus, Amazon Appstore carries the app.

The problem is on WP you can't just simply reinstall from a backup, this thread would not exist if you could.

 

[Reflexx]

If the app is unpublished - thusly ending the license - you can't reacquire it. Your license is now null and void. The end.

Technically true.

And technically sucks.
Not being able to use something you paid for is a legitimate gripe. It really should be addressed in a way that would be fair and positive.

Basically saying, "You agreed to be screwed. Read the EULA." isn't how any customer would like to be treated.

 

[Pete]

Why??

How do you know what the reason for an app being removed from the store? Most of the time, it's not because the developer just decides to on a whim...

Maybe there's licensing issues (like the BBC news app that was forced into retirement), server/service costs making things uneconomical for the developer, developer getting too much hate mail, the app can't be supported for personal reasons, software house goes out of business, a competing app is offering the same or better functionality for less/free?

Putting things in perspective, the average app costs less than a mediocre cup of coffee, it's not a huge financial loss to the individual customer.

If the disappearance of an app is causing an issue, take it up with the developer and ask the reason for why it's been withdrawn. Or, look for another app that does the same thing.

I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[John20212]

Technically true.

And technically sucks.

Not being able to use something you paid for is a legitimate gripe. It really should be addressed in a way that would be fair and positive.

Basically saying, "You agreed to be screwed. Read the EULA." isn't how any customer would like to be treated.

As I said before, the EULA is not the law, and I doubt pulling of apps without a refund would stand up in court; that is probably why Microsoft is so fast to issue a refund when asked, for pulled apps, despite their strong absolutely no refunds policy for digital purchases.

 

[John20212]

Why??

How do you know what the reason for an app being removed from the store? Most of the time, it's not because the developer just decides to on a whim...

[1] Maybe there's licensing issues (like the BBC news app that was forced into retirement), server/service costs making things uneconomical for the developer, developer getting too much hate mail, the app can't be supported for personal reasons, software house goes out of business, a competing app is offering the same or better functionality for less/free?

[2] Putting things in perspective, the average app costs less than a mediocre cup of coffee, it's not a huge financial loss to the individual customer.

If the disappearance of an app is causing an issue, take it up with the developer and ask the reason for why it's been withdrawn. Or, look for another app that does the same thing.

I don't see what the big deal is.

[1] The reason for pulling an app is largely irrelevant, even if the developer no longer wants to support the app there is no reason why people who already bought it should be stopped from using it for however long they like; unless of course its a server dependent app and it will simply not function without back end services, however that needs to be more clearly communicated to the customer when they are purchasing an app letting them know that it won't be supported for eternity.

[2] The cost of the app is completely irrelevant in this discussion. It's the same when people argue that they don't care that Google and the government is monitoring and sifting through all their private data, they have nothing to hide, which again is completely irrelevant to the privacy discussion.

 

[marcomura]

The hidden app should state its non-published status in its description.

And again, new people could still purchase it.
Not a solution.

 

[marcomura]

If the app is unpublished - thusly ending the license - you can't reacquire it. Your license is now null and void. The end.

And this is wrong, because I should be guaranteed to be able to use the software for a reasonable amount of time.
It's not acceptable that my license can end 24 hour after purchasing it.

 

[illidanx]

And this is wrong, because I should be guaranteed to be able to use the software for a reasonable amount of time.
It's not acceptable that my license can end 24 hour after purchasing it.

I agree. Even apple allows you to redownload pulled app. This is very bad on MS's policy (or their technical oversight?)

 

[Pete]

You can't really blindly demand access to an app if it's been removed from the store. The reason for the removal is important.

As a hypothetical example, assume that you as a developer created an app that supplies hockey scores for your team. As part of that development, you have a license to use the syndicated data from the NHL. After a year or so, the NHL change the terms of that license so that you either have to pay a large price for the service or can no longer use it for the original purpose (for example, they sold exclusive rights to another party).

What do you, as a developer do?

1) Pull the app because you no longer have the rights to use the key data?
2) Kick up a stink and sue the NHL?
3) Use the data anyway and get sued by the NHL?
4) Look for another data source and then get sued when the NHL finds out?
5) Give all of your users their money back?