4 ms·

While I'm glad to see RIM respond to Jamie's post, they didn't address the ridiculous cost of the developer program. It boils down to $20/app. I suspect the iP

by ambirex 16y ago

While I'm glad to see RIM respond to Jamie's post, they didn't address the ridiculous cost of the developer program. It boils down to $20/app. I suspect the iPad will continue to dominate this year as more android developers gear up for honeycomb. Where does that really leave the playbook. Specs are great, but apps sell hardware.

tlear 16y ago
Cost is $0 currently and most likely will remain that way unless RIM somehow recaptures number one spot (not gona happen).
- pedrocr 16y ago
  So they're getting 0 in revenue and getting bad press about the potential 200$ price point that they set themselves. Seems like pretty bad marketing, unless they're trying to avoid the trap of not being able to raise the price later because of a built expectation of free. Is this actually a meaningful revenue source?
  - Stormbringer 16y ago
    The bad press is just some people going into hysterics at some scenario that might possibly happen at some distant point in the future. Which is refreshing in a way, because usually when people are being that hysterical and illogical it is over Apple. Nice to see some other company getting that treatment for a change. "Is this actually a meaningful revenue source?" Obviously not. 0 x N = 0 after all. They will however try to make it up in volume (normally a bad joke, but in this case it makes sense). They are massively behind Google's and "the company which must not be named"'s app stores... how then will they come to market with a credible number of apps? I think the switch to Flash is by RIM a vote of no confidence in their current developers, and I think they were hoping that a big bunch of Flash developers would jump on the band wagon. It might work, who knows. Flash developers have basically no other ways of monetising their work (other than page views of course) so it might seem like a good deal to them. RIM might have looked at their piddly number of apps available for sale for the blackberry and decided that their Java developers just weren't up to snuff. Of course there are or were systematic issues with app world (basically not available for a very long time outside of the US, the carrier will often not install the app world app, or will delete it before selling the blackberries to the customers, even if you know of its existence it is hard to find etc.) Also, if the Java developers suck so much, why has Google's app store got so many apps?
- jarin 16y ago
  I don't understand, if all of the fees are waived indefinitely, why even mention them? Why even have them? If the plan is to waive fees until RIM gets market share, will the fees really matter at that point? All it does is make developers nervous that they might be locked into paying money in the future. Just do like Google and charge developers a token fee (to verify identity and intent, I'm guessing) right from the beginning. If the goal is to lower the barriers to developer adoption, a $25 fee isn't going to stop anyone like the threat of a $200 fee in the future will.
dshanley 16y ago
Just to clarify it's not $20/app - it's $20/app AND every update to that app. It's $20/submission. I heard from developer relations that the fee has been waved for the moment. RIM also used to want $2K/year for HTTP access over BIS. I've heard this has been waved (but docs are still up saying this is a benefit of membership: https://partners.blackberry.com/web/guest/access-to-blackberry-internet-service-b-connectivity https://partners.blackberry.com/web/guest/access-to-blackber...)
- dangrossman 16y ago
  Sorry to be that guy, but the word is waive, not wave.
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  >Just to clarify it's not $20/app - it's $20/app AND every update to that app They are essentially applying a financial penalty to iterative development. Unbelievable. Patching your app? $20 please.
CWIZO 16y ago
It seems, from the post, that they only made plans to address the webpage issues (registration, download, ...) but not the real problem: the PITA development process. But to be fair, it is the weekend so I think we can assume they hadn't had much time to go over this.

by ambirex 16y ago

tlear 16y ago

Cost is $0 currently and most likely will remain that way unless RIM somehow recaptures number one spot (not gona happen).

pedrocr 16y ago
So they're getting 0 in revenue and getting bad press about the potential 200$ price point that they set themselves. Seems like pretty bad marketing, unless they're trying to avoid the trap of not being able to raise the price later because of a built expectation of free. Is this actually a meaningful revenue source?
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  The bad press is just some people going into hysterics at some scenario that might possibly happen at some distant point in the future. Which is refreshing in a way, because usually when people are being that hysterical and illogical it is over Apple. Nice to see some other company getting that treatment for a change. "Is this actually a meaningful revenue source?" Obviously not. 0 x N = 0 after all. They will however try to make it up in volume (normally a bad joke, but in this case it makes sense). They are massively behind Google's and "the company which must not be named"'s app stores... how then will they come to market with a credible number of apps? I think the switch to Flash is by RIM a vote of no confidence in their current developers, and I think they were hoping that a big bunch of Flash developers would jump on the band wagon. It might work, who knows. Flash developers have basically no other ways of monetising their work (other than page views of course) so it might seem like a good deal to them. RIM might have looked at their piddly number of apps available for sale for the blackberry and decided that their Java developers just weren't up to snuff. Of course there are or were systematic issues with app world (basically not available for a very long time outside of the US, the carrier will often not install the app world app, or will delete it before selling the blackberries to the customers, even if you know of its existence it is hard to find etc.) Also, if the Java developers suck so much, why has Google's app store got so many apps?
jarin 16y ago
I don't understand, if all of the fees are waived indefinitely, why even mention them? Why even have them? If the plan is to waive fees until RIM gets market share, will the fees really matter at that point? All it does is make developers nervous that they might be locked into paying money in the future. Just do like Google and charge developers a token fee (to verify identity and intent, I'm guessing) right from the beginning. If the goal is to lower the barriers to developer adoption, a $25 fee isn't going to stop anyone like the threat of a $200 fee in the future will.

dshanley 16y ago

Just to clarify it's not $20/app - it's $20/app AND every update to that app. It's $20/submission. I heard from developer relations that the fee has been waved for the moment. RIM also used to want $2K/year for HTTP access over BIS. I've heard this has been waved (but docs are still up saying this is a benefit of membership: https://partners.blackberry.com/web/guest/access-to-blackberry-internet-service-b-connectivity https://partners.blackberry.com/web/guest/access-to-blackber...)

dangrossman 16y ago
Sorry to be that guy, but the word is waive, not wave.
JonnieCache 16y ago
>Just to clarify it's not $20/app - it's $20/app AND every update to that app They are essentially applying a financial penalty to iterative development. Unbelievable. Patching your app? $20 please.

CWIZO 16y ago

It seems, from the post, that they only made plans to address the webpage issues (registration, download, ...) but not the real problem: the PITA development process. But to be fair, it is the weekend so I think we can assume they hadn't had much time to go over this.