12-13-11 04:53 PM
72 123
tools
  1. dkingsf's Avatar
    Bump waiting for somebody.
    07-25-11 12:22 PM
  2. ericlc2's Avatar
    Wait in traffic, someone will answer you.
    07-25-11 01:25 PM
  3. dkingsf's Avatar
    Don't understand your personal attack eric. I understand you are a MAJOR fanboi for RIM, but my issues and posts are with their incompetence and you seem to want to attack me for those opinions.

    Sorry you disagree. I'm sure you're a pretty nice guy otherwise.
    07-25-11 10:32 PM
  4. Kerms's Avatar
    I'd love to hear from an actual mail client developer here, who is willing to be 100% honest (not bitter because their app got denied). I'd bet part of it is not wanting a 3rd party solution available before their own PIM is available. But also, we know "security" is a huge thing for RIM, I'm wondering how many things get denied simply for creating a security loophole, and if so, does RIM communicate to the developer why they would deny or hold up an app, or do they just reject/hold without saying why?
    Would the Android Player create a secruity risk? I'd have to think RIM will close the side loading down in the offical release but if the official player is released before RIM's native PIM stuff. Do you guys think RIM would deny a developer of an Android PIM app into App world because RIM doesn't have theirs available yet?
    07-26-11 09:52 AM
  5. dasDestruktion's Avatar
    Would the Android Player create a secruity risk? I'd have to think RIM will close the side loading down in the offical release but if the official player is released before RIM's native PIM stuff. Do you guys think RIM would deny a developer of an Android PIM app into App world because RIM doesn't have theirs available yet?
    It will be interesting to see what RIM decides to do with the Android Player when it comes out for public consumption. People are going to attempt to "break in" and sideload things regardless, but 1) I'm interested in how they will lock it down, 2) what apps will be avaliable and whether or not they will have to be re-approved by RIM and signed so they can "call home" like BBOS apps do, 3) what functionality will be removed...will we get the PlayBook keyboard (I would say "of course" but we'll see), what else will be reined in.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-26-11 11:44 PM
  6. ericlc2's Avatar
    Don't understand your personal attack eric. I understand you are a MAJOR fanboi for RIM, but my issues and posts are with their incompetence and you seem to want to attack me for those opinions.

    Sorry you disagree. I'm sure you're a pretty nice guy otherwise.
    apology accepted, i got my 32gb pb from rim for $100 (won a 16gb,sold it and got the 32), probably where my love comes from.. lol
    07-26-11 11:51 PM
  7. dkingsf's Avatar
    apology accepted, i got my 32gb pb from rim for $100 (won a 16gb,sold it and got the 32), probably where my love comes from.. lol
    LOL not apologizing for anything. My views are still the same, RIMM is sticking it to developers and customers because of their own ineptness and inability to compete. Or at least see the forest.

    What they did one time was a good thing. But their marketing people are leaving left and right because of the micro-management at the top.

    You can go ahead and make all the personal attacks you want. It doesn't change the fact that RIMM and quite a few people on CB are wearing blinders.
    07-27-11 09:31 AM
  8. HaTaX's Avatar
    Well I just submitted my first two apps to app world earlier today so I'll be happy to give feedback once I'm through "the process."

    I'm hoping it doesn't take too long as my app is pretty benign, but we'll see!
    Think I'm about at the normal time out where apps start getting approved. If any other developers want to chime in here with what they saw for time lines, it'd be appreciated.

    2 weeks tomorrow, not too long, but my app is really simple and I did lots of testing with it. Hopefully within the next week I'll get an email...
    08-02-11 01:56 AM
  9. DaveyDoo's Avatar
    Think I'm about at the normal time out where apps start getting approved. If any other developers want to chime in here with what they saw for time lines, it'd be appreciated.

    2 weeks tomorrow, not too long, but my app is really simple and I did lots of testing with it. Hopefully within the next week I'll get an email...
    When I have posted BB apps they normally take about 10 working days to approve. For my PB app though, it only took 5 days to be approved.
    08-02-11 03:54 AM
  10. compgen25's Avatar
    Well I think I might be an anomoly as I submitted my app yesterday 8/7/2011 at 4:53PM and it was approved on 8/8/2011 at 4:20AM. It was just under 12 hours. I can't imagine this is normal and not sure why mine got expedited so fast as this was a new submission and not an update.
    08-08-11 09:19 AM
  11. Ayo312's Avatar
    Well I think I might be an anomoly as I submitted my app yesterday 8/7/2011 at 4:53PM and it was approved on 8/8/2011 at 4:20AM. It was just under 12 hours. I can't imagine this is normal and not sure why mine got expedited so fast as this was a new submission and not an update.
    Maybe the wait queue is not that long anymore
    08-08-11 09:30 AM
  12. HaTaX's Avatar
    Think I'm about at the normal time out where apps start getting approved. If any other developers want to chime in here with what they saw for time lines, it'd be appreciated.

    2 weeks tomorrow, not too long, but my app is really simple and I did lots of testing with it. Hopefully within the next week I'll get an email...
    Well, I did get a response back, and I'm a little crabby about it. And honestly this completely backs up what has been said by others, that RIM is selective on applications they feel compete with their own apps. Wow, and this is the whole reason I avoid iOS development...

    Here's what I got back from them:
    Dear Vendor,


    This email is in regards to your applications, named SimpleBrowser and SimpleBrowserPlus, submitted for review for BlackBerry App World.

    Since your applications provide functionality that complete with features on the BlackBerry platform, we cannot accept them for App World. Your applications have been denied.

    Thank you for your understanding in this matter.


    Sincerely,

    BlackBerry App World Team
    I sent them a nasty gram back and asked why apps like Comic Sans browser are allowed and mine is denied. Also pointed them to their own vendor guidelines which say nothing about applications competing with stock apps. (Guidelines are here: https://appworld.blackberry.com/isvp...seam?cid=78460)

    So yeah, we'll see what happens, but maybe I'll just end up releasing both of them for free on the forums here. Grrr, so much for my experiment on the PB ecosystem.
    08-11-11 11:43 AM
  13. FF22's Avatar
    What's the deal or big deal with "competing" with their apps. It is not as if they are selling their apps and would lose money if you "competed." Why not allow other browsers? I certainly would not mind another media/movie player. And their offering for spreadsheets is dreadful and needs competition. Does your browser allow one to search webpages? I guess I resent their limiting my choices when there are already so few.
    08-11-11 11:50 AM
  14. Foreverup's Avatar
    What's the deal or big deal with "competing" with their apps. It is not as if they are selling their apps and would lose money if you "competed." Why not allow other browsers? I certainly would not mind another media/movie player. And their offering for spreadsheets is dreadful and needs competition. Does your browser allow one to search webpages? I guess I resent their limiting my choices when there are already so few.
    Other companies do the same thing. Off the top of my head I remember Apple kicking opera out of their app store.
    08-11-11 11:59 AM
  15. HaTaX's Avatar
    Other companies do the same thing. Off the top of my head I remember Apple kicking opera out of their app store.
    That's why I mentioned I didn't develop for iOS, because Apple is notorious for denying applications that duplicate existing functionality on the device.

    Funny thing, if I had submitted something like this to Apple, it might have been approved. I'm looking at their guidelines here: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadg...guidelines.pdf (Older doc, but still relevant), section 2.11 & 2.17 are what I looked at. Currently there is not a browser in app world that does what mine does, and I also am using the included QNX web stage back end as the browser. So under Apple's rules this might actually be approved? Kinda backwards to me!

    Anyway, just kinda makes me mad. I know some people out there would have a use for the free version. It's main features are full screen browsing (Which you cannot currently do with the stock browser), and keeping the device powered on while it is viewable on the screen (Also not a feature of the stock or 3rd party browsers).

    Maybe I should rename it as "BabyCamBrowser", as that's actually what I use it for and why I made it. I can open my webcam in the browser, and leave it sitting next to my computer to watch the little one without needing to touch the screen every 5 minutes.

    RIM, you're really not in a position to be filtering even mildly useful applications from your store. Reviews show that the App World isn't exactly overflowing with useful apps, and yet just a few hours after my rejection notice, I see yet another BMI app approved and available in the store. Quality...

    And for what it's worth, I said it was a nasty gram, but really it was a "why" and a "do I fix this? and if so, how?" question. Not sure on turnaround time, but we'll see what they say.
    menaknow and peter9477 like this.
    08-11-11 12:53 PM
  16. Foreverup's Avatar
    That's why I mentioned I didn't develop for iOS, because Apple is notorious for denying applications that duplicate existing functionality on the device.

    Funny thing, if I had submitted something like this to Apple, it might have been approved. I'm looking at their guidelines here: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadg...guidelines.pdf (Older doc, but still relevant), section 2.11 & 2.17 are what I looked at. Currently there is not a browser in app world that does what mine does, and I also am using the included QNX web stage back end as the browser. So under Apple's rules this might actually be approved? Kinda backwards to me!

    Anyway, just kinda makes me mad. I know some people out there would have a use for the free version. It's main features are full screen browsing (Which you cannot currently do with the stock browser), and keeping the device powered on while it is viewable on the screen (Also not a feature of the stock or 3rd party browsers).

    Maybe I should rename it as "BabyCamBrowser", as that's actually what I use it for and why I made it. I can open my webcam in the browser, and leave it sitting next to my computer to watch the little one without needing to touch the screen every 5 minutes.

    RIM, you're really not in a position to be filtering even mildly useful applications from your store. Reviews show that the App World isn't exactly overflowing with useful apps, and yet just a few hours after my rejection notice, I see yet another BMI app approved and available in the store. Quality...

    And for what it's worth, I said it was a nasty gram, but really it was a "why" and a "do I fix this? and if so, how?" question. Not sure on turnaround time, but we'll see what they say.
    HaTaX, I feel bad for ya. ****, if I were you I would make the case they let phone remote app pass. That thing is as similar to the bridge as yours is to the browser. Also, rebranding it isn't a bad idea either there are like 6 webcam viewers right now.
    08-11-11 02:53 PM
  17. menaknow's Avatar
    RIM, you're really not in a position to be filtering even mildly useful applications from your store. Reviews show that the App World isn't exactly overflowing with useful apps, and yet just a few hours after my rejection notice, I see yet another BMI app approved and available in the store. Quality...
    +1

    This really pisses me off. As a fellow developer I agree with you entirely.

    I was about to recommended sending an email to a the development team at RIM but I see you already posted something in there support forum.

    Good luck...
    08-11-11 02:53 PM
  18. HaTaX's Avatar
    Thanks guys, it's really isn't too huge a deal overall, but as the users wonder what the heck is going on with app approval and the fact that we get about 1-2 useful apps posted a week at best, this shines yet more light on the issue. My app was nothing special and was more of a test of the waters in the PB app world for me. Think I want to put more time into a more complex app after this?

    We'll see if my email gets any traction, and the last email I sent took about a week to get a response to, and that ended up in this rejection about 3 days after they acknowledged getting that email.

    Maybe it's because you can edit the bookmarks in my browser and it outshines the stock browser in that regard? I lol at that idea, but seriously I'm running out of reasons why it's too much competition for the stock browser to be allowed.

    Appreciate the support people!
    08-11-11 06:22 PM
  19. FF22's Avatar
    If I understand, the "real" browser (as opposed to the bridge browser) does not rely on Rim/Blackberry. It is as if I'm using my home computer and getting on the web using wifi? So it is not as if I'm tethering or otherwise bypassing rim's servers (like the bridge browser uses rim servers). So, what's the difference if it either duplicates some or even all of their browser functions - how does that affect rim? Hey, would yours connect to FULL sites and not mobile sites? How is COMPETITION even an issue?
    08-11-11 06:41 PM
  20. HaTaX's Avatar
    Actually that was to be in my next release, either a drop down to chose what user agent the browser presents itself as or the ability to manually input whatever value you wanted.

    Have to save something for version 2!
    08-11-11 07:07 PM
  21. trsbbs's Avatar
    Dear Vendor,


    This email is in regards to your applications, named SimpleBrowser and SimpleBrowserPlus, submitted for review for BlackBerry App World™.

    Since your applications provide functionality that complete with features on the BlackBerry platform, we cannot accept them for App World. Your applications have been denied.

    Thank you for your understanding in this matter.


    Sincerely,

    BlackBerry App World Team

    What's the difference between the PB and the BB phone? I see at least two too three
    non-BB browser offerings for the phones.

    Sort of reminds me of Microsoft attempting to keep Netscape and others
    out of the MS world.

    Thanks for posting that email. It shows, that what we suspected, is actually happening at RIM and its just plain wrong.

    For the first time, I am thinking of chucking both my phone and Playbook.
    It's a double standard, period.

    Are they going to do this with file managers? Chat programs? They didnt do it with video apps...wow

    This, I think, needs to hit the front page of every BB website on the net!

    Tim
    Last edited by trsbbs; 08-11-11 at 07:39 PM.
    08-11-11 07:36 PM
  22. FF22's Avatar
    Actually that was to be in my next release, either a drop down to chose what user agent the browser presents itself as or the ability to manually input whatever value you wanted.

    Have to save something for version 2!
    Oh, with release sometime in SUMMER, mirroring Rim's releases?
    08-11-11 07:55 PM
  23. molson0's Avatar
    i submitted a simple material calculator and it was approved in 2 days.

    IT is all in the content.


    mine was VERY simple. I just wanted to play with webworks
    08-11-11 08:32 PM
  24. irsan's Avatar
    I had no problems yet
    08-11-11 08:55 PM
  25. Darlaten's Avatar
    +1

    This really pisses me off. As a fellow developer I agree with you entirely.

    I was about to recommended sending an email to a the development team at RIM but I see you already posted something in there support forum.

    Good luck...
    So all of us who have been saying that RIM is blocking, on purpose, out of their sheer arrogance, apps that are similar to existing functions on the Playbook are correct.

    I also suspect that's the reason why some of the chat programs have yet to be approved because RIM is working on, or planning on working on, them.

    This is a story, and that email response from specifically, needs to be on the front page of Crackberry.com. I am so po'd at RIM's mishandling of the Playbook and of their behaviour with developers. No wonder, the device is considered to be a joke amongst those in the tech community when it comes to the software side of things. And no wonder, developers argue that making anything for RIM is a pain in the you know what.

    Quite disappointing. And sadly, not surprising at all.
    08-11-11 09:01 PM
72 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD