
The Cost of Building BlackBerry Apps - fogus
http://spin.atomicobject.com/2010/11/22/the-cost-of-building-blackberry-apps?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=technical
======
spacemanaki
Everything in this post is inline with my experience working on the platform
over the past 10 months.

But they miss one of the worst offenses in my opinion: Applications which
access certain APIs are required to be signed. If you want to run code on the
device you must sign your app, even if it's just for testing during
development. The signing process requires connection to THREE different RIM
servers, which are notoriously flaky. This results in extreme delays (hours)
which are hard to account for while developing. RIM has recently upgraded
their servers or otherwise addressed this issue, but it is far from solved

Take a look at the 7-day (the times are mislabeled, I believe) charts on this
page, set up by a third party, not RIM, for an example of their uptime:
<http://isthesigningserverdown.com/beta/>

------
g0atbutt
Money quote:

"BlackBerry code must be compiled at the Java 1.3 level. This means that
developers cannot utilize any of the improvements made to Java since 2002"

~~~
potatolicious
> _"Common utilities such as java.util.ArrayList and java.util.HashMap are
> also not available."_

I've never written anything native for BB, but have done some webapp
development (holy usability nightmare Batman! Their browser is horrific in a
level that even IE isn't)... but this revelation is scary.

Being forced to write Java 1.3 is like digging a trench with a rusty old
spade.

Being forced to write an app without java.util.ArrayList and java.util.HashMap
is like digging that trench with your _teeth_.

~~~
icefox
Note that starting with the torch bb's have a webkit browser.

~~~
potatolicious
Yeah, that was an "about damned time" thing. What's the word on the non-
touchscreen BB's though? Are the new ones sporting a WebKit browser?

~~~
icegreentea
Anything that runs OS6 has a webkit browser. I believe thats everything
starting from the 9700, but official 9700 OS6 builds are probably a looong
time from coming.

------
lian
I think the best point made by the authors is that creating native apps is
often avoidable, regardless of what OS you might develop for. Often a website
optimized for mobile devices would more than suffice, and would also avoid the
proprietary pitfalls of developing for just one OS.

When there's no concrete need to use a device's native abilities, it's foolish
to waste time creating a proprietary, limited utility browser for just one
device. Even if that device is running Android or iOS.

------
tomjen3
The question is, does it even matter? RIM's customers are business, who don't
really care about the access to apps, but whether they get fired for choosing
the wrong brand. And nobody gets fired for choosing RIM.

~~~
icegreentea
RIM can't keep a stranglehold on having decent Exchange integration forever.
Many corps already want additional tools to use on the BBs than just exchange
integration. You'll have stuff where people want to be able to check inventory
for anywhere, hook into the company ordering/ticketing system, whatever. And
they're willing to have these apps developed for them (usually in house).

Whenever RIM loses their edge in exchange integration, if corporations ability
to create custom apps is still crap, then it'll just be inertia keeping them
as the 'not wrong' brand. And that inertia will fade.

As it stands now, I've seen two corporate teams developing BB apps for two
companies from a distance. And it sounds painful. I mean, just running the
simulators is kinda painful. I swear that the simulator can take longer to
boot than the actual handhelds sometimes.

~~~
spacemanaki
> I swear that the simulator can take longer to boot than the actual handhelds
> sometimes.

Agreed.

And the devices need to be rebooted for totally trivial things like changing
security settings or deleting apps.

