As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
There's a lot of mobile platforms out there at the moment; iPhone, Android, WebOS, Symbian. If creating a startup for mobile development (i.e. as a commercial endeavour, not a hobby), which mobile platform is worth focusing on?
First, ignore technology to start and instead look at the business model for each platform. Ask if the platform itself has a reliable means of producing revenue long term. If so, then ask if the platform presents a business model that allows a developer to make money. If your not sure about such stuff ask someone with business experience.Beyond an initial flurry of interest, nifty tech can't sustain a platform if the economic underpinnings are not there. Even if a platform prospers, it doesn't mean that small developers will.
As near as I can tell, Android isn't actually a platform but more like a loose standard. Each phone vendor can customize it to a high degree so there doesn't seem to be a means by which you can write a single app and know it will run on all Android phones. That will cause major market fragmentation so even if Android takes off big time that doesn't mean that every developer, especially small developers, will be able to sell to the entire installed base.
Long term, open platforms (like contemporary PCs) present major problems for small developers. There is no intellectual property protection so developers who don't have large institutional customers they can sue can't prevent piracy. Security will become a major issues as black hats target people's phones. There will be a huge number of crappy or actually fraudulent apps cranked out that make end users leery of buying software from a vendor they don't recognize. This means small developers will have a hard time breaking into the market.
One of my professors in college told me something that has proven true in my 20+ years in the computer industry: The major strength of every design is also its critical weakness and vice versa. The very things that make open platforms attractive to developers and customers are also the same things that will cause them major problems. The very things that turn developers off about closed platforms are the things that provide the greatest benefit to developers long term. Having a closed platform's vendor vet every app slows down acceptance and limits choice but improves overall quality, security and consumer trust. And so on...
Career wise, there is a difference in paths between running your own business and learning an API so that others will hire you. In the former, you should develop for the platform that has the best business model and the one you would most like to use as a consumer. For the latter, you should develop for the platform with the most buzz. Even if it flops, no one will find it odd that experience is on your resume. Just rough rules of thumb.
I've written and launched two mobile apps on the iphone over the last year and both have had success in economic terms. One app is free and tied to a web service and it has a significant impact on the popularity and number of users for the web service. The second app is a paid app - and I can tell you that it is producing some actual revenue, enough that if I was a solo developer it'd be paying my bills.
That said I think that if you're launching a company for mobile products you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. So either support multiple platforms or aim to have multiple products on your main platform.
I think there is big potential in Android but at the moment it is totally unproven as a platform where you can actually make money (please point out some info on this if you have any I am really curious about the economic potential of Android).
Blackberry is also interesting since pretty much everyone I know who's under 25 has one, but it is a platform where selling apps doesn't seem to have caught on that well. I've discussed it with some heavy blackberry users and apps are not something they really care that much about. So you'd want to try to find out some numbers regarding Blackberry app sales.
In the end it depends on your target market/product.
Are you building an enterprise targeted mobile app? - Build for Blackberry first and perhaps iPhone next.
Do you want to launch one consumer focused mobile app with a large feature set and perhaps some web service integration? - target a few platforms and make it available to as many users as possible.
Are you trying to build a series of small purpose built apps? - Definitely start with iPhone and get some revenue first.
My 2 cents.
Not Iphone.
Because of Apple and this strange policy of application approuval. You could not afford to close your entreprise only because apple has decided that your application is "not ok"
Edit : For sure, the AppStore has a huge potential client base. But it's also the only "mobile market place" from where you can be removed.
If you are having a hard time deciding, why not just develop for all of them at the same time!
PhoneGap is a utility that lets you build apps that run on several different platforms. It's great, and the guys at Nitobi are very willing to help you out.
I suspect at the moment you would get the largest pool of potential customers if you developed for the IPhone. Apple do have some issues with their control freakery but, hey, people use their AppStore.
Personally I am going to develop for Android because I absolutely love the design of their OS for mobile systems. Just brilliant. I also suspect that Android will increase in market share rapidly over the next few years. It's also Java instead of objective C so I would think easier to port to other environments as required. I'm doing development for fun though so if I make no money then who cares. If you actually need to make the development pay for itself then I guess IPhone is probably the way to go while keeping a close eye on Android.
The thing about the AppStore for the IPhone to keep in mind is that, not only do people use it, they also PAY for things from it. Android still doesn't let you sell to any country so even if they were to technically have more users - those users might not be able to pay for your stuff even if they wanted to. This is being worked on by google and will change but it does limit the amount of money your app could currently make.
It depends on your target audience. Business users will most likely use BlackBerrys or Windows Mobile (at least in my experience). Consumers (at least those willing to pay for software) will more likely use IPhones.
It depends on the application somewhat, but if you are serious about a startup it makes the most sense to start with the iPhone. The frameworks allow for the most "wow" factor with products, and there is simply a huge lead in number of units, and number of users used to running many different applications.
You may also want to consider other platforms (my vote for second to go after would be Android, and then Palm in third although that depends heavily on what your application is).
But something to consider is, you may want to start by doing one platform really well and if your application idea is well received, branch out. It's a lot of effort to develop for multiple platforms and each platform has various unique features you want to spend time taking full advantage of. I would also advise against using any of the cross-platform frameworks for the same reason, because when you target all you cannot really target one.
Depending on what you want to do, I think you should look at web toolkits. Web apps, a.k.a. Widgets run natively on Symbian, and through Opera on many other platforms. It should be simple to port to Palm WebOS if that catches on.
You can't do everything in a Widget, but you'd be surprised what is possible.
Based on my limited experience with seeing what devices are used on subways, trains, in airports, etc - I'd suggest either Blackberry or iPhone.
But more importantly, pick a platform you like and are excited about.
If you are not enthusiastic about the platform and you are doing it solely for the money then it will show. you might as well just make hamburgers or sell lotto and cigarettes.
Take this with a pinch of salt but this pie chart seems to suggest that Symbian is the most widely used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
Or Java ?
Java is used on Blackberry's and will run on Symbian.
I wouldn't have said this 6 months ago. But I'd go with Android.
It'll be significantly more work porting in the long run. As more and more screens sizes and device profiles are coming out, but I think it's got the weakest developer market with the highest long-term potential earning power. The iPhone market is flooded, so, even if you get your app published to their catalogue, it's still almost impossible to get any kind of exposure.
Android, on the other hand, has huge growth potential and a pretty poorly followed market-place.
Verizon's massive push on the 'Droid' should open that particular device to a huge marketplace. It remains to be seen, however, if and how they'll allow 3rd parties to publish apps to their catalog.
Depending on your timeline, you might also consider Flash as a cross-platform option. Here's a list of heavy-hitter companies working to make mobile Flash happen in the near future (includes Google, RIM, Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm, Motorola, Samsung, etc.):
http://www.openscreenproject.org/partners/current_partners.html
...a video of some of their CEOs...
http://www.openscreenproject.org/about/
...and how to apply for some of the $10MM that Adobe's seeding into the market:
http://www.openscreenproject.org/developers/get_started.html
In summary, I'd suggest going for a cross-platform approach.
Symbian has by far the biggest number of users and has the largest choice for programming languages.
Symbian and Maemo will be running Qt in the near future, as well as supporting open python, open C, java etc etc etc.... (they also both have the Qt libraries available now)
I wouldn't put too many eggs in the iPhone basket. Your application would have to be monumentally good to be found and paid for by a significant number of people in the 100,000 items in their app store.
Android, don't really know anything about it. It seems like it could be a popular platform, its at least a real multi-tasking environment (unlike iPhone from app dev point of view).
Palm Web OS is insignificant at this time.
Perhaps the best solution in fact is to make your application web-based then you can just develop small apps which hook in to the web service?
Mono sounds interesting to me
Mono on Android - androidMono
Mono on Iphone
Like phonegap there is appcelerator titanium
Related
I am working in iPhone SDK.I have to convert from it to Crossplatform which may be either phonegap or titanium.As a iPhone Native application developer, I have some questions based on cross paltform.please consider the questions for other platforms android,etc also.I have already seen the stackoverflow Link.
1)Is it possible to get equal functionalities of all APIs which are in iPhone SDK through HTML5 and javascript?
2)If Apple releases New Version of iPhone SDK,will New APIs be included ASAP in Crossplatform?
3)If The App crashes in some situation, can I fix immediately through Device Debugging as we do in native Language?
4)The applications developed by Cross platform will be approved by Apple legaly?For example If i want to do live streaming in iphone , The restrictions have mentioned in Apple website.has it been followed by crossplatform?
5)will Application developed by cross platform take more memory?I mention the size of device build for appstore?If we develop the same through objective C,will size be reduced?
***My Conclusion is When we want to develop simple Applications for Multiple devices,crossplatform is suitable.Am I right?***I hope doing through native language(iphonensdk, Android) will avoid lot of Unnecessary things.
No.
If the API can be made available, it depends on how fast the creators of the framework implement it.
In principle, yes, as those frameworks employ a limited amount of OS capabilities to run web-technology (in most cases). This "wrapper" behaves as any native app does. For the content however the rules of the frameworks development language apply. It may be harder compared to native development to track down errors, since they must "pass the shell". Html errors for example may produce the same error for their enclosing webview again and again, despite being different in origin.
Propably.
That's hard to tell. It may depend on the framework. I wouldn't worry about the code as other ressources like imagery are usually the heavier load. But it may be very well the case that those frameworks bring along imagery necessary for their UI elements, since they do not rely on OS elements entirely. Compared to a native app which comes with no extra ressources at all, a crossplatform app with the same functionality might take more memory.
As to your conclusion: You're right. However I'd still encourage anyone to develop native applications whenever possible. Crossplatform frameworks tend to be slower at runtime and, in some cases, produce very ugly apps. I know several examples of apps which have been created with a variety of crossplatforms and I don't like any of them. They just don't feel right. Partly that's due to their UI elements which don't look and feel as you'd expect it on the platform you're on.
The principle behind crossplatform frameworks may appear to be logical, tempting and in some cases, straight economics mandate their use. But, for the time being, I find the results far from being satisfactory and for that reason would never touch a crossplatform framework.
In my experience (with a closed, private, expensive x-platform thing purchased by the employer), it was utterly frustrating, and incredibly difficult. Therefore, it is my preference to maintain multiple native apps.
The UI considerations that can be made/handled by the native app, as well as the functionality and speed gained by doing it natively, IMHO, far outweigh the benefit of having to write it 2 or 3 times.
In an ideal world, you would have a specialist for each platform that can lead the team on the "deep" things, and then everyone can generalize for all of the platforms, increasing their depth through the course of the project.
It is generally said/accepted that a native app would always have a better/smooth performance compared to a web app..
Is this statement true across all the platforms (iPhone/Android/BB,etc) ? Does this not apply correctly for an iPhone i.e. to say that for iPhone web app, it utlizies some kind of GPU acceleration or something (though not very sure how that works) and hence the performance gap is not much ?
Could you please elaborate on the same. Essentially I wanted to understand if I have a high performance app (which would include lots of animation/high memory usage,etc), is it better to have that as a native app OR if the target audience is only iPhone, even a web app would perform good..Having said that, will Android also reduce the performance gap between native and web in the near future?
Also any examples of really high performance web sites which I can try viewing on iPhone/Android to compare the differences?
You're asking a big question there :)
Web apps are all the hype because you don't need to learn Android or obj c so people with skills like web design and scripting can make apps fairly easily. The problem with web apps I find is that you have to be very conscious of how everything works as everything has to render every time.
I've found some web apps crash when you do too much too quickly, even with HTML 5 there's some bugs. On iPhone and Android devices if your app was say a shopping app you could pre render results for a query and only show them when required.
Another problem with web apps is connectivity. I know some people say the internet is everywhere but what if you;re abroad and your carrier charges roaming for bandwidth? I know the ones in Ireland used to charge 10e a meg to uses the internet. Fair enough if the app whether native or web required a connection both will suffer
As for the cpu and gpu performanance that will mostly rely on the model you're using. The iPhone models speak for themselves but there's sooooo many Android phones with different processors it's hard to benchmark. Also take into account internet connectivity..... a lot of factors
With both platforms there are endless pros and cons. I find web apps are quick and easy but can fall short of the nice functionality in Android and iOS APIs. On the other hand the Android and iOS APIs can be head wrecking and cause weeks of headaches
I am working on iPhone app development currently (primarily native app using Obj-C and some web app using jQTouch). My question is regarding the future of this space;
In say 3 years time, what do you think would be preferred (native or web app) ?
What are the strengths going to be for native app (I know for certain types like Games, people prefer native than browser-based, but will that remain that way forever)
Some people say HTML5 will replace native app development, as it will be "code once, run anywhere" kind of thing (like common for iPhone, Android, BB phones). So do you think HTML5 can completely eliminate native app development.
I know the mobile space is constantly changing with new technologies coming up regularly and hence one cannot say with certainty what the situation will be 3 years forward. But I think there are projections being made by many agencies. So are there any reputed ones which can give a general idea or some sense of what might happen in future.
My main aim is what exactly should be my focus (like what technology/platform/native-web apps), if I want to look at the mobile space for the next 5-10 years.
Please provide as many responses as possible.
My 2c.
The popularity of web based apps will continue to grow. Whether it will pass native apps I don't know. For them to be on par in terms of numbers in 3 years doesn't seem unrealistic.
Native apps have the following benefits:
Better performance (potentially)
Fewer restrictions on accessing device resources
Greater control of execution of application
HTML5 won't completely eliminate the need for native apps (see point 2 above). Even Google who are creating an entirely web based OS (ChromeOS) don't seem to be looking to get rid of Java/Dalvik for Android based dev.
"code once, run anywhere" is very unlikley for anything but the simplest of apps/functionality.
"Code once, compile for each supported platform then test everywhere" is much more realistic.
I'd recommend focusing your education on what makes a great mobile regardless of platform and looking at web based development.
1: Native. It will always be preferred, as it is the most convenient type of app. Personally, I only have one web-app on my phone.
2: The iOS-framework. It is really the largest upside of the native apps. And the fact that they are easily downloadable through the App Store.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to know how difficult is to develop on iPhone plataform. By difficult I want to mean:
Effort in terms of programmer versus software complexity. To be clear: how many programmers are needed to develop a medium sized app on iPhone?
SDK learning curve.
Hardware and other non-programming related stuff affecting the development
How easy is to sell iPhone software. To be specific: is easy to sell an app on itunes? does it cost something? I'm confused about how to sell that apps on iTunes store...
any one has experience on advertisement supported apps? please tell me... how has been that?
thanks
One programmer (a good all-rounder) can easily do it. Once you have done your first app you will be surprised to see what sells and how little actual programming there is in some apps. The reason you have to be a good all-rounder is that the apps that succeed have it all - design, inspiration, execution. Consider involving a designer if your taste doesn't match what seems to be popular. Don't expect to ship anything with standard UIButtons, on the store it stands out like the proverbials. Normal practices are essential, e.g. revision control, issue tracking and all that good stuff. It seems to matter more the higher level an API you work to.
SDK learning curve - not so bad. Initially you struggle with why a NSArray can't take another value, but inside 1-2 months you'll be subclassing things all over the place. However read below, don't try to do too much custom stuff...
You need an Intel mac, you need at minimum an iPod touch to submit an app - try to submit without testing on actual hardware and you will miss something, and it will be rejected. You don't have to have the latest Mac OS or Xcode to get started but you probably do for store submission. If configuring choose more RAM over more processor speed. An SSD is essential. BIG (or multiple) screens are, as with any coding task, a big advantage. The new 27" iMac would be a great development machine. It's hard to go wrong with current Macs, I have had good experiences with an 11" Air and a mini, they're not that much different from a Mac Pro as far as development goes once you have a big monitor plugged in.
Selling is not so hard. Provided your app isn't complete rubbish and doesn't get 10 1-star reviews right away sheer numbers will get you some sales. To make it big is hard, and you will need to investigate marketing, review sites, twitter, youtube, in fact to your all-rounder programmer skills you can add marketing director. The noise on the store (sheer number of applications) means only a truly stellar application (i.e. featured by Apple) will stand out in the absence of any other effort. There are probably plenty of apps on the store than in 2008 would have made their developers rich, these days they are lucky to sell 1000. The cost is $99 to join and after that you get 70% of sales revenue while Apple keeps 30%.
Additionally...
With the context that I am a C/C++ programmer who has spent most time programming embedded devices and handsets, with almost no C#/STL/Java...
Here's what I found easy/good:
Xcode (although I admit getting started was jarring coming from Visual Studio)
brevity - what you can do in just a few lines of code is amazing
Stanford CS193P iPhone programming class on iTunes University - great intro, free!
WWDC video sessions. Not cheap but probably worth more than what you pay in terms of in-depth knowledge. I've been to similar developer conferences that were more of an excuse to stay in a nice hotel and do some duty-free shopping but if I'm not at WWDCI will feel like I'm at a severe disadvantage. The big benefit of getting to WWDC is the people you meet, this and lab sessions are what you win if you get lucky in the ticket lottery. All the technical presentations you get for free on video these days.
Here's what I found hard:
knowing just what storage classes to use in a certain situation. My first huge performance problem came from using indexForObject on NSArray with hundreds of thousands of objects. Obvious now but who knows this the first time it happens to them?
"letting go" of preconceived ideas about what a UI should do. Don't go laying out a .xib until you have used at least 20 iPhone applications and have some idea of how things are usually done. Doing things otherwise is not only likely to be harder, if your idea is too far against Human Interface Guidelines chances are it will never be accepted to the store anyway.
Xcode debugging messages - do google these because they are cryptic at first but when you find other people explaining them they start to make sense after a while
Here's what I found completely perplexing and got working through trial and effort:
Apple's on-device provisioning process
actual submission to the App Store
So far I have one small game on the store. It's not a particularly good game unless you really like that kind of thing, and only scrabble nerds do, but it still has 10 sales after 1 week and that's with no publicity at all. I did it to get experience with how the store works and by that measure it was a success. In learning curve terms it took me probably six, seven weeks full time from opening the first Apple doc to submitting the game, but today I could do it in about two days.
edit: Incredible to think that this answer is now more than two years old and that people still vote on it. Well I didn't become an app store millionaire but many people have and it can still happen even though we now see some big companies producing very polished apps with large budgets. What's the secret ingredient? Passion, which brings attention to detail. If you love your app there's a good chance users will also.
I didn't get to WWDC 2010 but I did get to 2011, 2012 and 2013. Keep at it, independent developers - you will almost certainly not do well enough on your first app to retire, but you will be working on an awesome platform, growing fast, with an incredible community behind it. You can make a good living by yourself. And if you do give up your independence the job market is very, very good.
more edit: Did I mention CocoaHeads? Find your local iOS programmers and find out about CocoaHeads. If there isn't one consider starting one. Either you will discover opportunities (i.e. projects, or even employment) or you will discover people to hire when you have succeeded and can't be a 1-person shop any more. Not to mention the useful free education speakers at these groups represent.
Swift is now perhaps less weird than Objective C seems to a programmer coming from some other language. I do think it's the right choice if you're beginning, Apple are clearly pushing it as the future and it has gotten much better since introduction in 2014. You may find learning Swift is an advantage, if you have that option - many developers are stuck supporting existing projects in Objective C.
iOS continues to grow and be an interesting and fun platform and I don't think it's slowing down. OS X is keeping pace. I'm still very happy I made the choice to do this back in 2009. Come on in, the market's fine.
We have started developing about a year ago and currently have two OpenGL 2D games on the market. My experience so far:
Simple application can easily be a one-man show. For a medium-sized application you are likely to manage with just one good programmer, but usually there are other people needed, such as a graphics designer. This highly depends on the nature of your application.
A bit steep if you have no experience with Objective-C and Cocoa. C knowledge helps, as does knowledge of some OO and computer language concepts. Even then you’ll spend some time getting used to their way of doing things. (Which is usually well-thought, but often different from what other people/languages/stacks do.)
The biggest non-programming issue is the crazy provisioning and review stuff. It takes a while to get used to all the profiles and certificates and signing voodoo. You are going to hate it, but will get used to it.
Selling the app is hard. You either have to be one of the lucky ones to make it into the featured apps on the device or you have to be some big title or your application has to be something with a clear audience (like Geocaching) or you will have trouble getting a decent coffee for what you earn. (I am over-simplifying here, but it’s mostly true.) The selling process itself is pretty much painless – $99/year and Apple gets a third of what you earn.
Depends what you mean by "medium-sized". Also depends how long you want it to take. In general, to make a decent app, you need a combination of things: programming skill, artistic skill, design skill, and business knowledge. Most people don't like to do all of those things. I'd guess that the majority of iPhone apps only have a single actual programmer, though. You can tell the ones that were written by a programmer who should have gotten some help with the other aspects.
Depends what you already know. It took me a month before Objective C stopped seeming really bizarre, and I've used lots of different languages.
The hardware isn't a problem unless you don't already have a Mac, an iPhone, and an iPod Touch. The biggest non-programming thing for me is the App Store review process; you have to understand that when you think you're done, you're going to need to wait a couple of weeks, and it's possible that the idea you thought was great falls into some category that will never ever be approved, or that you'll have to change your app's name, etc.
It's easy to offer apps for sale on iTunes, once you pay your $99. If your goal is for people all over the world to download your free app, or to put your app on sale and make tens of dollars, the App Store is great. If you're hoping to make millions of dollars, or even thousands, you have to be some combination of competent, persistent, and lucky.
It's rather difficult to answer your question owing to the fact that often this is highly subjective in my previous experience.
1) Generally the effort is much lower than the one required when using a different platform. Those acquainted to software engineering principles including the use of design patterns etc will find that the SDK is built around all of the common abstraction we are used (except a very small part still using C style procedural APIs).
2) The learning curve is steep for people rolling this on their own, is really easy for people being taught on the matter. A fast course style exposure to the SDK and tools (say 40 hours total) it's usually enough for people to become proficient enough.
3) There are no hardware issue to be taken into account, at least in my experience. As already pointed out by Zoul, provisioning the devices takes some time to get used to. The submission/review process is in my opinion a little easier.
4) Selling is as difficult as it is on other platforms. But if you have got a really brilliant idea, then you usually sell many copies of your software. Or, the idea may not be so brilliant, but the software you develop is fundamental for a specific field targeting people always on the move etc. Just developing something without a clear target is the perfect recipe for disaster.
What is your definition of "medium sized app". It could easily be just yourself, or it could be a few people including a designer. Also, to some degree if you have more time you need fewer people.
That depends heavily on your experience to date. Many people have come over from .Net and Java development and not found it too hard... you probably need at least a month to be comfortable with a lot of the concepts.
You need a Mac, that is it. Any Intel mac with 2GB of memory will do.
It's very easy to sell, since all you do is upload a binary and (after a wait for Apple to approve it) Apple puts it up for sale. You need no servers. You do need to pay a yearly $99 fee to develop.
Very subjective. A one person app developer can develop a medium sized app. How long will it take? Depends on how much free time the developer has and how much experience with Obj-C.
I learned some parts of the SDK in less than a day. I still don't know the entire SDK, as I haven't needed to. I doubt that any one programmer would want to spend the time to learn the entire SDK. For example, if you aren't doing anything with the accelerometer, why study it?
You need to roll up your sleeves and delve into it yourself to see how long it takes you. If you are asking for your team, then you will have to judge how well their expertise will apply.
As for selling on the iPhone, there are some easy aspects, like not having to worry about packaging or salespeople, but you still have to sink money into marketing or no one will find your app in the almost 95,000 apps on the app store today.
If you're asking because you keep reading that it's an easy "get rich scheme", then I'd say you're in for a surprise. Despite the reduced overhead in some areas, and low start-up capital, it's as much work as any other software venture, since the ratio of team members to work to be done stays about the same (the economics of a $2.99 or $4.99 or $9.99 apps forces you to have a smaller team).
Perhaps an analogy... I want to know how difficult is is to build a house.
In terms of builder vs house
complexity. To be clear: how many
people do I need to build a medium
sized house?
Power tool learning
curve.
Permits, plans, and other
non-building stuff.
How easy is it
to sell my house?
Let me give you some guidance as I have worked on JQTouch. Its a library that build using JQuery and it also provides multi-touch related features too. Basically this is for UI related stuff.
Please have a look at JQTOUCH and look at the code samples. The business logic can be done in any server side technology of your choice.
Summing up the things with your relevant questions
Effort is not that tough. Easy for developers to develop. Less documentation.
Pretty easy
Emulator could be downloaded from Emulators
Not much knowledge on this.
We are currently in the process of evaluating a couple of iPhone development shops and we're putting together a list of questions/topics that we'll be asking them about when we meet.
To make sure that we have the most relevant areas covered, what would you ask when evaluating an iPhone developer or development shop?
Our main areas are: applications shipped and quality thereof, planning process, development methods, testing frameworks, how they manage the ad-hoc beta testing, and the on-going process of bug fixes and re-submission to the app store.
I have coded and shipped an app, so I have enough experience with it to ask pertinent questions. What kind of specific development questions would you guys want to cover before feeling satisfied with someone's abilities?
Thanks!
If you ask for things like code, requirements document, etc, they'll probably send you the best of what they have and that might not be the status quo. At the same time it doesn't hurt to take a look over such things and see how they handle the request.
Since 90% of the iphone shops have a life of about 2 years (most people have jumped on the iphone bandwagon in the last few years) I wouldn't hold that against them but I'd make sure they have a development background and didn't start their development career on the iphone in the last 2 years [1]. If I was outsourcing any type of work (iphone, web, desktop), I'd want to work with a group that has been through a handful of the ups & down's of developing, delivering and supporting software, plus has the client skills to match.
Meaning they can communicate, know how to manage and know how to run the development side as well. I'd like it if they at least had some development history/experience in C or C++.
Also, do they have artists and such in house or do they outsource the asset creation? (Maybe its not needed for your app besides an icon & splash screen).
What software do they use for bug tracking? How do they manage their development cycles? Do they use a methodology? (waterfall, agile, etc)
Do they offer support? How much is it? Contract? Per instance?
Do you get the source? You should, you paid for it.
Speaking to them is very important, and your gut will tell you much about them. If you can drop by and checkout their shop that's cool too. But don't hold a small shop against them - it should just mean better rates for you due to lower overhead.
If they've done consulting work, and have shipped app's that's a benefit. Specifically question them about ad-hoc distro.
And importantly, have they worked with the technologies you need (say openGL for a game, or consuming web services for a network related app)? Again, not necessarily a strike against them if their smart and eager, but you'll be appropriately aware of their current abilities.
Good luck!
Also, if they're willing to work on equity alone, I'd be worried. Developers are making good money on the iphone and I see no reason to take equity only. I consult on the iphone, and I won't accept equity deals. Cash is king.
[1] What I mean is that, I would expect them to have developed on other platforms (web, desktop, other mobiles) NOT just the iphone. So if they started programming in the last year, on the iphone alone, that's probably not a firm I want to work with. If they had developed desktop applications for the last 5 years and then came to the iphone world in the last year or so, that's cool. I just want to work with people that have gone through the first couple years of development - those are great great great learning years (but don't want them doing it on my dime).
Ask them for a portfolio. Then buy those apps that they have worked on and see if you like them.
Ask them how long they've been developing iPhone apps for the AppStore.
If it's longer than 18 months, find someone else.
I would say process and experience are most important. Items like:
Describe your process
How much involvement can I have- access to tools, developers, etc.
Tell me about projects you've done that overlap or featuresets that overlap mine.
Do you outsource? Or who, specifically will be working on my app?
How do you handle maintenance?
How do you handle payment?
Items like this are a good start to a dialog between the two of you. Theres really a lot to consider when developing an app. I think coming into the conversation really well prepared on your product will give you an understanding of the right questions to ask.