Krita in the Windows Store: an update | Hacker News Reader

Krita in the Windows Store: an update

krita.org

139 pointsiamcreasy60 comments

> Now Microsoft was certainly aware that Krita is open source software published in the GNU Public License, and Krita would be distributed outside the Windows Store. They actually helped us get Krita in the Windows Store to begin with...

> In any case, since we’re absolutely powerless, we’ve had to change the Store listing…

This is outrageous! MS reached out[1] to Krita team to get the app on their store, and now forcing the devs to delete link to the Krita website!

[1] https://krita.org/en/item/krita-available-from-the-windows-s...

I'm loving the "new" microsoft.

There are two new Microsofts, both trying to make great big piles of money.

One is the tech infrastructure provider. They're keeping the corporate customers but now also going after consumer-facing tech and startups. To do the latter, they've finally had to shed their dogma and go where the devs are. OSS, platform-agnostic, this is the MS of .NET Core, VSCode, and family. There's good people working here, and they'll make Azure make heaps of money.

The other Microsoft does "platforms". They've had a lock on corporate for a long time, though no one enjoyed it. Now they want to expand their brand and their lock-in into the personal lives of upper-class knowledge workers, challenging Apple by being the "serious" to Apple's luxury-hipster positioning, and challenging Google by being coherent and playing a long game.

The first Microsoft knows that the second is no place for their audience, so they're in a hurry to separate themselves and their wares from the platform-provider. It's not just .NET Core and VSCode, there's a ton of smaller projects all moving in the same direction. Sql Operations Studio, Sql Server for Linux, Blazor, x-plat Azure tooling, x-plat Powershell, opensourcing MSBuild, it's comprehensive.

I wish they'd just split and become two separate companies.

Microsoft Windows vs Microsoft everything else?

I see many arguments incoming defending Microsoft and getting more or less visibility depending on the audience at the time. Something along the lines of:

"Let's compare it to some competitor who also does it wrong. See they are not doing any better but they are not criticized as much. How can you complain about this company then? You can't. We must be glad for what they give us. See how much good they do and how little you have achieved compared to an international giant. If you really want to do better go make your own store. You can't? Obviously you can't. Then you can't criticize."

But the bottom line is that all these companies are ruled by money first and foremost. Sure, there are differences in detail and the approach they take but in the end the logic of money trumps all morals.

For the "new" Microsoft this means that they have changed their approach because of money. Whatever good they do for us is because they think it will make them money in the long run. I think of it as a long running PR action and a medium change of company culture. If it suits them, they will change it back over night. WE must keep them under pressure to do the right thing by not letting us be held hostage by monopolies and always having a way out. So support your open source software because in the long run it will dominate in most places.

I don't understand how this is outrageous. The terms do not say that you can't have other means of distribution just that you can't link to them through the MS app or the listing page. Its like you selling a product on Amazon with a link in the listing that says buy it from my website for a 10% discount. I'm sure Amazon won't allow that.

Krita was asked to delete a link which points to the external download location and not the one to their website. Seems fair to me. Krita being a FOSS can have it available for free on the MS store and have a link to their donate page. If MS doesn't allow that, then it would be outrageous.

The terms look to have been written to prevent abuse by devs. This being a FOSS might warrant special circumstances, but I wouldn't hold it against MS for not providing those special circumstances.

> The terms do not say that you can't have other means of distribution just that you can't link to them through the MS app or the listing page.

That's not what the policy says. It says, if you app process some sort of payment(policy 10.8) then it has to be distributed only through MS Store(policy 10.8.5).

Edit: removed duplicate word

"If your app includes in-app purchase, subscriptions, virtual currency, billing functionality or captures financial information, the following requirements apply:

10.8.5: Your app may promote or distribute software only through the Microsoft Store"

IANAL but based on the language, it means that if your "app" (including its metadata) promotes software (itself or other) it can only do it via the MS store.

> 10.8.5: Your app

Its your app and NOT "you". SO I take it as, you can still distribute it via other platforms. Had they meant it to what you say the language would have been

"You may may promote or distribute this app only through the Microsoft Store"

Yeah, they could have mentioned the same and got some exception.

> In any case, since we’re absolutely powerless, we’ve had to change the Store listing…

No, you could also pull your software out of the store. The numbers show it doesn’t really matter and Microsoft need more apps than you need their store. Beggars can't be choosers.

That's not what they say:

> Still, the income generated makes it possible for the Krita maintainer to work on Krita full-time, which would not have been possible otherwise.

They need the revenue generated by the small sales on the store.

"Store downloads are only about 125 a week"

If that's the case, then with the 15% MS cut they're pulling in ~$4500 from the MS store per month - far more than their donations.

That probably counts the same account installing on multiple devices or reinstalling it. So in reality probably bit less.

> By far the majority of users get Krita from this website: about 30,000 downloads a week. Store downloads are only about 125 a week. Still, the income generated makes it possible for the Krita maintainer to work on Krita full-time, which would not have been possible otherwise.

So while the download count itself does not matter, it is clear that the project is really helped by its presence on the store.

Yes, they could, and should, if they can afford that.

However, 125 dl/week * 9,79 usd/dl * 4 weeks in month * 0,85 of what they get to keep from the price = 4160,75 usd/month.

That might be a pretty big chunk of their income. As you said, beggars can't be choosers.

So they sell the version on the store but not on their website? The real problem is here. Maybe selling it on their primary download source instead of a free download could generating more profit. People that really want it for free could compile the soft themselves.

Selling it on the website is an additional can of worms, that requires more manpower to handle. Processing and accounting for CC/paypal/whatever payments, returns, disputes, etc. won't do by itself.

IIRC your "app" is not just the executable, but everything related to your application in the store. That includes all assets, metadata, listings, etc. Also the "transactions" includes selling the app in the store, so unless you make it available free of charge, you can't promote alternate download sites for the same content you're selling in the store.

You can however link to the "app's website", and if you just happen to have a download link there, for a version somewhat different from the one in the store... they might have a much harder time finding something wrong with that.

It's a pity that as soon as an app tries to monetize (even optionally), it's suddenly at the mercy of the megacorps. Now you need a storefront, a payment processor, a refund infrastructure, etc. Better to just let the tech giants who already have the infrastructure handle the billing, in exchange for taking a monumental cut of your revenue and imposing binding, arbitrary rules at a moment's notice.

This incident would be a poster child for the widespread need for something like the AppCenter being developed by the ElementaryOS team, where the apps can have a "suggested" price tag but be free to download:

https://medium.com/elementaryos/appcenter-the-future-of-the-...

Regrettably it's Linux only at the moment. It would be interesting to see what kind of landscape of FOSS apps we might get if it got ported to Windows.

  it's suddenly at the mercy of the megacorps

You don't need Windows Store to sell Windows software

  Now you need a storefront

That's how you make people come to your product in an easy way

  a payment processor

How are you supposed to do otherwise if you want to exchange units of bank accounts ?

  a refund infrastructure

Yeah some people want their money back sometimes, this is not donations

Dumb employee running amok here, but who cares he probably shows up on time for his shift.

Reminds me of people being banned for life from PayPal because their product names contained the word “emulator”, or for signing up before they were 18.. 20 years ago.

I sincerely hope that's the case.

This is outrageous. I also read those rules as 10.8.5 would only apply if you have in-app purchases and so on.

I agree with other posters that it is probably a low level employee that made a poor judgement call, but what always irks me about cases like this is that appealing the decision can feel like such a futile fight.

Interesting dilemna for FOSS : you can use a store to generate some revenue, but you have to comply with byzantine store owner regulations.

Any store worth caring about is already too big for your one program to influence its success. That's the only reason a Foss advocate would want to avoid such platforms in the first place.

The potential visibility and revenue from using these corporate mouthpieces is probably always worth it so long as you can assure you won't become dependent on them.

And Apple is no better in this regard. Both companies obviously want to prevent sales outside of their walled gardens -- soft deprecating independent software with warnings and 'on by default' blocks.

Of course they do, why not take 30% of everyone's work and keep control?

Maybe I misread Krita's situation but I'm not sure why they don't just pull out of the store and sell independently. Plenty of payment processors would be happy to take them on.

Pricing is always difficult, but for a product that well known there's almost certainly a tiered system they could set up that generates enough income to keep the lights on (or better).

Several misconceptions.

> And Apple is no better in this regard.

Microsoft approached[1] them to get Krita(and also Inkscape) on the store. Microsoft knew the who and what these software stand for. Comparing it with Apple just doesn't make sense.

> Maybe I misread Krita's situation but I'm not sure why they don't just pull out of the store and sell independently. Plenty of payment processors would be happy to take them on....Pricing is always difficult, but for a product that well known there's almost certainly a tiered system they could set up that generates enough income to keep the lights on (or better).

It's a FOSS product. On the blog, the devs said that Krita is on the MS store because it brings in extra revenue which helps them to continue working on it full-time. They already have payment system setup on their website to take donations. But at its core Krita will always be a FOSS.

[1] https://krita.org/en/item/krita-available-from-the-windows-s...

Does anyone even use the Windows Store on their desktops? I've never installed a single application from there. I like my next-next-next-next wizards.

I go to it first, for the auto updates without additional software. It also updates apps seamlessly, unless you check the logs you won't even know it happened. I use it for Spotify, Netflix and a few other things. It needs improvement but I like it.

The only time I use Windows is on our AWS instance. On there, we run WSUS and do automatic updates to a subset, and upon good update, approve the rest of the machines.

I'd never trust MS's own idea for "updates".

There are a few applications, mostly games, that are only available from the Windows Store.

Also, IIRC if you install iTunes from the Windows Store, it updates with the unobtrusive Windows Store update instead of the poorly designed Apple Software Update application.

I do.

I like to take advantage of all sandbox mechanism that I can enable of my systems.

All switches up and white list on as needed basis.

I try to get everything I can from the Store at this point. It makes setting up a new machine or repaving an existing machine a breeze because you can just run through your Store library and one button install everything.

Every app from the Store is also often one less "every startup updater" application running from some developer who's time is better spent making their own more important software better (hi Apple, thanks for putting iTunes into the Store).

Plus there are applications I'd use anyway like Krita or Paint.NET where it felt worth it to send the devs a quick purchase cost.

Also, yeah, the piece of mind of a little extra sandboxing of applications is good. Security in depth is not just a good mantra when developing, it's also a fine way to live.

I have Kodi installed from the Windows Store on my HTPC because I like the automatic updates. That's about it.

For windows on ARM the windows store is the only realistic way to install applications. The only alternative is emulation at which point there is no reason to use an ARM laptop in the first place.

It's just that not many non-UWP apps are natively compiled for aarch64 yet.

VLC, for example, is available: https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html

Well, I used it to make a donation to Krita that comes with free automatic desktop updates.

Generally no. But you can get a better "crapless" version of iTunes there.

No. I run LTSB, so there's no store, although I do sideload some free apps that discontinued their earlier, better desktop apps.

I do the same thing, no store, telemetry, cordana.. Just windows the way it should be.

Besides, windows store is bullshit and its going to end up as the same crappy experience as Google and apples app "stores".

LTSB for life.

Unpopular opinion: Everyone is talking about abusive corporations, but it’s clear to me this rule exists to prevent abusive customers. Without it the store would be full of listings to the effect of

“See how awesome my app is! But, don’t be stupid enough to buy it here! Go to my website and use coupon code ‘LOLTHXMS’ to get it there for 5% off!”

effectively turning the store into a cost-free advertising platform. You might think Krita is special and deserves an exception. But, you know what happens when you make a very visible exception to one free customer among ten thousand free customers...

Using the rules of your app store to drive other distribution methods out still seems abusive.

No, the terms do not say that you can't sell or provide your app for free anywhere else. They say that you can't link to other distribution methods on the Microsoft app listing page. It would be similar to compare it to a product being sold on Amazon that says go to our website and get it for 10% discount. I'm sure Amazon won't allow that.

>effectively turning the store into a cost-free advertising platform.

Sigh. It happened the other way around. Microsoft wanted Krita and Inkscape on the Windows Store. They approached the developers to make it happen. You can read more about it here: https://krita.org/en/item/krita-available-from-the-windows-s...

To me the policy is worded so that clearly 10.8.5 should not apply in this situation. The fact that they can just choose to apply policy that is opposite their published policy is ridiculous.

I see more and more mentions of abusive behaviour by corporations. Google blocking AdWords / Compute accounts, Facebook rejecting ads, and now this. It seems innovators must navigate around automated systems and/or non-technical employees whenever their product is slightly outside the norm - Usually unsuccessfully.

So what's the alternative to entrusting our fates to faceless corps? Distributed apps perhaps?

Normally? Web apps.

But people are missing the forest for the trees: yes, the tech is crappy, because it's committee driven tech, but we're using it not for technical reasons, instead we're using it for political reasons.

And it's worth doing and stopping promoting the proprietary variants (native apps, basically).

Is it worth wasting energy on apps that are technically worse just for political reasons?

For some, maybe. Still, on PCs you can always distribute the native applications outside of the stores.

That may not be the case for whatever replaces the PC though.

The same companies who run the stores own the browsers that web apps run on.

I told you so. Never ever put yourselves into totalitarian traps of Big Brother Stores. It will kill you eventually.

That's dumb, and I really like having apps like in the Store so that I'm always running the latest version.

Why though? Dont you want that control? What id your favorite app turns into spyware?

> Why though?

There are certain pieces of software like Putty, 7-Zip, Arduino Studio, Inkscape, Plex, and Notepad++ where I'd like to always have the latest version. A few of those are in the store and keep themselves up to date.

> Dont you want that control?

Not really. There's quite a few pieces of software I want to run the latest versions of for security reasons (e.g. 7-Zip and Putty), some where finding the latest Windows installer is tedious (e.g. Gimp) others updated so infrequently that I forget to check (e.g. Inkscape), and others that are updated so frequently that it feels like I'm always running installers (e.g. Notepad++). Plus I use no less than 4 different computers with that software and it is a paint to make sure they're all updated. I'd rather just let them get managed in the background.

> What id your favorite app turns into spyware?

I don't know what you're asking.

> I don't know what you're asking.

I can understand your reasoning with all of those computers.

My question is specifically referring to something like uTorrent, that was so great for so long then jumped the shark. It actually became much less secure, and there are many examples of this happening all over the web.

That's a valid point and I do not recall doing the same with uTorrent. However I eventually grew to not trust the older version I was running after a number of security notices about the App. I eventually just gave up on it entirely because I couldn't trust the old one and didn't want the new one.

I'm not advocating that Apps be available exclusively in the store, just that I enjoy the convenience of the store for maintaining updates and would like them to be there. To your point I would also like to be able to install them outside of the store.

I think the reality is that doing autoupdates the way Firefox and Chrome handle them is hard. Most small projects can't be bothered to even implement it. That's where the store shines because it can implement and manage the autoupdate functionality independently.

I can honestly see the benefits of having the windows store do that for me. Personally, as a developer, I'd rather roll that on my own... but only because I'm so soured on these walled "stores" the giants have set up. I loathe the playstore and fear that, without heavy curation, the windows store is going to turn into the same exact thing.

In response, I went with the LTSB version of windows 10, which is absolutely great. I went to use ganache the other month and they didn't have an .exe or .msi (they do now fortunately) but it took a few to figure out how to sideload the .appx and I'm not sure I ever got it installed correctly so I used the CLI until they released a proper installer.

Why not go with Shopify or any other platform if you happen to be unhappy with this one?

To be fair to MS I’m pretty sure a physical store also would not allow you to circumvent their main profit making mechanism: markup. Ie if something is selling at WalMart they probably won’t like if the package says “go to our website and cut out the middleman”, seeing that their business model is, well, being a middleman.

I wish I could reply you in details, but the concern you have raised is not correct, and it has been discussed already in the thread. I suggest you read the thread of its entirety.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com