Sharing apps

[Nuttz565]

Hi guys. Recently my wife and I switched over to WP8 devices from iPhones. My question is will we be able to share apps like on ios or will we need to buy apps for each accounts separately? Thanks for the help

 

[WanderingTraveler]

Well, assuming you use the same Microsoft account, you will be able to share apps.

Otherwise, no you won't.

 

[Nuttz565]

That's what I was thinking. Looks like Microsoft won't allow "family" accounts to share apps. Which is a bummer considering alot of their games are 3x times more than IOS.

 

[hopmedic]

Actually, sharing a MIcrosoft account violates their terms of service.

Really, this is a subject that has quite strong opposing opinions, from the user who wants to not pay twice (or more) for his family to use an app, to the developer who wants to get paid for the hard work that he put into creating the app. There's the legal matter of copyright and what the developer agreed to with Microsoft when he submitted the app, to the agreements that the user agrees to with Microsoft for use of their services.

As a developer, I lean toward requiring payment for each user (keeping in mind that one user can have multiple devices), but I'm not opposed to a family plan of some sort that gives a discount for multiple copies of an app being purchased. What that discount amounts to, or what the limitations are, those should be open for debate to hear both sides. But for someone to say, "I bought the app so my wife should get it free," that I am opposed to.

I don't want to see this thread take the downward spiral that a similar thread took last fall - just trying to share my opinion, along with openness to hear the other side.

 

[tgp]

It's technically possible, but you shouldn't do it since it violates Microsoft's ToS. Android & iOS allow it, but Microsoft doesn't.

I have to wonder though if it's violating ToS to put use the same account on multiple devices, if you own them. I suppose you could say that I own my wife's phone, since she's a SAHM and I'm the sole breadwinner and I bought her phone. (It's Android so it doesn't apply in this case, but if it was a WP...). So would it be wrong to use my MS account on her phone too?

 

[hopmedic]

It's technically possible, but you shouldn't do it since it violates Microsoft's ToS. Android & iOS allow it, but Microsoft doesn't.

I have to wonder though if it's violating ToS to put use the same account on multiple devices, if you own them. I suppose you could say that I own my wife's phone, since she's a SAHM and I'm the sole breadwinner and I bought her phone. (It's Android so it doesn't apply in this case, but if it was a WP...). So would it be wrong to use my MS account on her phone too?

Technically, it would be a violation, since their ToS disallows sharing an account.

[h=2]18. Assignment and transfer[/h]We may assign this agreement, in whole or in part, at any time without notice to you. You may not assign this agreement or transfer any rights to use the services.

(emphasis added).
Microsoft Services Agreement

Basically, the way I read that (and I'm not a lawyer), you can't allow someone else to use Microsoft services with your account. That would include most of what the phone does, unless you hand it to your wife with it in Airplane Mode, since it is going to frequently access your Microsoft account for the built-in integration with facebook, twitter, and so forth. Twitter and facebook are not directly accessed by the phone, but through your Microsoft account, to reduce data. Instead of calling for data from facebook, then calling for data from twitter, for example, your Microsoft account occasionally calls these services, then the phone gets the information from your Microsoft account. This is just one example of the many ways that the phone is intimately tied to the account.

 

[tgp]

Technically, it would be a violation, since their ToS disallows sharing an account.

(emphasis added).
Microsoft Services Agreement

Basically, the way I read that (and I'm not a lawyer), you can't allow someone else to use Microsoft services with your account. That would include most of what the phone does, unless you hand it to your wife with it in Airplane Mode, since it is going to frequently access your Microsoft account for the built-in integration with facebook, twitter, and so forth. Twitter and facebook are not directly accessed by the phone, but through your Microsoft account, to reduce data. Instead of calling for data from facebook, then calling for data from twitter, for example, your Microsoft account occasionally calls these services, then the phone gets the information from your Microsoft account. This is just one example of the many ways that the phone is intimately tied to the account.

OK thanks that explains it well.

FWIW, this is one of the many reasons her phone will remain <> WP. Apple & Google both allow app sharing; I'm not sure why MS can't do the same.

 

[hopmedic]

Part of it could be relationships with developers. Microsoft has always valued their developers. The others, not so much, from what I've read online (no personal experience with them).

 

[tgp]

Part of it could be relationships with developers. Microsoft has always valued their developers. The others, not so much, from what I've read online (no personal experience with them).

Yeah that's obvious, considering the number of apps available on WP as compared to iOS & Android.

 

[ohgood]

I share quite a few app ACCOUNTS between myself and the wife. the very few paid apps I use just get paid for each time. three, maybe four total.

the email address used for shared apps like evernote, keep, maps, openoffice.org, geocaching is a nuetral, seperate email address from our personal emails, if that makes sense to you.

I see no reason why users can't share an email account, pay for apps seperately, and continue to enjoy everything synced, shared, and standard.

also, I see no reason to share an email address on a per device basis, since that's what I understand the origianl questions focus was.

 

[Squatting Hen]

I understand both sides, I think I do lean more to being able to "share" apps since you can on the other two, Apple and Google. People who are switching from Android or iphone, this is a big turnoff and they don't understand it. Especially when the apps are normally 2-3x' the price on WP. It doesn't bother me that much because I don't purchase many apps and my wife doesn't care about plaing games. Although, if I know my wife would be able to download the app too, I may be more inclined to click the "buy" button.

Now on the terms of service.... My parents have one email account, always have, always will. (Same with both sets of my grandparents) They would not want one for each of them. They don't use Twitter, Facebook or any of the other social media. If they were to get a window phone they would use the same microsoft account for both of their phones. I don't see a problem with this. Granted, this would allow them to share apps. (I don't think they would buy any apps anyway)

 

[tgp]

My wife & I share email & Facebook accounts too. Any app purchased can go on both phones, as well as any other Android device we happen to have around. I'm not sure what we would do if we both had Windows Phones.

I don't really have a big problem with the way Microsoft restricts sharing apps, but of course as a consumer I prefer being able to do it. I'm not sure how Microsoft expects to compete with Apple & Google, when they already have exponentially higher market share. I would think that MS would allow it if for no other reason than to be on par with their biggest competitors. Obviously developers aren't leaning towards MS because of it.

 

[hopmedic]

Yeah that's obvious, considering the number of apps available on WP as compared to iOS & Android.

Quantity is not an indicator of the quantity of the relationship.

I share quite a few app ACCOUNTS between myself and the wife. the very few paid apps I use just get paid for each time. three, maybe four total.

the email address used for shared apps like evernote, keep, maps, openoffice.org, geocaching is a nuetral, seperate email address from our personal emails, if that makes sense to you.

I see no reason why users can't share an email account, pay for apps seperately, and continue to enjoy everything synced, shared, and standard.

also, I see no reason to share an email address on a per device basis, since that's what I understand the origianl questions focus was.

I understand both sides, I think I do lean more to being able to "share" apps since you can on the other two, Apple and Google. People who are switching from Android or iphone, this is a big turnoff and they don't understand it. Especially when the apps are normally 2-3x' the price on WP. It doesn't bother me that much because I don't purchase many apps and my wife doesn't care about plaing games. Although, if I know my wife would be able to download the app too, I may be more inclined to click the "buy" button.

Now on the terms of service.... My parents have one email account, always have, always will. (Same with both sets of my grandparents) They would not want one for each of them. They don't use Twitter, Facebook or any of the other social media. If they were to get a window phone they would use the same microsoft account for both of their phones. I don't see a problem with this. Granted, this would allow them to share apps. (I don't think they would buy any apps anyway)

My wife & I share email & Facebook accounts too. Any app purchased can go on both phones, as well as any other Android device we happen to have around. I'm not sure what we would do if we both had Windows Phones.

I don't really have a big problem with the way Microsoft restricts sharing apps, but of course as a consumer I prefer being able to do it. I'm not sure how Microsoft expects to compete with Apple & Google, when they already have exponentially higher market share. I would think that MS would allow it if for no other reason than to be on par with their biggest competitors. Obviously developers aren't leaning towards MS because of it.

The terms of service are the terms of service. They're not open for negotiation, and you agreed to them when you signed up for the account, regardless of whether you read them or disagreed with them. There's no point arguing this, as it is between the user and Microsoft, not between us.

As for the sharing of apps, I respect that Microsoft respects the work that developers put into an app, more than Apple or Google respects the people who really made those platforms popular - I mean, Apple would be nowhere without apps. They tried going the no-app route, and it was something like a year after the iPhone came out before developers were allowed to create apps, but they gave in because the people wanted apps. Like I said before, I don't have a problem opening a dialog to giving discounts to users in the same family, but for a company to arbitrarily tell me that they are going to give my hard work away to the spouses or children of anyone who buys my app, no. Sorry. I'd pull my apps from the store if they tried that.

 

[rdubmu]

This is a feature that I really want added. iOS lets you put the apps onto 5 different devices and you can log into store separately, and change the account.

Windows Phone doesn't let you do it. As stated in this thread
http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-phone-8/206363-sharing-apps-between-two-accounts.html

It is something that should be changed. IOS with the biggest App store lets you do this, and the developers have no problems letting this happen.

 

[tgp]

Quantity is not an indicator of the quantity of the relationship.

You're right, but yet developers are going to iOS & Android first, and maybe WP later.

Like I said before, I don't have a problem opening a dialog to giving discounts to users in the same family, but for a company to arbitrarily tell me that they are going to give my hard work away to the spouses or children of anyone who buys my app, no. Sorry. I'd pull my apps from the store if they tried that.

I respect your view as a developer. It makes sense looking at it from a practical standpoint. I still have to ask though why iOS & Android have 6x the apps of WP if MS has such a good relationship with their app developers, including not giving them away. Something doesn't add up. Android has approximately 25x the market share of WP, which means you could provide 25 apps per sale, and still sell as many.

 

[OzRob]

As for the sharing of apps, I respect that Microsoft respects the work that developers put into an app, more than Apple or Google respects the people who really made those platforms popular - I mean, Apple would be nowhere without apps. They tried going the no-app route, and it was something like a year after the iPhone came out before developers were allowed to create apps, but they gave in because the people wanted apps. Like I said before, I don't have a problem opening a dialog to giving discounts to users in the same family, but for a company to arbitrarily tell me that they are going to give my hard work away to the spouses or children of anyone who buys my app, no. Sorry. I'd pull my apps from the store if they tried that.

This sounds a bit like a 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' approach. If allowing some limited sharing became an MS Store policy, it may play some part in increasing WP market share and promoting adoption of multiple WP devices within families (as has happened with iOS and Android - the 'I'll buy an iPhone/Android for my wife/son/daughter so that we're all on the same platform and can share apps' phenomenon). If this isn't allowed, there's one less incentive for a family to stick to a common platform.

So while having an individual app shared between a family might seem like it's doing a developer out of potential payments, in practice it probably increases the overall number of app sales because the fact that the app can be shared makes it appear a more cost effective proposition (thereby convincing a person to pay for an app in the first instance), and it can potentially draw more potential app buyers (the rest of the family) into the ecosystem, raising the overall pool of app-buying punters.

 

[hopmedic]

You're right, but yet developers are going to iOS & Android first, and maybe WP later.

Simple. Numbers.

I respect your view as a developer. It makes sense looking at it from a practical standpoint. I still have to ask though why iOS & Android have 6x the apps of WP if MS has such a good relationship with their app developers, including not giving them away. Something doesn't add up. Android has approximately 25x the market share of WP, which means you could provide 25 apps per sale, and still sell as many.

Because they started four years earlier. It's not a mystery at all. But for the first two years of Microsoft being in the app store business, they kept pace with iOS' growth rate with regard to apps in the store (I don't know where they are right now, as I haven't seen anything recently on the subject). Fact: Windows Phone Store grew at the same rate as iOS' in the first two years. Fact: Windows Phone Store grew at a FASTER rate than Android's first two years.

This sounds a bit like a 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' approach. If allowing some limited sharing became an MS Store policy, it may play some part in increasing WP market share and promoting adoption of multiple WP devices within families (as has happened with iOS and Android - the 'I'll buy an iPhone/Android for my wife/son/daughter so that we're all on the same platform and can share apps' phenomenon). If this isn't allowed, there's one less incentive for a family to stick to a common platform.

So while having an individual app shared between a family might seem like it's doing a developer out of potential payments, in practice it probably increases the overall number of app sales because the fact that the app can be shared makes it appear a more cost effective proposition (thereby convincing a person to pay for an app in the first instance), and it can potentially draw more potential app buyers (the rest of the family) into the ecosystem, raising the overall pool of app-buying punters.

If you're only going to read part of what I wrote - I mean it doesn't sound like you even read all of what you quoted of me - there's no point in having the discussion.

 

[OzRob]

If you're only going to read part of what I wrote - I mean it doesn't sound like you even read all of what you quoted of me - there's no point in having the discussion.

Which bit do you think I didn't read? What I took from your post was that you were happy to have a conversation about sharing apps, but if Microsoft forced this on you you'd pull your apps from the Store. Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick there.

 

[hopmedic]

Which bit do you think I didn't read? What I took from your post was that you were happy to have a conversation about sharing apps, but if Microsoft forced this on you you'd pull your apps from the Store. Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick there.

Sorry if I read you wrong, but the way I read it (and I should have gone to bed an hour ago), it sound like you didn't even read that I was open to dialog on it. I guess I was wrong. But yes, if Microsoft forced this on we developers, I'm sure there would be uproar. I can go along with some sort of discount for multiple copies of an app sold to people in a family (and Microsoft would have to ensure that this was the case - they have "family" but since I don't use it I don't know if that means more than just a parent and kids - not sure how they'd ensure that a husband/wife were related), but if they suddenly gave everyone in a family copies of my apps, when I only get paid for the first one (especially since Microsoft keeps 30% off the top), potentially cutting revenue in half, or worse (potential, not assured), yes, I'd have a problem with that. As far as I see it, pulling my apps would not be cutting my nose off despite my face - it would be standing up for what is right in order to not allow a monster-mega-corporation to steamroll over me. Without apps, in these days, no smart phone is worth the glass its screen is made from. Microsoft knows that it is developers that make it what it is, and I hope they don't forget it.

Again, I'm not opposed to opening a dialog on this (but the dialog between all of us is pointless if Microsoft isn't involved), but I'm not willing to have my hard work given away by someone else.

 

[OzRob]

Sorry if I read you wrong, but the way I read it (and I should have gone to bed an hour ago), it sound like you didn't even read that I was open to dialog on it.

Yeah. I guess I was just responding the assertion that you'd pull apps if MS forced a change. While I completely support your right to control your IP, I'm of the opinion that freeing up licensing can actually result in more sales and more revenue being generated. There's evidence for this in a number of areas, and one in which I have personal experience is music. So if MS were to force a change and institute a 'family' licensing policy, if I was developer I'd be inclined to see what happened to my app revenues before I pulled out. If the revenue didn't go down, then why pull out? Of course, as you've mentioned, there is a moral element to this:

As far as I see it, pulling my apps would not be cutting my nose off despite my face - it would be standing up for what is right in order to not allow a monster-mega-corporation to steamroll over me. Without apps, in these days, no smart phone is worth the glass its screen is made from. Microsoft knows that it is developers that make it what it is, and I hope they don't forget it.

Making a stand against monster-mega-corporations certainly has its place, but in this case I would argue that it's the wrong battle to fight - at least initially. One counter-view to the point you raise would be that app developers' revenues are highly dependent on having a growing and vibrant market and ecosystem to develop for. If MS strongly feels that from a strategic standpoint having a 'family license' or some other such sharing mechanism is an important element in driving adoption and growth of its WP OS (and I'm not saying it actually does feel this way), then steamrolling developers is one way of ensuring it capitalises on that perceived opportunity. And if MS is right in its belief, that move would result in faster and more widespread adoption of WP. And that's ultimately got to be good for app developers, even if they feel a little steamrolled in the process.

Again, I'm not opposed to opening a dialog on this (but the dialog between all of us is pointless if Microsoft isn't involved), but I'm not willing to have my hard work given away by someone else.

Of course the best way for any change to move forward is for all parties involved to have a shared dialog and come to a mutually satisfactory solution. So don't for a minute think that I think that MS moving unilaterally to change licensing arrangements is the best or morally correct way forward. But if I was an app developer and MS DID foist this change on me, I'd be monitoring my revenues for a while before I made the decision to pull the plug. But then, I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist.