05-05-12 07:18 PM
50 12
tools
  1. pacoman03's Avatar
    I Googled the information but wasn't able to find cold, hard facts other than the MS anti-trust suit. I can't even remember where I read that about them. I do know it's related to exclusionary tactics where a particular high-profile game will have an exclusive on one system for a period of time.

    But in any case, MS is known to do things they shouldn't do. Here is the legal proof.

    U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact
    Yes they've been known to do it, and they got themselves into a heap of trouble for their efforts. That's why I stated that they would be unlikely to pay developers not to develop for the playbook- they don't need another major anti-trust action against them.
    05-01-12 07:22 PM
  2. dandbj13's Avatar
    Apple did this from the word go and spent big bucks... a clever move to bring in big useful apps from top devs and established services. A real shame RIM got in to bed with Adobe on release and brought nothing or bare bones to the deal with a useless PDF reader. The EA deal kinda worked I guess, but EA support games in iOS to a far greater extent.

    MS needn't worry... Mango is out on the Nokia and are still pre windows 8 and have all the apps I need already. I think they will have a bright app future.
    Either you are confused, or I am misinformed. MS is known for paying devs, especially iOS devs to port apps. I don't know of any case where Apple has ever paid a dev to port or write an app for the platform. They have given some big devs early access to iOS devices to build their app, usually two weeks according to the keynotes that I recall.

    You are going to need to provide some evidence that Apple pays devs to write apps. Big name devs are beating down Apple's door to get apps into the App Store. Apple rejects apps. They don't need to pay for them.
    alnamvet68 likes this.
    05-01-12 07:25 PM
  3. auditman's Avatar
    The apps should be of certain quality, bug fixes and on going support. Otherwise a developer could make a fart apps, that has gazilion bugs and just hoping for a 10k give out. Of course no one would buy his apps.


    Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
    05-01-12 07:39 PM
  4. Fmar's Avatar
    Either you are confused, or I am misinformed. MS is known for paying devs, especially iOS devs to port apps. I don't know of any case where Apple has ever paid a dev to port or write an app for the platform. They have given some big devs early access to iOS devices to build their app, usually two weeks according to the keynotes that I recall.

    You are going to need to provide some evidence that Apple pays devs to write apps. Big name devs are beating down Apple's door to get apps into the App Store. Apple rejects apps. They don't need to pay for them.
    You have the wrong end of my stick.

    Re: MS paid or not, this wasn't my point... I pointed out that the MS Marketplace is healthy and I have what I need in terms of apps.

    Re: Apple... yes you are correct but ignored the words 'from the word go', indicating that Apple kickstarted their apps by paying for apps to be developed. I wouldn't imagine that this is still the case at all.

    My knowledge of this was based on an article I read a good while back and will endeavour to track it down and post a link.
    05-01-12 07:52 PM
  5. dandbj13's Avatar
    You have the wrong end of my stick.

    Re: MS paid or not, this wasn't my point... I pointed out that the MS Marketplace is healthy and I have what I need in terms of apps.

    Re: Apple... yes you are correct but ignored the words 'from the word go', indicating that Apple kickstarted their apps by paying for apps to be developed. I wouldn't imagine that this is still the case at all.

    My knowledge of this was based on an article I read a good while back and will endeavour to track it down and post a link.
    I think you're mistaken. First, don't ever leave me with the image of having any end of your stick. Second, it never happened. What you might be thinking about is a special fund from Kleiner-Perkins. It was for venture capital. I only ever heard of a few apps that took advantage of that. That is a very long ways from Apple paying developers.

    Apple had developers beating down their door before they had an SDK. Apple didn't even want third-party apps on the iPhone. You are just having a hard time accepting the fact that devs flocked to Apple from the very beginning because they were passionate about what Apple was doing. They made free web apps long before there was an app store.

    RIM's plan to pay devs means they failed at getting devs passionate about what they were doing. Paying is what you do when devs don't want to write code for your platform. Apple has never been in that position, at least, not in the phone space. Do not paint Apple with that big MS and RIM brush. It might make you feel better to say, "Everybody does it", but you would be wrong.
    05-01-12 10:00 PM
  6. Marty_LK's Avatar
    I think you're mistaken. First, don't ever leave me with the image of having any end of your stick. Second, it never happened. What you might be thinking about is a special fund from Kleiner-Perkins. It was for venture capital. I only ever heard of a few apps that took advantage of that. That is a very long ways from Apple paying developers.

    Apple had developers beating down their door before they had an SDK. Apple didn't even want third-party apps on the iPhone. You are just having a hard time accepting the fact that devs flocked to Apple from the very beginning because they were passionate about what Apple was doing. They made free web apps long before there was an app store.

    RIM's plan to pay devs means they failed at getting devs passionate about what they were doing. Paying is what you do when devs don't want to write code for your platform. Apple has never been in that position, at least, not in the phone space. Do not paint Apple with that big MS and RIM brush. It might make you feel better to say, "Everybody does it", but you would be wrong.
    That may well be true for Apple, never needing to pay devs to put their apps on iOS, but it certainly could be very true if they decided they wanted to keep devs from putting apps on competing systems. If it isn't illegal, just like Murphy's law says, "it will happen".
    05-01-12 10:07 PM
  7. dandbj13's Avatar
    That may well be true for Apple, never needing to pay devs to put their apps on iOS, but it certainly could be very true if they decided they wanted to keep devs from putting apps on competing systems. If it isn't illegal, just like Murphy's law says, "it will happen".
    So you are pre-slandering Apple for something they might do. I guess your bases are covered.
    05-01-12 10:10 PM
  8. app_Developer's Avatar
    Apple had developers beating down their door before they had an SDK. Apple didn't even want third-party apps on the iPhone.
    You know that's funny, you're right. I still remember that WWDC when they were trying to convince us we didn't really need to make native apps for iPhone. How much the mobile world has changed in 5 years.

    As for the quality of apps, I'm glad to hear of this certification program. I would assume this means RIM will highlight and promote the certified apps. That will do more good for developers, RIM, and BB users than the $10k will.
    05-01-12 10:16 PM
  9. Marty_LK's Avatar
    So you are pre-slandering Apple for something they might do. I guess your bases are covered.
    Not at all. I never claimed they actually did that. I said it is something they might do. RIM's bold announcement of paying devs to put apps on the BB system can elicit a strong response from the competition. My original statement was that MS and *maybe* Apple could pay devs $20,000 or more to not put their apps on the BB system.

    I've been around long enough to know how the world works.
    05-01-12 10:17 PM
  10. smartie88's Avatar
    Thay have to be "Fair". All Developers should be on the same level, if you have a developer that makes GREAT Apps, AND they sell, well, then, there might a developer that is not as good, or the App is ***p. They have to spread the "App Wealth" around........ to be "fair"........


    Kind of how our society is headed (at this time)..................

    Scary.

    C
    Isn't that direction is wrong? Is it fair?
    05-01-12 10:53 PM
  11. smartie88's Avatar
    According to this report, RIM says they will pay potential app devs up to $10,000 for the first year of sales if the devs hasn't earned that much from a certified app. Man! That really sounds good! And one would think it's good. But the problem is, Microsoft and maybe Apple will probably be inclined to pay those devs $20,000 or more right up front not to develop for the Playbook.

    RIM offers developers $10,000 incentive for certified apps -- Engadget
    Instead, I think they should pay 10000 if sales reach certain level. They should encourage good apps instead craps
    Marty_LK and app_Developer like this.
    05-01-12 10:57 PM
  12. kill_9's Avatar
    The app has to make at least $1000 in the first year for RIM to increase it to $10000 (i.e. max they'll actually pay is $9000, as I understand it). So developers have to make it good enough for that. And the idea is probably that RIM won't have to fulfil this offer too much, because they will be trying to entice apps that will generate the $10000 revenue anyway.
    I cannot wait to read about the first CAD10,000.00 BlackBerry PlayBook application to debut in BlackBerry AppWorld this summer. Maybe CrackBerry Kevin will buy it just because of its exclusivity. Remember the clock app he bought?
    05-01-12 11:10 PM
  13. Marty_LK's Avatar
    Instead, I think they should pay 10000 if sales reach certain level. They should encourage good apps instead craps
    That's actually an outstanding idea, it seems to me anyway.
    05-01-12 11:11 PM
  14. app_Developer's Avatar
    Instead, I think they should pay 10000 if sales reach certain level. They should encourage good apps instead craps
    I like that much better! First 1000 certified BB10 apps to reach $10,000 will get a $10,000 bonus.

    Or something like that. $100M to seed the market.
    05-01-12 11:15 PM
  15. peter9477's Avatar
    Jeez, read the article... they do have to reach a certain level, and this won't encourage crap apps. It's a gamble on RIM's part, but clearly they're putting their money where their mouth is. Nothing to complain about here, nor anything to tro^H^H^H lambast them for.
    BuzzStarField likes this.
    05-02-12 12:39 AM
  16. BBplaybookJS's Avatar
    Thay have to be "Fair". All Developers should be on the same level, if you have a developer that makes GREAT Apps, AND they sell, well, then, there might a developer that is not as good, or the App is ***p. They have to spread the "App Wealth" around........ to be "fair"........

    Tongue in BOTH CHEEKS..............

    In reality, IF you work hard, and bring a good product to market, you will/should succeed.

    In reality, if you don't put in the effort, just coast, just throw something in to say "you contributed", and then that person feels "left behind", or slighted, well then, That's they're fault/problem. Nothing is gauranteed in life, except death.

    Kind of how our society is headed (at this time)..................

    Scary.

    C
    They should give 10,000 to a guy who comes up with a fart app? Or short cut to a web Page.
    05-02-12 05:43 AM
  17. SifJar's Avatar
    They should give 10,000 to a guy who comes up with a fart app? Or short cut to a web Page.
    If it makes $1000 in revenue on it's own, it has to be at least a little decent.
    05-02-12 06:52 AM
  18. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    ... but we only need the browser, right? Thankfully, we know RIM didn't come up wit that nonsense.
    05-02-12 07:30 AM
  19. Rootbrian's Avatar
    Friggin' awesome.
    05-03-12 01:52 PM
  20. Xopher's Avatar
    Interesting to see all the opinions and the conversation on this thread. Personally, I look at it as a personal challenge:

    1) Design and develop a good application.
    2) Design and develop an application good enough to get certified.
    3) Design an application good enough to generate at least $1,000 in sales.

    I figure, if I design an app good enough to do all three of those, then more than likely, it will generate $10,000 on its own. My thinking is that RIM is banking on that, too.

    My hope is that I can design apps that will make $100K+ a year. Having an app that only makes $10K a year isn't something to be able to live off of. Trying to design an app to make $1K just to get RIM to pay the rest doesn't interest me. Think of the poor schmuck who only makes $999!
    Marty_LK and peter9477 like this.
    05-05-12 10:42 AM
  21. SifJar's Avatar
    My hope is that I can design apps that will make $100K+ a year. Having an app that only makes $10K a year isn't something to be able to live off of. Trying to design an app to make $1K just to get RIM to pay the rest doesn't interest me. Think of the poor schmuck who only makes $999!
    I honestly doubt very many apps turn over $100K+ in a year. Most developers will have multiple apps, if one app could generate that sort of revenue it would be unnecessary for them to bother having more and they could just focus solely on improving that one. $10K x 7 or 8 apps is still a pretty decent sum to be bringing in.
    05-05-12 10:54 AM
  22. omniusovermind's Avatar
    Jeez, read the article... they do have to reach a certain level, and this won't encourage crap apps. It's a gamble on RIM's part, but clearly they're putting their money where their mouth is. Nothing to complain about here, nor anything to tro^H^H^H lambast them for.
    ^this. There's no cause for concern, the way I read it, you only qualify if RIM decides you're developing a high end app. So somebody for example, making a flashlight app or some other example of a very simplistic app, won't be eligible under this promotion.

    As for the anti-trust issue, there's an easy way around that. MS doesn't have to say "I'll pay you $X if you DON'T develop this app for the other guys"
    All they need to do is the same thing PS3 and XBox have been doing for years with game titles, which is enter an exclusivity contract with the developer. The end result is basically the same, but the means of getting there is legal, otherwise it wouildn't be happening on game consoles. Also, I didn't really follow the anti-trust case much, but wasn't that whole thing based specifically on desktop computer programs and OS's? If mobile device apps aren't covered, then at least for now, it's a free for all, eventually winding up back in court for round #2.

    AND IN THIS CORNER, HAILING FROM REDMOND VA, WEIGHING IN AT...DING DING!
    05-05-12 10:58 AM
  23. offthahorseceo's Avatar
    Gee, we now have corporations rewarding failure. First, it was a trophy for every kid in a game...both winning team and losing team. Then it became the lowering of standards for high school graduation, so that we can artificially deflate the number of high school drop outs. Forget the C/2.0 GPA as a requirement for graduation from college; now they're talking about a D/1.0 GPA as the minimum GPA for graduation; just a few examples of how we as a peoples, have accepted absolute mediocrity as the new normal.

    So, a developer makes a crap app, gets it "certified", it still sucks, sales are in the toilet, and RIM wants to reward the developer for that crap app??? Worked real well giving out those PB's to app developers...
    Thay have to be "Fair". All Developers should be on the same level, if you have a developer that makes GREAT Apps, AND they sell, well, then, there might a developer that is not as good, or the App is ***p. They have to spread the "App Wealth" around........ to be "fair"........

    Tongue in BOTH CHEEKS..............

    In reality, IF you work hard, and bring a good product to market, you will/should succeed.

    In reality, if you don't put in the effort, just coast, just throw something in to say "you contributed", and then that person feels "left behind", or slighted, well then, That's they're fault/problem. Nothing is gauranteed in life, except death.

    Kind of how our society is headed (at this time)..................

    Scary.

    C
    you guys have it all wrong. I understand your trains of thought though.

    This is something initiated BY RIM and solely for RIM's gain. Apparently, there are many devs who think they arent missing out on much revenue by not developing for RIM. Well, this is basically a BET from RIM to devs saying,"If you dont make 10k we'll pay you the difference between 10k and whatever you make"

    Also, this isnt rewarding crap developers, the app has to be quality certified. Obviously i dont know the full details but im sure UI will need to be pretty as well as easy to use. No primitive shapes tool in adobe flash professional


    nobody was complaining that something wasnt fair, as a matter of fact its the opposite. Instead of RIM pouting and asking why noone was developing for them, they did something about it.
    Marty_LK likes this.
    05-05-12 11:58 AM
  24. Xopher's Avatar
    I honestly doubt very many apps turn over $100K+ in a year. Most developers will have multiple apps, if one app could generate that sort of revenue it would be unnecessary for them to bother having more and they could just focus solely on improving that one. $10K x 7 or 8 apps is still a pretty decent sum to be bringing in.
    I completely agree. It takes more than one app to hit respectable income levels. It still is better to have a few apps that can make >$10K than to try to push out a lot of low-quality apps that don't make much at all.
    05-05-12 04:37 PM
  25. jtegen's Avatar
    Alos, the certification submission will also cost some amount as well, so that should weed out a lot of the less featured apps.
    peter9477 likes this.
    05-05-12 07:18 PM
50 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD