DISQUS

Al · 2 years ago

I think its better that more functionality (like world clocks with multiple alarms) are being built in. Mainly because the S40 Nokia phones have this built in and people expect such functionality when they move up to S60.

I applaud the third party developers for picking up the slack though. Its nice to have an alternative if you dont like the built in client.

malaeum · 2 years ago

Well I can see the draw back of including features developed by others into future feature packs, I don't want to have to pay for things that should be standard. Autolocking of the keypad, something I've used since WAY back and its not on my N73... kinda unacceptable to me. I know that there are third party programs that do this, but why should I pay for something that should be standard. (Sorry to the third party guys there). I guess it comes down to creativity, if its an original idea, I am far more likely to pay for it. If its just coding up something I'm far less likely to. Also I do like being able to install a new firmware and not have to install 30 small apps (exageration) afterwards for features that can be easily incorporated into the OS. I think that Nokia should look into compensating those who develop original ideas which it wants to include into future feature packs. I would only compensate the original versions and not the copy's of such work unless a significant improvement was made. Basically its a delicate and it needs to be treated as such. Developers are a very important resource, but at the same time you have to balance out the needs of your consumers. Eventually as the market matures people aren't going to want to have to spend $500 on a phone and only find out they need another $40 of software for some features that by all means ought to have been in the OS in the first place. It would be smart to be ahead of the curve here and work this situation out now instaed of waiting years and bleeding developers to other platforms in the mean time.

Tote · 2 years ago

Hi there,

I agree with you in most things you wrote, however, there are some things that, I believe, you're wrong about.

First off, afaik freeware apps can be developed for free. Both getting the developer certificate and having the application signed are free. I'm not sure what the situation is with getting very strong capabilities, though.

Then, there is an option to write your commercial application without having to sign it: you can "self-sign" your app. Okay, you cannot acquire for very strong (like DRM, DiskAdmin, etc.) capabilities in such an application and even "not-too-strong" capabilities are problematic to get, but still lots of apps can live with only those capabilities (or even without any) that you CAN get by self-signing your app.

So briefly, I would say that the situation although not too good, it's not hopeless. I hope Symbian (Signed) will go through an evolution and that it's going to happen soon. Before being too late.

zach · 2 years ago

Thank you all for your comments!

@Al @malaeum

I hear what you bot are saying, but this is a very slippery slope. Who's to say what functionality should be included on a device, and therefore is fair game for Nokia to copy? I personally think that every smart device should have call/sms management, profile management, enhanced security, full MS office support, divx support, a call recorder, etc. If Nokia copies the apps out there now and adds all of that functionality, where does that leave the developers?

It does two things: it drives handset cost up, and it drives small and medium-sized developers away from S60 - both are very bad things.

@Tote

"freeware apps can be developed for free."

Free is a relative term in this case. What about all of the time developing and coding these apps? This is no easy task, even for a simple small utility. Beyond that, the developer in most cases will continue to update and provide support for their app and this ongoing commitment is a big 'cost'.

Now let's say the developer does want to offer their app for free. How does Symbian reward them for this contribution to their community? They make them wait 1, 2, even 3 months for the signing process - because Symbian Signed isn't being paid so it is low-priority. Developers who release freeware (especially small developers) are really doing a big favor for the community and truth be told, they are rarely appreciated as much as they should be.

Regarding self-signing, it is a possibility but as you say it is quite restricted in terms of capabilities. I was speaking with a developer just last week and had a suggestion for a feature that they could add to their app. It would have have been an awesome feature but because of the current Symbian Signed guidelines it would have A) cost them at least $500 and B) made it necessary to change several other aspects of the app to adhere to the behavior guidelines that Symbian Signed has imposed. Plus the cost and behavioral changes are above and beyond the time and effort that would have to go into coding, testing, and debugging the new feature I suggested!

The bottom line is that the Symbian Signed division was set up for many reasons. One of those reasons of course was to make money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but their current model is anti-small developer, which makes it anti-consumer.

I think we both agree that there are good and bad things about Symbian and the signing guidelines/process, and the entire model needs revision. Let's hope they listen!!

Antony Pranata · 2 years ago

I completely agree. Symbian is trying to kill small developers. They only want to deal with companies with big money. :(

I have been trying to voice this problem, especially with regard to freeware/open source, to Symbian via different channels, blogs, forum discussions and email. Nobody seems to be listening. My latest open source project even has been stuck for more than 3 months now at Symbian Signed.

I have written similar posting to this one at:

Read Article

Symbian Applications · 6 months ago

Nice post keep the good working