×

Discussion Board

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48
  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    42

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Unbelievable!

    If Nokia goes for the Java Verified option, it is certainly going to be the last nail in my company's coffin as developers for Nokia phones. It will be a big warning sign for us that Ovi (and Nokia's platforms in general) is not a good place for small ISVs to be in.

    By the way, Apple approves 96% of the submitted apps, so I guess the app-store developers don't spend all their time trying to break the phone, right? Bad apps get bad reputation and get pushed down into oblivion.

    Apple is traditionally blamed for its tight control over their channels, but it seems like Nokia wants to out-apple Apple... Sad... At first sight Ovi seemed like a dream-come-true in terms of monetization options for small ISVs.

    I sure hope they will adopt Apple's (winning) model. Otherwise, at least for us, it's going to be bye-bye Nokia and hello Apple.

    Ori

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    12

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Quote Originally Posted by rippe View Post
    Good about Java Verified:
    -Independent testing of your application. This is important to small developers who would not necessarily have a decent QA process available.
    I would define that as bad, this requires us to pay for "testing" that doesn't check the things we actually need to test on a per device basis. Due to the large number of devices and their incompatibility this becomes impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by rippe View Post
    -No error messages at installation
    That's not quite accurate, this will only work for devices where the signature worked as expected. However, fragmentation with operator modifications etc. still causes problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by rippe View Post
    -The application can have All ways allowed privileges when set by the user
    Again not quite. Not all permissions are set, this is not the manufacturer/operator domain which is what RIM/Android developers are getting (and to some degree iPhone developers are getting). RIM stands out here in allowing you to sign with a proper certificate for the cost of 20 USD! As far as I know listing in their store is completely free.
    In series 60 the story is truly sad for Java applications where you just can't possibly find the UI for changing application permissions it has been hidden in such a masterful way... Even in S40 this requires the user to be aware of "permission options" and blocks less savvy users from applications.

    The problem I have with this mentality is the closed down market, Android has it right. The vendor is selling the application in the market and the users can vote him down for a "problematic" application and bad reputation. We can also provide financial collateral and signed contracts to guarantee no malicious code, however Java Verified doesn't check the "quality" of the application or anything else of importance to the end user.

    I paid 1k USD to Verisign and don't have a problem spending money for a worthwhile investment, however I don't think Java Verified is a good solution since the cost would be considerably higher and force me to reconsider minor fixes/upgrades to the application due to cost.

    I think a decent feedback/moderation system with a liberal refund policy should be sufficient for every such store. I would gladly pay a fixed price up front or even give up 50% of the net revenue if I could be signed by Nokia itself and be able to actually use the phone features to the full extent.

    I hope Nokia would have the sense to offer something new in this market allowing the smalltime developers to make money in this field. With Java Verified this can't possibly happen.

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2

    Talking Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Only problem with Java verified is with the price. $175 to test on one phone? Geeez... If I use two days to fully develop small app thats income expectation is about $200 with á price of $2 (Actually I just want to get money back from pack of beer I used while coding the thing). It's really pointless to go with the whole process. Or maybe I could certificate software for one phone and hope to get enough income with it to certificate others too? But would I end up with enough money to fund that next sixpack of beer?

    When does people at Nokia understand that these application stores are all about micro economics and community based development? Maybe I should start waving some signs at their front door to get them understand. (Nokia offices are just across the street...)

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2

    Thumbs down Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Well, I was fullish enough to submit my game application without going through JV and it failed verification :

    "Failed Case 1: Unsigned Application Summary: Application was not properly signed Requirement: All application and contents being submitted to Nokia must be certified through trusted foundations such as Java Verified or Symbian Signed and must obtain a signed certificate before it is accepted through Publish to Ovi. Steps to conduct the test: 1. Select the application/content to download. 2. Observe the warning message when the user installs the file: "Application is untrusted and may be harmful to your phone." Expected Results: The application should not display any "untrusted" messages. The application must be signed."

    I have about 20 games to work on about 50 nokia phones making it 1000 certifications.... Can anyone shed light on how much it costs to certify one game on one phone? I am sending "white powder" to Ovi geniuses....

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    I as a consumer am over the moon that nokia wants to make the indie developer community fork out thousands of ponds/dollars to get there apps tested, I don’t want a massive choice of software, I don’t want to be able to buy cheap 99 cent apps and I certainly don’t want innovation, if I wanted all that I would have bought an iphone

    But in all seriousness Publishers have been desperate to push out small developers from Apples appstore since its inception, resorting to posting on as many blogs and forums on the subject of the appstore as they could find, the idea that consumers want less choice, Apple didn’t fall for it, but it seems Nokia has, and as ori_regev said, maybe nokia thinks this is a way to out-apple Apple. Ie “hey its just like the appstore but with less choice, just like you wanted”. Just like the publishers wanted more like!

    I buy a lot of gadget and gaming magazines and visit many blogs dedicated to mobile development and have heard virtually no buzz with regards to Ovi, mention of it relegated to a slightly damp side note, none of my Nokia owning friends had heard of it, until I brought it to their attention.

    The army of indie developers and bloggers which Nokia should be utilizing to generate this buzz, are largely silent because they’ve been invited to the Ovi party, only to be turned away at the door for not being suitably attired.

    The appstore got a lot more attention from the media than it perhaps would have done because of the army of indie developers getting excited about it, which in turn got the attention of the specialist press, and in turn the main stream press. Unless Nokia wants to spend millions upon millions on additional advertising, to generate this buzz and maintaining its momentum, You need the indie developers on board. And we can’t get on board if we are going to be charged thousands of pounds for the privilege.

    Just as a final thought It seems curious that Nokia is aware that it needs the indie developers on board, given that Ovi isn’t a closed shop like N-Gage is. But has still put up such a large barrier in the form of testing fees. You want us, don’t want us I’m confused.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    13

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Hi,
    First of all thanks for the excellent presentation - I even managed to watch it while feeding one of my twins. However, I was somewhat startled about the requirement to verify Java apps. I'm a Java developer currently working for a company however, I want to work for myself and see JME, Nokia and Ovi as a way of realising this dream. My start up costs must be an absolute minimum which rules out Flash Lite straight away due to the £600 cost of Flash. Therefore, I must stick to Java but will have to get my apps verified at quite a cost. Come on Nokia - us solo developers and self-funded start-ups want to be part of Ovi too, please don't preclude us by making us jump over hurdles that we can't afford. I'm sure we all have much to contribute to mobile users.

    Angus

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5

    Thumbs up Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Hi,

    I have gone thru this painful JV process before and agree with others that it's not too fun. In addition to high costs, the application is actually tested by various people in three continents for different devices and you will get completely conflicting results anyway, so we paid twice naturally...

    But that aside, there's even a bigger problem: none of the test houses have access to latest devices. It means that whenever Nokia is launching a new device, the first applications to arrive (with JV) cannot happen sooner than 2 months after launch (personal experience). I think it's not what anybody wants but a fact of life.

    And further delay is coming from the fact that nobody dares to gamble with having all Nokia device groups tested to start with, afterall you might get 20 boomerangs and another month for the process. So the safe way to test is by starting with one handset, and after approval do testing on the rest. (Still you might get 50% boomerangs depending who happens to test your app).

    But of course we will live with this solution, but it's not for the benefit for Nokia really, neither for developers.

    BR,Kimmo

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Java Verified signing has not been ever requirement for the Ovi Store.
    As long as application is signed so that no signing related warning messages are shown it is fine.

    What is said in documentation about Java Verified is that application needs to fulfill Java Verified requirements meaning that application must pass Java Verified test cases.

    Alternative signing programs that are accepted are Verising and Thawte signing:
    http://wiki.forum.nokia.com/index.ph...d_party_domain

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    12

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Since I got rejected based on a Verisign signature I find this odd:

    Quote Originally Posted by peksi1 View Post
    Java Verified signing has not been ever requirement for the Ovi Store.
    As long as application is signed so that no signing related warning messages are shown it is fine.

    What is said in documentation about Java Verified is that application needs to fulfill Java Verified requirements meaning that application must pass Java Verified test cases.

    Alternative signing programs that are accepted are Verising and Thawte signing:
    http://wiki.forum.nokia.com/index.ph...d_party_domain

    I asked you on another thread if you know this for a fact (a Nokia employee or know someone who passed without JV). The link you submitted is a generic Nokia signing link and has nothing to do with OVI. OTOH this link is OVI related and seems less ambiguous than the other comments from Nokia:
    http://www.forum.nokia.com/Resources...ience/Testing/

    "All mobile applications offered through the Nokia sales channels must be tested and signed through either Java Verified or Symbian Signed. Forum Nokia supports these programmes and participates in developing and improving them to serve you better."

    I wish they would dump the JV process, it is forcing us to remove functionality from our application just because the testing back and forth would be too expensive. I can only assume they want a "small" store without as much "noise" as you have in other stores, this might work out for them but it would keep many innovative developers away...

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1

    Red face Re: Petition against Java Verified

    This all looked very interesting until I reached the bit about Java verification, which to me as a mobile developer is a total turn off given the added cost involved against end ROI.

    Adrian Cummings
    Founder and Owner
    www.mobileamusements.com

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Can anyone give specific budgetary numbers how much cost and time JavaVerified process for an average J2ME application could actually take (per device group)? The 150-175 USD cost is per hour as far as I know.

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    12

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Quote Originally Posted by jaakl View Post
    Can anyone give specific budgetary numbers how much cost and time JavaVerified process for an average J2ME application could actually take (per device group)? The 150-175 USD cost is per hour as far as I know.
    Relq are probably the cheapest by far, they took from us 175 USD for the test and 125 USD for the retest on failure. They made a minor mistake (missed a test in the first round) and were willing to wave the cost for a 3rd retest which allowed us to pass for 300 USD.

    Since our code is based on LWUIT this should work for all devices and we won't need tests for additional devices. However, we would have to pay this again for every new version and every bug fix release. Also our application is relatively well tested thanks to a very wide distribution and we had to remove many potentially useful features just because they were too complex to pass through the JV program. E.g. we have a wireless PC synchronization tool, this however requires passwords for authentication etc. Just documenting the flow and filling out the JV forms for such an elaborate feature (not to mention writing a detailed help file that is understandable on the device) proved impossible. So we just removed that very useful feature...

    You need to add heavy testing and documentation costs to the actual costs from the testing site.

    Notice that Ovi hasn't approved our content yet and can decide to reject it, which might mean the cost was for nothing or that we will have to go through the process again to fix something for Nokia's requirements.

    I hope the Ovi store is successful enough to justify these expenses, I also hope Nokia will pay attention to the fact that the biggest selling segment in the Apple store are the $1 applications... This pricing model probably won't be viable in the Ovi store.

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    I don't have a problem with Nokia requiring Java Verified signing per se.

    What I DO have an issue with is the fact the cost of the certification is NOT covered in Nokia's 30% cut. What are we getting for our money exactly? At this point we don't even know if the Ovi Store user experience is going to be better than the Download! app (i.e. awful!).

    I think Nokia should charge a modest sign-up fee (like Apple and Google) then provide free vouchers to developers to get the app tested on up to 5 Nokia devices.

    Unless Nokia u-turn on this issue, I don't think Ovi Store will reach critical mass for developers and therefore will not be a hit with consumers.

    As a result I've decided to take a "wait and see" approach to the Ovi Store; I can't afford the up front risk involved in being an early adopter in this instance.

    best regards,

    Andrew

  14. #29
    Super Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Cheshire, UK
    Posts
    7,395

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Well... as a rule, this is how retail works. The retailer marks up the price, in order to cover costs such as advertising, payment processing and so on, and in order to make a profit.

    However, I think Nokia might at least consider using their corporate buying power to negotiate a reduced rate for Ovi publishers.

    My bigger annoyance is that, apparently, Symbian apps do not require testing, even though a native application is potentially far more hazadous to the end-user.

    I consider testing essential. I want to develop and publish high quality applications, and that costs money. I don't want my applications burried under a pile of applications from developers who are either unable or unwilling to meet those standards, and who therefore don't incur the same costs as me. Low quality products will destroy Ovi. Apple users have no choice of from where to download, but Nokia users do. If Ovi delivers low quality products, users will just switch back to downloading from their operator's portal. But we need a level playing field. Java applications are inherently safer to the end user than native applications. This is borne out by the cost of testing BREW applications (at $1000 for an intial test). I don't want to have to compete with untested Symbian applications.

    Graham.

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Quote Originally Posted by grahamhughes View Post
    My bigger annoyance is that, apparently, Symbian apps do not require testing, even though a native application is potentially far more hazadous to the end-user.
    Anyone would think there might be a vested interest to encourage developers to go the Symbian route

Similar Threads

  1. Java Verified disabled security permission
    By amitaggarwal in forum Mobile Java Networking & Messaging & Security
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-09-11, 09:59
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2004-11-27, 17:03
  3. Java verified on Blue Tooth API
    By twlai in forum Bluetooth Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-10-13, 22:34
  4. Java verified on Blue Tooth API
    By twlai in forum Mobile Java General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2004-10-13, 08:24
  5. j2ME, java enabled, and the 3410
    By davidkangaroo in forum Mobile Java General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2002-07-05, 22:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
×