Instagram ads arrive RIGHT when Instagram becomes available for Windows Phone 8

[superboyac]

I find this very interesting from a business analysis perspective.
Windows Phone 8 has been out for nearly a year.  One major complaint has been there are no apps.  yes, the app store has thousands of apps.  but 99.9% of them either don't work, are buggy, are for WP 7, etc.  So really, there are no apps.  What's worse is that a lot of major apps, like Instagram, never came.  But now it is here, or will be in a few days.  I find it a remarkable coincidence that this happens the exact same time Instagram will implement ads for the first time.

So what's going on behind the scenes here?  let me know.  What is the real reason why the major apps have not implemented anything for WP8?  It for sure can't be because they don't have the resources. 

[Shades]

Low market share of WP8 phones, maybe with restrictions that the app makers don't like, i.e MS wants too big of a cut from the already meager amount of money they would make from supporting this type of phone.

Don't get me wrong, the WP8 phone I have played around with (Lumia 720) looked decent enough and did what it did in a rather enjoyable way. Then again, my hands-on time cannot be more than 30 minutes in total, so what do I know.

 

[superboyac]

So you're saying...
If Instagram wants to make an app for the windows phone, MS is going to make THEM (Instagram) pay for that?  Maybe this explains why there aren't many apps.

[wraith808]

I think the cost for making apps is only on the back end, similar to the App Store, i.e. if I make a free app, it doesn't cost anything.  At least from my limited look at the development side, this seemed to be the case.  In fact, if I make a free app, then I have a chance of getting free stuff from MS.  So only if the app would be a pay app would MS get anything... just like the App store.  And instagram doesn't cost anything from what I know.

[superboyac]

I think the cost for making apps is only on the back end, similar to the App Store, i.e. if I make a free app, it doesn't cost anything.  At least from my limited look at the development side, this seemed to be the case.  In fact, if I make a free app, then I have a chance of getting free stuff from MS.  So only if the app would be a pay app would MS get anything... just like the App store.  And instagram doesn't cost anything from what I know.

-wraith808 (November 03, 2013, 11:18 AM)

This is what I don't get about these big software companies.  If what you say is true, then why didn't Instagram make an app several months ago?  Just assign one of their programmers and get it done in a week, it wouldn't take much.  So there must be more to the story.  There's gotta be some politics or something.  The way I see it, there seems to be a deliberate reason NOT to do it, because doing it would be so easy and logical.  So what is that reason?

When I ask questions like this, a lot of people say, well, when there's more of a demand, they'll do it.  But that doesn't make sense to me for Instagram or large companies like that.  I can see a team of 2-3 people waiting, but not a huge app like that.

[Shades]

Don't know if and how much one has to pay for the development software, what extra license costs are needed to meet the requirements of the development software, the version control software, buying the necessary hardware, taking programmer(s) from other in-house projects and/or hiring new programmer(s), re-arranging/more office space, extra HR administrative tasks, making a test environment, setting up test procedures, fulfilling all requirements to be in the Microsoft store.

I have no clue what these companies make, how stretched their employees already are etc., etc.

[bit of a rant]
Lots of headache for minimal return, if MS doesn't gain much market share quickly. And if you live in the U.S. you have a skewed view of the Microsoft corporation. They cater the U.S. market and hardly give a sh.t about the rest of the world. Here in Paraguay it is hard to get a Lumia and they are more expensive than equivalent Android phones. And these you can get easily over here. A lumia 720 for example costs here almost 500 USD.

Their attitude and lack of marketing in the not-US markets make damn sure that their WP8 phones will remain a small player. And they dare to ask why nobody wants their phones, fueling the whole chicken-egg situation. I would understand if WP8 apps require adds to make these apps profitable, however I don't know if MS wants a cut of this or not allowing it in the first place. Cannot be bothered to look it up, to be honest.

Believe it or not, even a Blackberry is a better deal than a WP8 phone over here in Paraguay. Something MS should be ashamed of.
[/rant]

[wraith808]

Don't know if and how much one has to pay for the development software, what extra license costs are needed to meet the requirements of the development software, the version control software, buying the necessary hardware, taking programmer(s) from other in-house projects and/or hiring new programmer(s), re-arranging/more office space, extra HR administrative tasks, making a test environment, setting up test procedures, fulfilling all requirements to be in the Microsoft store.

I have no clue what these companies make, how stretched their employees already are etc., etc.

-Shades (November 03, 2013, 05:36 PM)

None of what you've stated is really a reason not to develop for a platform when you're talking about the big players- the costs of these things are no different than what they did to get on one platform already.  There's also the fact that MS is pushing to get App developers to develop for the platform- even a cursory search shows different programs for this and there's many articles on developing the same in MSDN.

I couldn't comment on the marketing, but since windows 8 apps either use native or HTML5 applications, I think that developers are covered in getting the apps to the phone.  And the rest really doesn't matter if the application is already intended to be free.

[Shades]

^you are right about the stated reasons. The point I wanted to make was that supporting a new (phone) OS always carries "unwanted baggage" with it that costs, either in money, headache or both. Just trying to be the devil's advocate, but I should leave that to the professionals (you, for instance  ).

Then again, I'm a person who (proudly) says that he hasn't even once visited the "social" websites such as twitter, instagram. pinterest etc. (excluding Google+, LinkedIn and Facebook). So I wouldn't know how they make their money of their members backs, I can only assume that the shown (personalized) ads floats their boat. And I don't have any trouble imagining that MS wants a cut of that income, as they want to have store, similar to the setup of the Apple store. I cannot blame them for that as it makes perfect sense business-wise.

You get what you give, and MS does not give too much to any market outside the US. When that turns around, customers will come, because the Lumia phone is not a bad phone. But for some reason they forget to copy that from the likes of Google and Apple.

[superboyac]

I also think that there must be some kind of unwanted baggage there, as Shades said.  If so, I'd like to know what that is.