02-26-2013 09:51 PM
I sorry, but I have to disagree there.
If they cared about quality over quantity, we would not have had 3 port-a-thons including app generator submissions qualifying for a 100 dollar reward regardless of quality.
BBRY has very different intentions in my opinion, and I have seen it done by many companies over the years. Usually it turns out to be a marketing scheme or money scheme when they start charging for it later. It could be viewed as an attempt to reward high quality app developers, but this is contrary to the guidelines. BFB rewards bloatware apps by design right now.
I think its just an attempt to reward elite developers and partners like Union. They will of course reward a few small developers who can work through the rules. But thats just my opinion
02-27-2013 09:36 AM - edited 02-27-2013 09:44 AM
"If they cared about quality over quantity, we would not have had 3 port-a-thons including app generator submissions qualifying for a 100 dollar reward regardless of quality."
That's easily explained. BlackBerry have been attacked consistently over the past few years because of a perceived lack of apps in App World. The port-a-thons and $100 per app reward were a way of generating a few tens of thousands of useless apps to allow BlackBerry to counter what is in any case a ridiculous argument. You're right that they didn't care about quality in those cases.
However, if there is one primary reason a consumer will stick with Apple or Android over BlackBerry it is because there are some very sophisticated and useful applications for those platforms. More than one review of the Z10 has stated the device is the best on the market, but it doesn't have xxxxxx (insert reviewers favourtie app).
So BlackBerry also need to ensure a small subset of the 100,000 apps on sale are high quality, sophisticated applications that consumers will use and will ensure loyalty to the platform. Hence the Built for BlackBerry program.
As far as "bloatware" apps are concerned. I think you misread the review process. BlackBerry is unlikely to have it's best developers reviewing apps -- they're far too busy writing BB10 for the Playbook etc.
Instead they will have administrative and managerial staff who while having some technical background really don't understand the complexities of software development.
When we look at The Marcos scientific calculator we see an elegant sophisticated design and a lot of code behind it making it work. The non-developer sees a calculator. Stick a few settings screens, menus and integration functions on the calculator and they'll pass it no problem.
It's the age old problem for enterprise software developers. Few non-developers recognise the complexity of elegant software design, but change the colour of the title and they think you're a genius.
The BBFB is a great idea and the only one of its kind AFAIK. It's worth the effort on our part to make it work.
02-27-2013 10:41 AM - edited 02-27-2013 10:44 AM
There is a perception in the marketplace that a platform that has the most apps is the best platform. Though BB has never really agreed to that notion, they do understand that it does exist and that is why Android porting and port-a-thons occurred to get the numbers. It's all about marketing. With that, if BB had the most apps out there, they would be saying that as well.
On the other hand, they do realize that there is a certain number of core apps that have to be there for anyone to consider it a viable platform (FaceBook, Twitter, Skype, etc.). There, BB has paid companies to provide those apps.
Then there is a tier of apps that are needed to fill categories that they want to be of high quality and that the community will provide. That is where the BFB comes into play. How can we (BB) get 3rd party developers to fill in the vast void of XYZ apps, yet encourage them to be of high quality and show off the best of BB/QNX? Basically, if the developer does make it look an act as a BB app, then we (BB) will provided additional marketing efforts to let consumers know about these apps and the developer will get greater exposure and money. When one of our apps get featured, sales goes up x4+ the normal rate. If the BFB section of BBW does that regularly, then I am more likely to continue to develop apps that tighly hook into the BB infrastructure.
The 10K is just marketing. Any decent BFB app will make that kind of money long before the year is up. Those that just make $1000 will be marketed more to decrease the payout by BB. Everyone wins there. But long term, the 10K will not make too much of difference for many BFB apps.
Now, could the BFB program be a little more clear earlier on? Certainly. We had to take some big guesses early on with our apps, and we had to make some adjustments, but for the most part, we were not too far off from the BFB criteria. Did we agree with some of the criteria and UX metaphores; no. But giving that up for the sake of market success will be worth it.
Lastly, in working with the BB folks over the last 3 years, I've learned that being upset with their actions needs to be answered with constructive suggestions. You will need these people at some point to do something for you when something happens. Name calling and blame will not add anyone to their favorite developer list.
02-27-2013 02:55 PM
This means basic generic apps may not qualify - simply because there are so many in the store - I also take it to mean Android ports may have a harder time getting certified - although nothing has been said publicly that I recall.
It was specifically written in the developer blog that apps using the Android runtime are not eligible for Built for BlackBerry in any way.
"We’ve had over 900 Android apps submitted to the Built for BlackBerry program – and Android apps do not qualify for the program in any way." From http://devblog.blackberry.com/2013/01/built-for-bl