Ok, as an iPhone + iPad app developer (I created Trainyard), and as a Flash developer who has created a PlayBook app, and as a fellow Canadian, I feel I should weigh in on this.
Despite the whiny tone and bizarre "Bueller?" moments, there were a bunch of valid points made. Yes, the amount of forms you have to fill out is ridiculous. Yes, the fact that the simulator .iso has an installer is crazy. With those things, I absolutely agree with you. They're just silly... but they're also not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It took me less than 2 hours from when I decided I wanted to make a Playbook app to when I had something running in the simulator. You're correct that the iOS SDK is easier to get started with, and it's only a single download... but it's also 3.5 gigs, every single time. I'll take three 100mb downloads over a 3.5 gig download any day.
Ok, as for the cost of things... You only need to pay for VMWare if you're on a Mac, on a PC it's free. I've talked to some guys at RIM about this, and they said they were trying to work out a deal with VMWare to make it free for Mac users as well.
There's no more $200 fee. I don't know why anyone still brings it up. The 10 app limit is a GOOD THING, and keep in mind that you're also getting a 100% free Playbook if you make an app right now, surely that's gotta be worth something.
As for the notary thing, I'm guessing that's because of the free Playbook offer. They don't want to give away 10 Playbooks to the same guy. If you're a company, Apple's process is even more painful. You actually have to snail-mail all your forms in and wait until they get them before you can publish anything.
All the other complaints were just petty. Who cares about the IP address and the password? That stuff takes 2 minutes to figure out.
There are a lots of positives about developing for Playbook that you didn't mention. For example, an interesting (and not well-known fact) is that application updates do not require approval on App World. That's a huge plus over iOS in my book.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on it.
TLDR: You definitely had some good points, but the rest of it got blown WAY out of proportion.
I contacted RIM regarding the whole notarised deal. Here's what they said:
Me: As an independent developer I can afford neither to become incorporated, nor to get a notary signature. Could you explain the reasoning behind this?
RIM: We require our vendors to be 18 years of age or older. This is why we require a notary form.
Me: Is there not a way of proving that I'm over 18 other than spending £200 on a lawyer? I could send you a copy of my drivers license?
RIM: We do not except photocopies unless they are notarized. You can try a local bank or family doctor to see if they will notarize your documentation.
Me: OK, but what you ask for is a certified notary i.e. someone legally authorised as a notary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary). Are you saying that this is not actually the case?
RIM: Correct, we would prefer a certified notary but sometimes it is difficult for people to find them so we make exceptions.
Hopefully helpful to someone. Having dismissed PlayBook development altogether, from what I've learnt since my blog post (http://rizergames.com/blog/2011/02/11/developing-for-playboo...), I might be tempted to give it another go, although the number of things that don't actually work on the simulator is still a massive hurdle.
In California, at least, most cities have 1-2 that sell boxes, packing material, a drop off point for shipping UPS, and notary services. Perhaps that would be cheaper than hiring a lawyer?
Just thought I should point out that RIM has now removed the notarization requirement entirely.
bq. Previously we required Individuals to provide us with a notarized document to validate their identity. While this is still an option, we will now begin accepting a scanned copy (front and back) of any official Government Issued Identification. This document must clearly show your Full Name and Date of Birth. bq.
Thanks for the response Matt. As the author, I'm gonna have to disagree about the whiny tone, haha, but obviously you have the right to your own interpretation. I realize the Bueller thing probably came across as bizarre if you're not familiar with the reference (to Ferris Bueller's Day Off), in this case it just kinda means "What? No response?".
The wording on RIM's site sure made it seem like the $200 fee would be coming at some point, so as a new Blackberry developer, I'm not sure you can fault me for not having the inside track on RIM's policies. If they don't want people to get turned off by the prospect of a $200 fee, I would suggest they take it off their registration page.
Overall, you are correct though. I did mention a lot of little things. But a lot of little problems add up to a big problem, especially when those problems aren't an issue with RIM's competitors. You have to keep in mind that RIM is not operating in a bubble. They are the underdog in a race where Apple and Google are pretty far ahead in terms of developer mind share. If they want to lure developers to the platform, putting out inferior tools and processes is not going to help them at all. The underdog never wins by maintaining the status quo.
And come on Matt, where's the national solidarity? We Canucks gotta stick together! :)
All I meant about the whiny tone is that it seemed like it was written in a bit of a sensationalist way, rather than giving both sides of the story. That being said, your intention was to get RIM's attention, and so I think the sensational tone paid off, because it's here on Hacker News and on DF :)
Hah, I know Ferris Bueller, so I get the joke, don't worry, I just thought it seemed redundant after the first one.
I agree that it's way easier to get an app running in the Simulator with iOS development, but to actually test apps on a device, and publish to the App Store, it's an awful process. Apple's been working to improve it a lot in the past year, but it's still pretty painful.
To be honest I think RIM is just trying to make a giant transition. Keep in mind that all the Playbook stuff came from QNX, so I imagine it's a bit of a nightmare merging it all that stuff into RIM's bizarre system. There's a ton of room for improvement, but it actually works quite well once you get it all set up. I think that was part of the idea with the free Playbook offer, trying to make up the gap between themselves and Apple/Google.
RIM's also tapping into the unloved but massive group of Flash Developers out there. You're gonna see a ton of apps from developers that haven't made apps before. These are developers for whom the App Store really isn't an option. A ton of the apps will be total crap (just like on the App Store), but there'll be some gems too. Having used the device myself, I can safely say that the hardware and the OS are solid, and so if the apps are good too, RIM will be doing very well, and the process will only get better.
I have to disagree that it's an awful process to get apps on an iOS device. I was up and running in under 30 minutes from the time I started the registration process to the time I had an app running on a device.
Point taken about the untapped market of Flash developers. Honestly I hope RIM can turn it around. Like I said, they're the #1 supporter of my university and they support the local economy in a big way. The things I hear from friends who work there though don't give me a lot of hope. The impression I get is that the front line developers share a lot of same concerns that I do.
I think it all comes down to lack of polish. Even in the early days, the iPhone SDK was leagues above the Playbook SDK in terms of polish. My personal anecdote is that the tools only run on 64 bit Macs but I could find no mention of that in the documentation. It was not a big deal, but these things add up. The free Playbook offer will probably help more than a few developers look past these flaws and try it out.
I absolutely agree, although the iPhone SDK was pretty rough when it started too. Keep in mind that Apple had a massive head start in that department, even at that point, because they'd been putting out OSX developer tools for years.
Comments
Ok, as an iPhone + iPad app developer (I created Trainyard), and as a Flash developer who has created a PlayBook app, and as a fellow Canadian, I feel I should weigh in on this.
Despite the whiny tone and bizarre "Bueller?" moments, there were a bunch of valid points made. Yes, the amount of forms you have to fill out is ridiculous. Yes, the fact that the simulator .iso has an installer is crazy. With those things, I absolutely agree with you. They're just silly... but they're also not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
It took me less than 2 hours from when I decided I wanted to make a Playbook app to when I had something running in the simulator. You're correct that the iOS SDK is easier to get started with, and it's only a single download... but it's also 3.5 gigs, every single time. I'll take three 100mb downloads over a 3.5 gig download any day.
Ok, as for the cost of things... You only need to pay for VMWare if you're on a Mac, on a PC it's free. I've talked to some guys at RIM about this, and they said they were trying to work out a deal with VMWare to make it free for Mac users as well.
There's no more $200 fee. I don't know why anyone still brings it up. The 10 app limit is a GOOD THING, and keep in mind that you're also getting a 100% free Playbook if you make an app right now, surely that's gotta be worth something.
As for the notary thing, I'm guessing that's because of the free Playbook offer. They don't want to give away 10 Playbooks to the same guy. If you're a company, Apple's process is even more painful. You actually have to snail-mail all your forms in and wait until they get them before you can publish anything.
All the other complaints were just petty. Who cares about the IP address and the password? That stuff takes 2 minutes to figure out.
There are a lots of positives about developing for Playbook that you didn't mention. For example, an interesting (and not well-known fact) is that application updates do not require approval on App World. That's a huge plus over iOS in my book.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on it.
TLDR: You definitely had some good points, but the rest of it got blown WAY out of proportion.
I contacted RIM regarding the whole notarised deal. Here's what they said:
Me: As an independent developer I can afford neither to become incorporated, nor to get a notary signature. Could you explain the reasoning behind this?
RIM: We require our vendors to be 18 years of age or older. This is why we require a notary form.
Me: Is there not a way of proving that I'm over 18 other than spending £200 on a lawyer? I could send you a copy of my drivers license?
RIM: We do not except photocopies unless they are notarized. You can try a local bank or family doctor to see if they will notarize your documentation.
Me: OK, but what you ask for is a certified notary i.e. someone legally authorised as a notary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notary). Are you saying that this is not actually the case?
RIM: Correct, we would prefer a certified notary but sometimes it is difficult for people to find them so we make exceptions.
Hopefully helpful to someone. Having dismissed PlayBook development altogether, from what I've learnt since my blog post (http://rizergames.com/blog/2011/02/11/developing-for-playboo...), I might be tempted to give it another go, although the number of things that don't actually work on the simulator is still a massive hurdle.
- Luke
In California, at least, most cities have 1-2 that sell boxes, packing material, a drop off point for shipping UPS, and notary services. Perhaps that would be cheaper than hiring a lawyer?
Just thought I should point out that RIM has now removed the notarization requirement entirely.
bq. Previously we required Individuals to provide us with a notarized document to validate their identity. While this is still an option, we will now begin accepting a scanned copy (front and back) of any official Government Issued Identification. This document must clearly show your Full Name and Date of Birth. bq.
Thanks for the response Matt. As the author, I'm gonna have to disagree about the whiny tone, haha, but obviously you have the right to your own interpretation. I realize the Bueller thing probably came across as bizarre if you're not familiar with the reference (to Ferris Bueller's Day Off), in this case it just kinda means "What? No response?".
The wording on RIM's site sure made it seem like the $200 fee would be coming at some point, so as a new Blackberry developer, I'm not sure you can fault me for not having the inside track on RIM's policies. If they don't want people to get turned off by the prospect of a $200 fee, I would suggest they take it off their registration page.
Overall, you are correct though. I did mention a lot of little things. But a lot of little problems add up to a big problem, especially when those problems aren't an issue with RIM's competitors. You have to keep in mind that RIM is not operating in a bubble. They are the underdog in a race where Apple and Google are pretty far ahead in terms of developer mind share. If they want to lure developers to the platform, putting out inferior tools and processes is not going to help them at all. The underdog never wins by maintaining the status quo.
And come on Matt, where's the national solidarity? We Canucks gotta stick together! :)
All I meant about the whiny tone is that it seemed like it was written in a bit of a sensationalist way, rather than giving both sides of the story. That being said, your intention was to get RIM's attention, and so I think the sensational tone paid off, because it's here on Hacker News and on DF :)
Hah, I know Ferris Bueller, so I get the joke, don't worry, I just thought it seemed redundant after the first one.
I agree that it's way easier to get an app running in the Simulator with iOS development, but to actually test apps on a device, and publish to the App Store, it's an awful process. Apple's been working to improve it a lot in the past year, but it's still pretty painful.
To be honest I think RIM is just trying to make a giant transition. Keep in mind that all the Playbook stuff came from QNX, so I imagine it's a bit of a nightmare merging it all that stuff into RIM's bizarre system. There's a ton of room for improvement, but it actually works quite well once you get it all set up. I think that was part of the idea with the free Playbook offer, trying to make up the gap between themselves and Apple/Google.
RIM's also tapping into the unloved but massive group of Flash Developers out there. You're gonna see a ton of apps from developers that haven't made apps before. These are developers for whom the App Store really isn't an option. A ton of the apps will be total crap (just like on the App Store), but there'll be some gems too. Having used the device myself, I can safely say that the hardware and the OS are solid, and so if the apps are good too, RIM will be doing very well, and the process will only get better.
I have to disagree that it's an awful process to get apps on an iOS device. I was up and running in under 30 minutes from the time I started the registration process to the time I had an app running on a device.
Point taken about the untapped market of Flash developers. Honestly I hope RIM can turn it around. Like I said, they're the #1 supporter of my university and they support the local economy in a big way. The things I hear from friends who work there though don't give me a lot of hope. The impression I get is that the front line developers share a lot of same concerns that I do.
I think it all comes down to lack of polish. Even in the early days, the iPhone SDK was leagues above the Playbook SDK in terms of polish. My personal anecdote is that the tools only run on 64 bit Macs but I could find no mention of that in the documentation. It was not a big deal, but these things add up. The free Playbook offer will probably help more than a few developers look past these flaws and try it out.
I absolutely agree, although the iPhone SDK was pretty rough when it started too. Keep in mind that Apple had a massive head start in that department, even at that point, because they'd been putting out OSX developer tools for years.