An Experiment In BlackBerry Development 207
ballwall writes "We've all read the stories about how lucrative selling apps on the iPhone can be (or not), but what about other platforms? BlackBerry accounts for twice as many handsets shipped as Apple, according to Gartner, so I decided to find out. I wrote about my experiences developing my first BlackBerry application including sales, platform issues, and a bunch of other things I thought new mobile developers might want to know about."
Blackberry's problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the most important thing... (Score:1, Insightful)
Iphone users are fascinated by crappy, shiny things, so they are likely to buy any old app with good marketing.
On the other hand, blackberry users will soberly do a cost-benefit analysis before buying an app, so you're much less likely to sell.
Therefor iphone apps will make more sales.
(ok, mod me down already!)
Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting read, ballwall, and I truly wish you luck with your efforts.
I'm not much of a programmer, but as a SysAdmin (*nix by preference, win* by necessity) I was struck by some parallels I've observed. I find blackberries to be painful. Making them work as a mobile email device tied to Exchange requires a shiat-ton of ugly third party software.
If a client bothers to ask, (and they don't), I tell them iPhone first, WinMobile second, blackberry distant third.
BES is, IMHO, a steaming pile - java, dot.net, 32-bit only. Feh. Recent iPhones handle active sync nicely and don't bitch about self-signed certs. WinMobile is a bit harder, but install your certs and you're done. blackberries (I refuse to capitalize) give me pain.
My clients pay $$ for BES CALs, the devices get stupid and need to be factory reset often and re-activated, costing my client more $$ for my time.
A colleague says "blackberries are great, they help me spot THOSE people". I tend to agree. I honestly cannot see the attraction when there are better solutions to talk to an Exchange server - previously mentioned iPhones, WinMobile or a laptop with RPC over HTTP(S) all work more simply and more reliably, and I tell my clients so. Nevertheless, I still hear "but I've got to have a blackberry"!
The thing about Blackberry (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about Blackberry that the business users love most about it is that it works and does exactly what they want it to do. They have their contacts, their email, their to-do list, their notes and a select few other things. They don't need much else. It's perfect the way it is for most users. Adding new software to it is not an entertaining idea for most users.
At the most, they want some mapping... google maps works quite nicely for me, but essentially, Blackberry already does what it needs to do and while some will, most users don't want anything more.
Re:Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as we are all aware, nobody cares how hard the admin's job is. The Enterprise is BB's target market and they're dug in deep. Just the ability to sync with Exchange calendars, contacts and email is 99% of why Blackberry exists - because BES is great if you're a user. If you're an admin, your job is to support the business and the business wants Exchange sync. Sorry BES admins.
Blackberry has continued to innovate, their phones are really very easy to use. But the Business will gladly quit paying for BES server and the people to run it the instant something better comes along.
Re:Thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").
Re:Total (Score:3, Insightful)
Was it a case of "I want to make money" or "Hmmm, how does this thing work... Oh, money..."
Great article (Score:3, Insightful)
Great article so far. I'm only a fraction of the way through it but one part really caught my attention.
RIM has all sorts of UI widgets they use in their first party applications -- rounded corners, sliding screen transitions, gradient list fields, etc. -- but they don't release any of that for use by third party developers. The results are apps with wildly inconsistent UIs, created by developers who had to spend considerable effort making them inconsistent.
Say what you will about Apple, they really want developers to create great-looking apps that look at home on the iPhone, and they really do a good job of giving developers almost all the tools that they use themselves. (Same with OS X/XCode itself.) Someday an anthropology student will write a great tome on the different development communities and their relationships with the vendors: BeOS, Palm, Apple, MS...
Re:Blackberry's problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The main complexities seem to have to do with the sheer diversity related to the multi-carrier and multi-hardware aspects of the BB platform (e.g. the author mentions 10 different ways of getting a network connection and shortcomings of the built-in SDK UI widgets).
Re:So (Score:3, Insightful)
Ssshh. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :)
In all seriousness, while marketing was the goal I wanted it to be a mutual exchange. (I actually mention that in my conclusion). I hope that there's no less value in it as a result. (I did try to mention the actual product as little as possible)
-Marcus
Re:Thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
When your phone provides its operator access to your email and a host of applications with access to potentially every bit of confidential data about your company, setting a password is only step 1.
The ability to click a button and wipe everything off that device is a MUST, for the occasions when your phone, either forcefully or accidentally, becomes someone else's phone. The ability to encrypt the phone's contents so that the 'new user' must manually go through all of the data and copy it down by hand is quite nifty, as it gives you substantially more time to realize your phone is no longer in your possession and to report it and have it wiped BEFORE they're able to copy everything off of it!
Encryption and remote wipe are the niftiest features of ANY portable device with access to critical company resources.
Re:You forgot the most important thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
On what do you base this? It sounds more like a jealous rant than anything else. iPhones work very, very well and have a terrific interface. I have purchased a few really great apps for it and the only marketing needed was me looking for something I needed on the App Store.
As for your blackberry users doing a "cost-benefit analysis before buying an app" I would say they'd better. The article mentions that most handheld apps that go on the Blackberry are around $30. The apps available for the iPhone are anywhere from 99 cents to a few dollars so it's inexpensive to try out a few of them. For instance, I have 2 ssh clients for less than half the price of a typical app that would run on a Blackberry. Add in the killer programmable calculator I got and it's all still below the price point of one Blackberry app.
Re:You forgot the most important thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, I have 2 ssh clients for less than half the price of a typical app that would run on a Blackberry.
Having to pay for even one ssh client is pretty absurd in the first place. Only in the apple ecosystem would anyone contemplate paying for an ssh client.
Re:You forgot the most important thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, is a SSH client particularly easy to write?
Not so much that its easy to write one, but that several free ones already exist for the platform.
I demand a free SSH client now, who do I speak to?
Speak to Apple.
Snap to it, it's my right to have a free SSH client on platform ${FOOBAR}
In this case ${FOOBAR} is BSD. Its not a new platform, and it already has numerous free and open sourced options for ssh clients.
Only Apple could give you a device with BSD Unix on it, and then block and make you pay extra money to run things like ssh, telnet, ftp, bash, perl, etc...
Re:You forgot the most important thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Does Apple develop all applications on the app store?
No. Because apple is preventing you from using all the applications that are not in the app store.
You can run all of those for free, either buy getting a (possibly) free app from the app store, or jailbreaking your device (in the case of bash and perl etc).
So in other words you agree with me.
Apple has blocked you from running apps that are pretty much standard utilities on BSD platforms.
Sure you might be able to get some of that functionality in blessed form on the iphone, and it might even be free if you are lucky, and sure the blocks apple has erected aren't impervious, and it is possible to break past them, but my point stands.
Re:Thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").
Well, a signed cert just says someone else vouched for their identity. It has nothing to do with trusting the person presenting the certificate. I'm not just nitpicking, that's a really huge difference. There aren't really many "levels" of trust. There's "Hi, you look great *hug*", and there's "I hope Sxball694 is really a chick." What will the "are you sure" dialog accomplish? What would a certificate stating that its name really is Sxball694 mean? With cryptography, it's black and white. Do we have trusted keys or not. At some point in the chain, they had to be physically delivered, or you can't rule out an electronic form of attack. No maybes about it.
How many times have you ever clicked "no" to one of those untrusted cert dialogs anyway? Not a changed cert, but a brand new one from a new connection. If you don't have a strictly enforced trusted cert only policy, then how would you know when a MitM suppressed one and offered a "good enough" looking untrusted one? Do you know in all cases where there SHOULD be a trusted cert? A gut instinct prompt provides no security.
Even signed certs can't always be trusted. The third party trust model only works when ownership is obvious, and you trust all your root CAs to verify that, along with identity. How is a CA supposed verify who owns some internal IP or private DNS record from a corporate intranet? Do you know what a CA trusts? You trust them implicitly so you damned well should! Phone books and public DNS records. That does not generally help one secure a connection to an exchange server. It doesn't matter that the real server has a corporate CA signed cert, unless the client expects and enforces it. How is implicitly accepting untrusted, first time certs any worse than implicitly accepting "trusted" certs for resources not necessarily owned? Little difference, not knowing someone's name vs. not knowing what their face should look like. What would you expect the owner of www.prepaydebit.com to be? Truth is, trusting a signed cert is not enough in that case. If you're not sure who should own it, and you have no reason to believe a CA would... better hope it hits a revocation list fast if little bad guys are operating it, but that's reactive security.
I guess my point is that when making the first impression, an impersonator only needs to make the minimum effort. Also, things that are not well know are almost impossible to protect from impersonation.
Re:Thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, are you kidding me? The blackberry requires all your corporate communications to go through their third party server. That's the big security hole you need to be worried about, right there.