×

Discussion Board

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8

    Petition against Java Verified

    I was quite excited to hear of Nokia's launch of the Ovi store to provide a service along the lines of app store and android market.

    BUT once I reached this forum I found to my shock an offical statement from a Nokia rep saying that all Java apps will need to have gone through the "Java Verfied" process.

    I can only suppose that this is an attempt to make Java apps as unlikely as possible in the new Ovi store as I can assure you that no small ISVs will go through the expensive and convoluted "JV" process.

    In addition I'm suprised at members like Lucien defending the whole signing process even for Symbian apps, even for free apps. For something marketed as "self service" what on earth does Nokia justify its 30% cut with? In all the competing app stores/markets, the provider of the store takes on the burden of checking for compliance the submitted apps as part of that 30% fee! But here Nokia expects developers to completely shoulder that burden before they can even submit their apps of the Ovi Store and then after that expects to take the same percentage fee. This kind of policy is exactly why many developers are willing to make the roll of the dice that passes for the apps stores "approval process".

    I hope I'm not being unreasonable in asking any Nokia reps here to explain how they think that the JV only policy can be justified?

    In summary I have very high hopes for the Ovi store, but as a Java developer with several apps under development (both free and paid) unless someone within the Ovi store area takes note of this plea and removes these onerous restrictions, I can't see anyway I'l be able to participate. And it really won't be much of store if the sheves are empty of the kind of compelling, innovative apps that are driving he success of the opposition.

    thanks for listening,

    Maks,

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    18

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Agreed......

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Agreed...

    We have reached the point where JavaME has matured, both APIs and implementation, platform set is well defined and documented (S40, S60), tools are great... and we finally have possibility to monetize on the app store for devices with widest market penetration.

    Yet, we have to go with same old 3rd-party process that charges per device per test... process mostly unavailable for the very same developers that made success of competing app stores.

    If the issue with Java application is "no warning messages are acceptable", then allow us to self-sign with free or low-cost Nokia-rooted Certificate.

  4. #4
    Nokia Developer Expert
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    50

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    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.
    -The "signature" is valid for ten years. Comparing to some code signing certificates where the "signature" cannot be valid for longer than the signing keys are. Example: A year valid certificate purchased ten months ago can only give signatures which are valid for two months.
    -No error messages at installation
    -The application can have All ways allowed privileges when set by the user

    Bad about Java Verified:
    -The process should be made more straight forward -> we are working on that
    -There should be decent help of how to use the process -> we are working on that
    -There should be a way for the developer to test the application as signed before the application is submitted -> coming up
    -There should be a way for the portal to automatically check if the application will work after being signed -> evaluating options
    -As Java ME devices are very fragmented, there should be away to reduce cost of Java Verified -> on its way as soon as we get the next version of the criteria out. I've been calculating cost reductions up to 65% with applications to Nokia devices.

    Cheers,

    Risto

  5. #5
    Nokia Developer Champion
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    83

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Hi Rippe,
    are you involved in the JavaVerified organization?

    For me, in particular, this "upgrade" to the process would be the most important:
    -There should be a way for the developer to test the application as signed before the application is submitted -> coming up

    Cheers,
    AW

    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.
    -The "signature" is valid for ten years. Comparing to some code signing certificates where the "signature" cannot be valid for longer than the signing keys are. Example: A year valid certificate purchased ten months ago can only give signatures which are valid for two months.
    -No error messages at installation
    -The application can have All ways allowed privileges when set by the user

    Bad about Java Verified:
    -The process should be made more straight forward -> we are working on that
    -There should be decent help of how to use the process -> we are working on that
    -There should be a way for the developer to test the application as signed before the application is submitted -> coming up
    -There should be a way for the portal to automatically check if the application will work after being signed -> evaluating options
    -As Java ME devices are very fragmented, there should be away to reduce cost of Java Verified -> on its way as soon as we get the next version of the criteria out. I've been calculating cost reductions up to 65% with applications to Nokia devices.

    Cheers,

    Risto

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Hi Risto,

    Thanks for your reply. You make good points about the benefits of the Java Verified testing process. My complaint is not against the process itself, indeed I think its a valuable service for those that want to improve the quality and portability of their applications.
    What I am asking for is that it not be made a mandatory prerequisite of listing an application of listing a J2ME app on the forthcoming Ovi Store.

    As I pointed out in my original post, the store is competing for developer mindshare/support against simliar poducts which do not require any kind testing/verification process to be conducted at the developers expense to have their products listed.

    Likewise Ovi Store is clearly stated as being targeted only at Nokia users, so why again is it so important to go through a testing process that is more focused at ensuring application compatibility against a wide range of handsets from multiple vendors?

    And again the Ovi store is charging the same transaction fee as competitors who include in this fee whatever processes they deem necessary to validate a product as being suitable for listing and sales via their store services.

    SO my original (genuine) question stands: what justification is there for mandating Java Verified testing prior to allowing apps to be listed in Ovi Store?

    thanks,
    Maks.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    29

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Agreed. Even though my app is working perfectly on Nokias, I will not submit it to the Ovi store if the JavaVerified is required. Unless it's made much less expensive, at least five times less expensive.

    Somehow Apple does not charge for this, do they? Neither does Google for Android apps. Even BlackBerry does not, you pay $20 per submission, and even this drives people nuts.

    Nokia: if you want to be competitive in developed countries, you need developers on your side. Otherwise forget about it and continue selling cheap basic phones in China and India.

    Good luck, and hope you take a note.
    Y.

  8. #8
    Super Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Cheshire, UK
    Posts
    7,395

    Re: Petition against Java Verified

    Apple charge you $99 before you can even think about developing. And you must distribute you i-phone app though them, you have no choice.

    Anyone selling your application is going to want to know that it meets some basic quality requirements: it's doesn't lock, doesn't crash, doesn't run out of memory, behaves graciously when there is no more RMS space, doesn't play music in the background while you're on a call, things like that. They don't want customer complaints, people asking for refunds.

    Before JV, there were many certification programmes. Nokia had their own. JV is the "unified testing criteria" because it is an attempt to have a single standard, rather than having developers attempt to meet multiple (possibly conflicting) standards.

    Now, I am not entirely a fan of JV. It is driven by the manufacturers, and often forces developers to work around their implementation problems. For example, we must make games behave nicely on an incoming call, on Samsung devices that send no pauseApp() and no hideNotify() events.

    But trying to meet requirements now from JV, T-mobile, Sprint, Three, etc., is an expensive nightmare. If JV didn't exist, and we also had to meet separate requirements from Vodafone, Orange, Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, ...

    JV at least allows you get your app certified once, to a single (and not entirely stupid) set of requirements, and take it to multiple market places.

    If you only want to sell on Nokias, you only need to get apps certified on Nokia devices. JV is not focussed on cross-device compatibility. To pass on a Nokia device, your build does not need to work on anything else, and can use all the Nokia-specific APIs you want.

    Ultlimately, if you want access to a premier software distribution channel, you are going to have to meet some standards, and prove you meet them. The value of the channel will be determined by the experience of those who download from it, and if they download poor quality apps that don't run, they won't download again.

    Cheers,
    Graham.

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    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...)

  11. #11
    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....

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    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

  14. #14
    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

  15. #15
    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

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
  •  
×