Transitioning SaaS Offers with Multi-Year Pricing from AppSource to Azure Marketplace
When a SaaS transactable offer on Microsoft AppSource includes a pricing plan for more than 1 year, the offer is delisted from AppSource and becomes available on Azure Marketplace. This is due to the platform's structure: AppSource primarily supports monthly or annual subscription models for SaaS offers. Any pricing model that exceeds 1 year (e.g., 2-year, 3-year plans) is outside the scope of AppSource’s transaction capabilities. When a SaaS solution introduces multi-year pricing, it is automatically transitioned to Azure Marketplace, which can accommodate longer-term contracts and subscription models (such as 2-year, 3-year, or longer terms). Azure Marketplace is designed for more complex transactions, including multi-year deals, and supports deeper infrastructure integration and contract management features compared to AppSource. Thus, any SaaS offer that requires multi-year pricing terms will shift from AppSource to Azure Marketplace, where such transactions can be handled effectively.Challenges Business Users Face with Microsoft's Transactable Offers in the Marketplace
Here’s a summary of the challenges faced by business users when purchasing solutions through Microsoft's transactable offer setup in the marketplace: Limited Pricing Flexibility: Business users may find it challenging to secure multi-year or customized pricing as AppSource primarily supports monthly or annual subscription plans. This limits their ability to negotiate bulk discounts or tailored pricing, common in traditional procurement. Complex Procurement Processes: The setup of transactable offers on Azure Marketplace often requires coordination with IT departments for deployment, making it cumbersome for non-technical business users to manage purchases independently. The process may feel less intuitive compared to traditional software procurement methods. Integration Issues with Existing Systems: Many businesses have third-party procurement platforms or internal systems for billing and spend management. The reliance on Microsoft’s native billing system may not align with these existing tools, leading to difficulty in reconciling purchases, tracking invoices, and managing budgets efficiently. Lack of Contract Negotiation: Business users often rely on personalized contract negotiations for larger purchases. Microsoft’s marketplace setup offers standardized pricing without room for customized contracts, making it hard for customers to negotiate terms, volume discounts, or extended payment plans. Limited Cross-Platform Compatibility: Since Microsoft’s marketplace is primarily focused on the Microsoft ecosystem, it may not be the best fit for organizations that operate in multi-cloud environments or use non-Microsoft tools. This limits the flexibility for businesses looking for cross-platform solutions. Lack of Detailed Usage Reports for Business: Business users may find it difficult to get granular visibility into usage and costs, which can make it harder to track software ROI or align expenditures with department budgets. While basic reporting is available, it may not provide the level of detail needed for large organizations. Summary: The way Microsoft’s transactable offer setup is structured presents challenges for business users, including limited pricing flexibility, complex procurement coordination, and difficulty integrating with existing systems. These issues can create friction for organizations seeking more customized contracts, clearer usage visibility, and better alignment with multi-cloud environments.Transactable vs. non-Transactable marketplace offer?
Peer ISV experiences appreciated. Throughout this fiscal Msft has pushed hard towards the marketplace transactability with various initiatives and this was strongly presented also at Ignite. The list of arguments from Msft is extensive (buyer behavior, co-sell, multi-party offers, MACCs, etc...). However I would like to here real-life experiences from peer ISVs who have both transactable and non-transactable offers / have migrated the existing non-transactable offer to transactable offer: Impact on lead generation and closed deals? Impact on co-sell among Msft and/or CSPs? Does MACC eligibility matter? Any other pros / cons? Bonus question: If you have the same offer on both Azure Marketplace and AppSource: Which one has been the place to be? Or both? Thanks a million in advance! 🙏How we increased trials 200% with Marketplace Rewards
Hi All, Kitameraki Limited's TeamsWork brand provides intuitive and collaborative apps for Microsoft Teams that cater to the needs of small and medium-sized businesses and has successfully launched Ticketing As A Service and Checklist As A Service apps, and just recently CRM As A Service App on the Microsoft Marketplaces. As a Microsoft partner for nearly four years, TeamsWork recognized the importance of maximizing visibility and reach within the Microsoft ecosystem. Our team has been able to leverage many of the benefits available through Marketplace Rewards to help drive significant growth and quantifiable results, thanks to expert guidance and the broad range of resources available to better market apps on Microsoft marketplaces. Just a few of these benefits included: The listing optimization allowed us to receive expert recommendations from Microsoft about how to optimize our marketplace offer pages. Azure sponsorship credits cut down on our costs of marketplace solutions. Press release support featuring a quote from a Microsoft executive helped amplify the announcement of our marketplace availability Our customer success story demonstrated how one of our customers increased administrative efficiency by 20 percent using our marketplace solution. featured category placement on the Azure Marketplace, which spotlighted TeamsWork and drove more users to view offer pages. Marketplace Rewards has helped drive a 200% increase in new trials for our marketplace offerings! Read the full story here: Kitameraki case study What success has your organization seen with Marketplace Rewards?
App Source Canvas App - how to prevent customers seeing code and functionality
We are a small ISV and have published a PowerPlatform solution with a canvas app. While we published as a managed solution, etc. we are seeing that our customers can edit the app and see all the code and functionality we've built. Our 2025 plan includes ramping up several new App Source offerings with Canvas Apps included, but we won't be doing that if we can't protect our efforts and someone can easily replicate. Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated! After a customer purchased this solution, this is what they can see when selecting "App" - clearly you can see they can edit it and did confirm they can go in an navigate through the app in the editor and see al the code, etc. This is the solution view - it is working as expected by preventing the editing. This is the offer. Business Apps – Microsoft AppSourceApp name blocked on Marketplace submission
Hello everyone, I'm reaching out to the community in hopes that someone has encountered a similar issue and can provide guidance. We’ve developed a new app that we’re ready to submit to the Microsoft Marketplace with a transactable offer. However, during the submission process, we’re encountering a roadblock: when entering the desired app name, we receive the following message: "The name is not available." I contacted email address removed for privacy reasons for clarification, as the name isn’t currently used by any other app or offer and doesn’t appear to violate Microsoft’s naming conventions. They redirected me to Partner Center Support, where I was informed that the issue is being reviewed internally. Unfortunately, I haven’t received any clear explanation or resolution so far. To support our case, we’ve demonstrated that: We own the domain name associated with the app name. We have 16 other products and apps with a similar naming convention, ensuring brand consistency. Despite this, we’re still waiting for a response. Has anyone else faced a similar issue? Any advice on how to navigate this or expedite the process would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help!Marketplace Rewards + Certified Software = Good Things
Transacting through Marketplace and attaining a Certified Software designation are both essential on their own . . . but now, when you can tick both boxes, good things await you! The Certified Software General Availability (CSGA) program gets you access to a team of experts who will create for you - at zero cost - a menu of assets including a solution FAQ guide, nurture emails, customer-facing solution brief (co-branded with Microsoft's logo and your Certified Software badge), and a Microsoft solution play card. That last one is particularly important because it facilitates discovery of your solution by Microsoft sellers. They create it on the Microsoft template and then they upload the approved final version to Microsoft's internal system. Pretty sweet, eh? The folks running the program / creating the assets are wonderful, they do amazing work, and they require very little time from you. So . . . lead with Marketplace, go get that Certified Software designation, and then take full advantage of yet another valuable program from Microsoft! #MarketplaceChampions #SponsoredCritical! SaaS App review and rating synchronized with the wrong AppSource App!
First of all. THANK YOU SO MUCH for finally making a synchronization between the SaaS App and the corresponding App in AppSource. HOWEVER! the SaaS app is synchronizing with the wrong App in AppSource. This is critical, I don't have time for support to first acknowledge it and then find time to make the fix. I need this to be done immediately. Can a responsible please take action. The problem. In AppSource I have a free version - iPlanner Free - that only offers 20% of the App that is purchased using the SaaS App - iPlanner Pro. The free version have pure ratings in compare to the Pro version. I of course don't want customer to use the free I want them to purchase the Pro with the SaaS App. In my Marketplace listening I am connecting the SaaS App to iPlanner Pro in AppSource. For that reason it is odd why you guys synchronizing with the wrong app. The problem is taking the review and rating to the SaaS app makes my subscribed based app look very bad. This is highly critical and is also very wrong. The reviews shown on the SaaS app comes from the wrong app. I would appreciate if this can be fixed asap. I am sure you guys can see that it is critical. Thank you and happy holydays to all in the community.
Deployment on a CSP managed tenant
There is a public transactable offer that is listed. Based on customer requirements and pricing negotiations, we are deploying via private plans. However, when the customer account is managed by a CSP (rather than pay as you go), the transactions reflect in the name of the CSP and not the end customer leading to processes like Top Tier not recognizing it as an individual customer. Is there a best practice for the same?
