Blackberry has a interesting way to force developers to code for it's platform

[troylytle]

I think as easy as it is now to throw your code into a program and have it spit out a port to windows phone, there is no excuse. No real upkeep. Maybe two or three days for fine tuning.

 

[ajst222]

I love me some BlackBerry but I think Chen hit the bong too hard before writing his op-ed.

Chen has certainly done a lot of great things for BlackBerry, but when I read his letter, I actually laughed. It's like an argument that you would expect to hear from one of the CrackBerry crazies, not from their CEO.

I just think the fact that he calls it "discrimination" against BlackBerry and its users is a silly argument. It's called "the market". There is just so much wrong with everything he said that I don't even want to try to put it into words. I've been both a big BlackBerry user and now a Windows user, so I understand the situation very well. It's not discrimination in any way, shape, or form. Developers aren't out to get or conspiring against BlackBerry. They don't see enough of a return in putting all the effort into developing for a platform that there isn't much of a market for. It's that simple

 

[tiziano27]

In many cases there aren't good returns in adding accessibility features to software, for people with disabilities. Although, in many countries the government promote and even force companies to add these features.

So, this is not about the market. The market has flaws and in many case It doesn't reach the optimal results in the economics decisions, and governments have to correct the results with subsidies, special taxes, regulations, etc.

The real question is: Is there any value in promoting development in open technologies like HTML5 to ensure a better access to public services to more people, and to avoid a natural monopoly or oligopoly? Or are we just fine giving the control of the client of the web (apps), such an important piece of infrastructure, to two companies with walled gardens: Apple and Google?

 

[thracian]

BB needs to ditch this guy, he's obviously planted himself firmly into clown territory. Asking government to legislate other companies to develop for BB by force? Seriously?? omg...what a buffoon.

 

[Poirots Progeny]

Though I agree with Chen's broadband net neutrality comments, the comments about discrimination make no sense.

When people make the choice to buy something they discriminate, according to their choice and needs. That's market forces and simply put people buy what they want. And that isn't a BlackBerry or indeed wp - hence the sales figures. The roi isn't there.

The only way to change this is to innovate and create something attractive to consumers. When people begin to become interested the devs flock over. But there has to be roi. IOS has apps that are not on android. But that is closing.

Windows 10 looks and sounds like it's doing the right things to attract devs - universal apps is very enticing. BB hasn't had such luck. Yet.

I'm old enough to remember when msft and palm would have been the ones complaining about a lack of apps, while RIM ruled the roost. BlackBerry dropped the ball. They need to work to make it back. Legislation won't replace innovation and an attractive and compelling ecosystem.

But then there is a reason Chen keeps on stating they are focusing on Enterprise. For now there isn't a great consumer facing business. They are doing great in services. Focusing on that is the right thing to do, as they build the company back up and create something compelling and competitive in the consumer field.

If they don't do that they can't expect anything else. That's the competition.

 

[thracian]

Though I agree with Chen's broadband net neutrality comments, the comments about discrimination make no sense.

When people make the choice to buy something they discriminate, according to their choice and needs. That's market forces and simply put people buy what they want. And that isn't a BlackBerry or indeed wp - hence the sales figures. The roi isn't there.

The only way to change this is to innovate and create something attractive to consumers. When people begin to become interested the devs flock over. But there has to be roi. IOS has apps that are not on android. But that is closing.

Windows 10 looks and sounds like it's doing the right things to attract devs - universal apps is very enticing. BB hasn't had such luck. Yet.

I'm old enough to remember when msft and palm would have been the ones complaining about a lack of apps, while RIM ruled the roost. BlackBerry dropped the ball. They need to work to make it back. Legislation won't replace innovation and an attractive and compelling ecosystem.

But then there is a reason Chen keeps on stating they are focusing on Enterprise. For now there isn't a great consumer facing business. They are doing great in services. Focusing on that is the right thing to do, as they build the company back up and create something compelling and competitive in the consumer field.

If they don't do that they can't expect anything else. That's the competition.

Therin lies the rub. Chen is basically trying to get the technology equivalent of affirmative action in a market where it's not even remotely needed. What he's asking for is akin to demanding gender of racial hiring requirements in a society where equal opportunity already exists and he's borrowing off of that kind of playbook (no pun intended)

 

[Sonu K]

I think it's crap. Why should developers have to code for every platform with very little return. There are lots of under 1% market share OS: firefoxOS, jolla, tizen(in the future). Who will pay developers for developing for such platforms?

And if I myself develop a phones OS with 1 user (me), could I force app developers to build every app for just my phone?

The more the merrier. Till now i think Twitter is the most brilliant app-maker because they have covered almost all platforms. From Series 30 phones to iPhone. It's funny that app developers don't understand more people will come to a less popular platform and start using their app if their app is available in that platform at the first place. And their user base will grow. Instead of spreading their brand popularity these guys are running behind stagnant platforms which is already out there and are not going to make any big growths. Pity.

 

[Soulstream]

The more the merrier. Till now i think Twitter is the most brilliant app-maker because they have covered almost all platforms. From Series 30 phones to iPhone. It's funny that app developers don't understand more people will come to a less popular platform and start using their app if their app is available in that platform at the first place. And their user base will grow. Instead of spreading their brand popularity these guys are running behind stagnant platforms which is already out there and are not going to make any big growths. Pity.

Software developers do this because programming is hard and supporting a lot of platforms costs a lot of money and time. In an ideal world maybe we cold have 10 OSs and apps for each of them, but in the real world 3 (4 at max) platforms is enough to promote both diversity and competition. Heck even 2 is almost enough as iOS vs Android competition made each other a lot better.

 

[Sonu K]

If they can't develop for 3 leading platforms in the so called ideal world, then why don't they develop only for the most profitable platform lets say iOS. Or they can save more money and time without developing an app itself. I'm sure that is more profitable in the ideal world. Meh.

 

[colinkiama]

In my opinion, public services should all have web apps that work across all platforms. The apps just give additional features that are not possible to do on browsers. That's fair right?
Sent from my awesome Lumia 735

 

[ajst222]

In my opinion, public services should all have web apps that work across all platforms. The apps just give additional features that are not possible to do on browsers. That's fair right?

Sent from my awesome Lumia 735

Do you know what a "public service" is? Apps are not public services

 

[a5cent]

Do you know what a "public service" is? Apps are not public services

I think he's talking about apps that are related to public services. Think Medicare app. I think Colin is saying that such an app should be a responsive HTML5 app, rather than an iOS, Android or WP app specifically. I tend to agree, primarily because I think a lot of apps would have been better if they existed only as a single responsive HTML5 app. Most apps are trivial and don't need more than that. Everyone who likes the Universal app approach should agree. That's just taking the meaning of Universal apps one step further.

 

[quotethepigeon]

This has been the first time since his reign at Blackberry that John Chen has made himself come across as a fool. Shame.

 

[skstrials]

When people make the choice to buy something they discriminate, according to their choice and needs. That's market forces and simply put people buy what they want. And that isn't a BlackBerry or indeed wp - hence the sales figures. The roi isn't there.

People do not even have full choices on phone OSes when they do not have app neutrality.
There are many people who like Windows Phone and BlackBerry OSes but they cannot use either since there is no app for these two platforms. Without app neutrality, people do not get the full freedom to choose what they want to buy because of the app restrictions.
Think about how many times you have heard "I like Windows Phone OS, but I cannot buy it because I cannot get ______ app on it".

People are buying phones based on app availability and not based on the actual Phone OS it self. This is resulting in the duopoly of phone OSes leading to the staling of phone OS development as you can see with IOS and Android phones recently.

Also, app neutrality does not necessarily mean every single private app developer would need to write apps for all 4 major platforms, so that the small developers go bankrupt.
1) There can be way to protect small developers, so that only the app developers/company that make above the set minimal profit $$ would have to develop for all major platforms. If the developer makes profit under that amount, they would not have to be take part in app neutrality. This would make the developers with big enough profits (Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc) to develop for Windows Phone and BlackBerry, while protecting small developers of each platform.

2) There can also be mobile OS requirement to qualify for app neutrality such as set minimal number of users, and the minimal number of countries it is available in, so that developers would not have to develop for discontinued or all the small obscure mobile OSes.

 

[skstrials]

Who pays for all this neutrality? Unless Mother Teresa comes back as a dev, nobody else will do it for free. I understand the need for more apps on the smaller platforms. But I also understand the free market system and it's about getting your paper. I haven't seen Nadella, Chen, Page and Cook get up on a stage together and pledge app uniformity for everybody. I'm not trying to be a D, it's just the reality of the situation. We all knew what we were getting into when we bought WP devices, or BlackBerry if that's your platform of choice.

I realize there would be development costs that customers would have to pay more for in the beginning.

However, in the long run, app neutrality will increase the competition for phone OSes since it would be a lot harder for IOS and Android to keep the current duopoly in the market. And the increased competition of phone OSes will encourage phone manufacturers to charge less, and to innovate more to stay competitive, which will benefit the consumers.