

So, you want to deploy a J2ME app in the US?  - muriithi
http://www.nextgenmoco.com/2008/01/so-you-want-to-deploy-j2me-app-in-us.html

======
ardit33
That's the main reason, my friends, that successful mobile startup is a huge
oxymoron right now.

I work for one of the biggest mobile app vendors, and to get to that stage,
you have to be in bed with the carriers, yet if you made too much money, they
probably will aim squarly at you, and do in house (or with third parties) what
you used to do.

They can just look out whatever they don't like. Even if they tell the user
they are paying for "data service", they still let in only non-free apps where
they get half the cut so the consumer is being charged twice for that data
access. They can ban apps outright, or just make it in a way that everytime
the app request something on the network, and anoying popup comes to tell the
user if they want to give this app permission to access the network. Here is
the dirty trick: They put up this poup for every HTTP request, which means any
network aware application becomes useless! It used to be that many phones that
the option to let the user say "Yes", once, and never be bothered anymore, but
carriers just requested phone manufactors to remove this, and annoy the users
everytime, unless the app is "blessed" (i.e. signed) by the carrier
themselves.

Of course they are doing this to "protect the user", and their "network",
which is total b.s.

Unfortunately, the FCC does nothing about this, and that's why Google's move
to force open apps standard with all the spectrum auctioning that happened a
couple of months ago, was a great step.

The scary part is that this is yet another look, on how the internet could
become if ISPs or broandband providers are let to tamper with whatever they
want and all the traffic that passes thru them. That's why I think net
neutrality is a very important issue, and it should be extended to wireless
providers also.

~~~
rcoder
> Of course they are doing this to "protect the user", and their "network",
> which is total b.s.

I'm no more a fan of the vetting process that mobile apps have to go through
than anyone else, but this particular piece of FUD actually bothers me quite a
lot.

Imagine if J2ME-equipped handsets were subject to the same sort of malware
ecosystem that, say, Windows boxes are. Now, add to that the fact that an
0wned mobile device is an automatic money-maker for the black hats, (think
1-900 numbers) and I think there's a _very_ good reason for carriers to be
nervous.

~~~
meredydd
_Imagine if J2ME-equipped handsets were subject to the same sort of malware
ecosystem ... I think there's a very good reason for carriers to be nervous._

Now, that's true for something like Symbian (or iPhone) native applications,
which pretty much get the run of the house.

However, J2ME was _explicitly designed_ to make this kind of thing impossible.
The user can just kill the JVM at any time, easily (too easily - all good J2ME
apps should autosave!). The program itself is trapped in a sandbox which asks
for explicit permission to do things that can cost money (data access, phone
calls, etc). Hit up java.sun.com for a full explanation of the security model.

The smoking gun is, once again, the European carriers - well, and the Asian
ones, and generally everyone not in North America - who allow arbitrary
downloads and arbitrary IP access...and strangely enough, nobody's phone's
been 0wned yet via J2ME.

I'm afraid this is really is just the American carriers being tight-fisted.

------
DenisM
Michael Mace wrote about this here:
[http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2008/02/mobile-
applica...](http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2008/02/mobile-applications-
rip.html)

    
    
      Summary: The business of making native apps for mobile 
      devices is dying, crushed by a fragmented market and 
      restrictive business practices. The problems are so bad 
      that the mobile web, despite its many technical 
      drawbacks, is now a better way to deliver new 
      functionality to mobiles. I think this will drive a rapid 
      rise in mobile web development, largely replacing the 
      mobile app business.
    

If we project this forward it will be either HTML5 or Flash/AIR/Silevrlight
which will displace the still-born mobile application platform.

------
aswanson
Ties in with:
[http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2007/05/cell_phone_...](http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2007/05/cell_phone_soft.html)

------
rcoder
Both my current handset (BlackBerry Curve on T-Mobile) and my previous one
(Sanyo MM-7500 on Sprint) supported "over the air" installation of 3rd-party
J2ME apps.

Many of the applications the poster described as not working (Google Maps,
Opera Mini, etc.) worked just fine out of the box on both handsets.

Sorry, but this was more whiny than informative.

~~~
briansmith
Your experience is atypical. I've never used a phone (unlocked or carrier-
issued) that enabled all the J2ME capabilities for an unsigned application.
I've used SE 610, SE T637, SE K750, SE K790, Samsung D900, Nokia 6300. All of
these phones are were well above average in capabilities (J2ME and otherwise)
at the time I purchased them. But, the vast majority of the J2ME applications
I tried to download were unusable for a variety of reasons.

