10-20-11 05:11 PM
26 12
tools
  1. inicophone's Avatar
    Hi,

    I think this could make for an interesting discussion. Now that RIM has got going and the Android Player is here. Where is the incentive to write a native QNX app if you already offer a compatible Android app?

    By running Android apps on a BlackBerry, you'll eventually realise that the developers are with Android and I think eventually the user will switch too.

    As current BB OS apps will be imcompatible with QNX. Why bother writing a QNX app if your Android app will run via the player? Which in my opinion, is going to lead to massive awareness of Android! I do not see why RIM would want to use this. Other than a short term advantage of apps being available rapidly, is there any advantage in showing off what your platform doesn't have - native apps? As in honesty, native apps are always going to run and look better emulated ones.

    I will be buying a PlayBook once OS2 is released and I have seen it, but I don't see why anyone would buy a PlayBook over an Android tablet now, I am pondering if I should go for an Android tablet instead. And why would big apps, for example Ebay, Twitter, Facebook, write a native QNX app when their Android app might work and save all the time?

    I love RIM, I love my BlackBerry so please don't flame me! I am defending them too!
    10-20-11 03:09 PM
  2. Accidental Post's Avatar
    It seems based on what you said they kind of slapped BB developers in the face. Like here is QNX and here are some development tools oh and by the way were going to let android apps run on QNX.
    K Bear likes this.
    10-20-11 03:17 PM
  3. rcheung135's Avatar
    TBH, you share the same ideas I have. RIM is trying to woo in more developers for apps onto the PlayBook hardware. It's up to these developers to decide whether to develop for QNX or not. But what's the point of developing for QNX?

    I have a feeling RIM will just end up manufacturing the hardware, and making an Android variant like the many other manufacturers (i.e. Samsung, Motorola). This will only make RIM fall in line.
    10-20-11 03:19 PM
  4. rdkempt's Avatar
    They have told BB developers to go write their apps for Android instead, then they can easily port them over to BB after they're on Android and have their app on 2 platforms (with BB being the later of the 2).

    It was a terrible idea from the start and still is today.
    10-20-11 03:22 PM
  5. Rickroller's Avatar
    Yea..i'm not a dev..but I agree. If you build an Android app and market it there..as well as for BB's..you're essentially getting double the market for 1 App. Not much incentive there to build natively for "BBX".
    10-20-11 03:23 PM
  6. Accidental Post's Avatar
    And what it really says is "All you folks who bought an OS7 device. SCREW YOU!"
    K Bear likes this.
    10-20-11 03:26 PM
  7. Rickroller's Avatar
    I have a feeling RIM will just end up manufacturing the hardware, and making an Android variant like the many other manufacturers (i.e. Samsung, Motorola). This will only make RIM fall in line.
    Perhaps. If Android is working on a hardened kernel for secure government use..then perhaps they will be able to offer a slightly more "consumer friendly" version of this..which Blackberry could take and use, since they're already known for their security.
    10-20-11 03:26 PM
  8. DBX00's Avatar
    The one caveat is that OS 2.0 does not identify converted Android apps as running in an Android player. Only techies know it was converted and running in a player. The average consumer will just see another app in App World and download it.
    10-20-11 03:27 PM
  9. notfanboy's Avatar
    It depends on how fast and responsive the Android apps are. For those who have tried it, how do processor intensive apps like games perform. Have you noticed any lag or degradation?

    I suspect that high-end games will run best using native code. This was why so much time of the keynote presentation was given to games because this was where RIM thinks the market is.
    10-20-11 03:27 PM
  10. grahamf's Avatar
    Writing in the NDK allows you to write more powerful applications. the Android player does have restrictions (such as zero access to Google product APIs), and it is designed to make it eiser to port to the PlayBook.

    Although doing so may be fairly decent, developers will most likely find it easier to work with the NDK or the BBXDK
    10-20-11 03:30 PM
  11. montyl's Avatar
    You guys have missed what RIM has already put out concerning Android Apps. Not all Android Apps will be able to run via the Android Player on QNX

    "While some people will think that any type of restrictions are negative and that it is purpose defeating, take a minute to realize that this is an App Player that is running on a seperate platform, it isn't going to bring you a full Android experience. That said, widgets and live wallpapers, and apps that rely on Google Maps integration or make use of in-app billing will not run."
    10-20-11 03:33 PM
  12. samab's Avatar
    But even in the worst scenario, what you will have is RIM being the largest "Android" manufacturer with the least number of models --- a big slab, a traditional blackberry and a vertical slider. They all have the same dalvik version number. They all have the same CPU/GPU (like all BB7 have the same Qualcomm CPU).

    It's an Android's developers dream --- don't need to support different Android versions, don't need to optimize different CPU's and different GPU's.
    10-20-11 03:33 PM
  13. samab's Avatar
    You guys have missed what RIM has already put out concerning Android Apps. Not all Android Apps will be able to run via the Android Player on QNX

    "While some people will think that any type of restrictions are negative and that it is purpose defeating, take a minute to realize that this is an App Player that is running on a seperate platform, it isn't going to bring you a full Android experience. That said, widgets and live wallpapers, and apps that rely on Google Maps integration or make use of in-app billing will not run."
    And the same limitations apply to the Kindle Fire --- bloggers just haven't figured that out yet.
    10-20-11 03:35 PM
  14. papped's Avatar
    You could just as easily say that they shot down native QNX development because they supported air/flash applications (assuming you start at the point where the native sdk was available)... But that doesn't really make any sense.
    10-20-11 03:36 PM
  15. papped's Avatar
    "While some people will think that any type of restrictions are negative and that it is purpose defeating, take a minute to realize that this is an App Player that is running on a seperate platform, it isn't going to bring you a full Android experience. That said, widgets and live wallpapers, and apps that rely on Google Maps integration or make use of in-app billing will not run."
    A lot of the limitations aren't quite what they are put out there to be. The intended use is that a dev can easily repackage an android application to a .bar without having to rewrite from scratch using a whole new sdk.

    That doens't mean they automatically don't have to make ANY app changes for particular system dependencies. It still makes the amount of work tremendously small in comparison and they can still build their apk's as usual using the same dev tools, then just convert and submit.
    10-20-11 03:38 PM
  16. Rickroller's Avatar
    And the same limitations apply to the Kindle Fire --- bloggers just haven't figured that out yet.
    The Kindle Fire runs Android though..so what kind of limitations are you referring to?
    10-20-11 03:40 PM
  17. js8229's Avatar
    I agree for the majority of routine apps, the Android player route would be useful.

    One thing to consider though is that for any performance- or graphics-intensive apps, the benefit of native code, and the underlying middleware might be the push to stay native. DevCon showed that most of the popular middleware (computational and graphical engines especially) are going to be directly usable under QNX and, even perhaps not Android. That would mean that some devs will go native from the start to recognize the benefits and for others, that use middleware also supported on other platforms, it would just mean a reconfigure and recompile to make a native app potentially from even an iOS app or other mobile platform.

    I'm looking at the player as just one more avenue to get apps on the platform, but certainly not the end-all for native QNX apps. If anything, it might enable a developer who has an Android app already built to get it on BB while developing a better app native for BB/QNX, and getting to monetize the first version immediately.

    Right now, I know folks are asking whether they should be doing anything BB related, or just stay on iOS/Android. Without the player, most BB users would just get nothing until dev shops had the numbers to justify a separate BB app. With it, once it's on Android it's also on BB-- and if the numbers then say it's more profitable on the BB platform (which might just be a good bet) you can be sure the focus will shift to getting more and better code available to those users; and that might just mean a native app for the next version.
    10-20-11 03:44 PM
  18. greatwiseone's Avatar
    I think QNX native at the beginning will basically be used for games and other BIG apps (like Citrix, etc.). The other thing too is if dev's can make use of the cascades ui framework and make really cool apps that many people buy (in contrast to regular android based apps), then the dev's will be incentivized to use the UI framework + native SDK provided by RIM.
    10-20-11 03:47 PM
  19. papped's Avatar
    If anything, it might enable a developer who has an Android app already built to get it on BB while developing a better app native for BB/QNX, and getting to monetize the first version immediately.
    Yep, that there is the point... You take your existing app, port it easily to a new platform where app competition is significantly less and people actually buy apps and begin profiting.

    It doesn't necessarily guarantee that future native or air development is out of the question either.
    10-20-11 03:47 PM
  20. NickA's Avatar
    Yep, that there is the point... You take your existing app, port it easily to a new platform where app competition is significantly less and people actually buy apps and begin profiting.

    It doesn't necessarily guarantee that future native or air development is out of the question either.
    Another good point there. People don't want to buy Android apps. It has the open source stigma and therefore users think that applies to apps as well. I think in general people expect a free app that is ad sponsored. I don't see that as much on the BB platform. I see more paid apps then anything.
    10-20-11 03:56 PM
  21. Wretch 12's Avatar
    The Android App Player has limitations where native limitations do not exist, look at it from this perspective - browser vs. dedicated desktop software, the same struggle most companies tend to come across when they develop software.
    10-20-11 03:58 PM
  22. NickA's Avatar
    The Android App Player has limitations where native limitations do not exist, look at it from this perspective - browser vs. dedicated desktop software, the same struggle most companies tend to come across when they develop software.
    This thread is full of good points.

    I don't know how many times clients wanted a web based application, that should actually be a traditional desktop app. And you end up with a half baked web app that runs poorly.

    I think if you have a basic Android app, like a personal finance app (which is lacking for the PB right now), then that would be a really good port. I use app called Pocket Money for Android. I still keep mt Droid X2 charged because I have nothing to replace that app with right now.
    10-20-11 04:05 PM
  23. samab's Avatar
    The Kindle Fire runs Android though..so what kind of limitations are you referring to?
    (1) Kindle Fire doesn't have the hardware to do certain things --- no gyroscope, no camera, no WAN module, no Bluetooth, no microphone and no GPS. This is WORST than the Playbook. The Android Player demo on DevCon showed Android apps running inside the Playbook gets the GPS information so that you can local movie listing --- can't do that with the Kindle Fire.

    (2) No Google services. So like the Playbook --- apps will not be able to access Google mobile services like cloud-to-device push, data sync, and location services.

    (3) No Google in-app purchases --- same as the Playbook.

    (4) No live wallpaper, same as the Playbook.

    (5) No support for the Android NDK. So like the Playbook, top end Android 3D graphics games that requires the Android NDK will not run on the Kindle Fire.

    (6) No Kindle Fire NDK. This is WORST than the Playbook. The Playbook can get top end 3D graphics games like Dead Space because there is a Playbook NDK available so developers can port native iOS games to QNX. No top end 3D games for the Kindle Fire --- even though it has the same CPU/GPU as the Playbook.

    https://developer.amazon.com/help/fa...890#KindleFire
    10-20-11 04:05 PM
  24. tmelon's Avatar
    It's an escape route. RIM wants developers, but they know that they have trouble finding them, so they went for Android just in case.
    10-20-11 04:09 PM
  25. crazylegshinch's Avatar
    I'm hoping that the ability to port many existing apps over to the playbook (and BBX in general) will help pique the interests of developers. Think of it as a sampling, in very little time an effort, you could put your app over onto a whole new ecosystem. Albeit, without the full function of that device.

    If the app is well received, perhaps it will be incentive to release a full featured native QNX or AIR version of the app. Ask for a few extra dollars for it now that you'd know there is a market and a demand for that app. I'd gladly preview a ported Android app, then pay a few dollars for a native one.
    10-20-11 04:34 PM
26 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD