At the moment, if someone buys an application, they get all future versions of that app with no further funding to the developer. This is typical of a mobile phone app marketplace but not how it generally works with desktop applications where you might be expected to pay an "upgrade" fee to go from, say, version 1 to version 2.

Can we please have something similar for the WP7 marketplace (and, indeed, the Win8 marketplace)? In other words, developers would be at liberty not only to set the original purchase price but an upgrade price to go from a given set of versions (perhaps keep it to major versions only) to the latest version.

The reason for suggesting this is because the app I'm working on at the moment has got a very long development lifecycle - I can see myself working on it for months if not years to come. How do I appropriately set the price when the first release may be quite basic compared to what would be available in 12 months' time? If I set it low because the functionality is basic, I'm not going to get rewarded for future development work, and if I set it high to reflect the value of a potential future version, nobody will buy it initially because the functionality won't reflect that value.

The amount of spam applications, apps that are split out into several regions (i.e.: MyTranspo series), the ridiculous feed readers for all different musicians and whatnot, single book applications, and do-nothing apps (i.e.: the stuff published by "Eric_rulz")... This is just absolutely ridiculous. You already promised to take care of this, but it didn't work. We've still useless applications flooding the Marketplace, and there are no signs of it slowing. I believe that, instead of limiting the amount of certifications per user per day, the Marketplace should be a little better curated. Spam applications should not be approved. They should never pass certification, and should never be published. Bulk publishers should be made to consolidate their apps, and the rest should not pass.

We need the ability to report dangerous, misleading or malicious apps.

There doesnt seem to be any easy way to report an app that either doesnt work as described or collects more information than it should

One example is an app to browse an sql server, it doesnt inform you that it uses a proxy and connection apptemts continued long after i closed the app

Another example is the "Chrome Browser" which isnt what it claims to be, its an xaml page with a webbrowser control

I appreciate that microsoft may miss things like that, so please give us the ability to report bad apps

It just makes sense!...

I find it very strange that every app I have made during my one year membership as a developer is deleted the second I cancel my membership. Microsoft can run things however they want, but I think this is going to kill a lot of innovation and send it off to Android or iOS where you have to pay to publish apps, but apps don't get deleted if you don't pay again or if you cancel your account.

End users are also going to get very annoyed when Apps they have paid for disappear. If Windows phone is going to be a success, I really think this policy needs to change. I made no money my first year of making apps so I intended to take a break for a while as I couldn't afford to renew but now all my apps are gone.

This makes me very tempted to jump boat to a different platform. I highly doubt I am alone in this.

Although I can't be certain, I get the impression that updates and metadata changes go into the same approval queue as everything else, and that generally there is only one approval queue.

I don't think this is the best approach. For a new app, an extra few days for approval won't make any difference. But existing apps may have an existing audience which is impatiently waiting for either a bug fix or a new feature. This applies moreso to a critical bugfix, or a metadata error fix, where every second of delay is actively damaging the reputation of the app. So, I think existing apps should be in a higher priority than anything else.

Twice now, my app has failed certification due solely to marketing content. It has taken me 14 days to update a major crashing bug in my app because the certification process is inconsistent and poorly designed. I can't update the marketing text on my app to tell people a fix is on the way, because you can't have more than one submission in at a time.

This design is ridiculous. XAP submissions should go through one channel, and marketing changes should go through another. If you submit both at the same time, and the XAP passes but the marketing content doesn't, you should approve the XAP and fail the marketing. If you have a XAP in certification, you should be able to push through additional marketing changes, to keep customers informed of what is going on.

Otherwise, the 5 day delay in certification (and not certifying apps on weekends), coupled with only being able to submit one update at a time, marketing or otherwise, just holds me and my customers hostage. I've been waiting 14 days to push an update to my users, and that is unacceptable.

I want to explain and request a new system that should make it easier for developers and consumers to know if a phone can handle certain games.

We all know that the coming year means new hardware for WP7. At this moment all the WP7 phones have Adreno 200, but the new qualcomm chips will have 205 and in the feature maybe 220. We also have a confirmation that Nokia will use dual-core chips from ST-E. So the future will breng us more advanced hardware.

But as a developer how should you deal with the difference in hardware when developing games? How do i communicate this to the consumer that their device is not fast enough to handle the newest games.
Should you just develop games that work with Adreno 200 to ensure the best compatibility, but this will mean that the graphics level of WP7 games will always stay behind the other platforms. We have all seen what Nvidia's Kal-El can perform and we all want that power in the future.
Or devs could develop games specifically for new devices, but then you will have to keep a list of compatible devices and in the future with 30-40 or more devices thats a nightmare!

To tackle this problem and to make sure that developers and consumers have a nice experience when developing and installing games, is to develop a system that recognizes what hardware you have and based on the hardware enables or disables the ability to install a game. This way developers wont have to keep a list of compatible hardware and they will only have to choose what chassis and hardware is comptabile. At the other end consumers will know that their hardware is too weak for certain games en maybe upgrade their phone this way Microsoft and their partners can sell more smartphones.
Devs could also built-in different graphics for different hardware. That way they can enable more people to install the game.

The reason why i point out this problem is my experience with Android. The problem is getting bigger and bigger. We see now Xperia Only, Tegra 2 Only and Qualcomm ony games. Games are only available for certain SoC's and there is no clear communication about this to consumers.
Other problem: lots of devs get negative ratings because people cant seem to get a game to work with inferior hardware. This is funest for developers who have a good working game that just needs better hardware. And i think the biggest problem is proper communication. When consumers know what to expect, they cant rate a game they cant play with low-ratings.

With this system Microsoft should have a unique selling point to devs and consumers.