[moved] My experience publishing to the Ovi Store

[shockreaction]

Hello everyone!

Hopefully, this isn't considered as spamming.

The first application I submitted to the Ovi Store just passed the QA process recently and for those interested, I wrote a lengthy blog post detailing my experience in successfully publishing an application to the Ovi Store.

It can be found at http://www.antinormal.org/blog/Post/...-the-ovi-store

Happy reading!

[ltomuta]

Hmm, I see that my comment does not show on your blog so here's a brief version of it:
- you got the Java Verified requirement wrong, as you describe as well in your article signing the app with a trusted certificate is enough
- the costs you associate with the Symbian Signed process are not real, they could be significantly lower
- Flash apps must be signed as well, the cost per signing is $20 but in some special cases may go higher as well
- WRT widgets do not require signing thus are cost free
- Ovi's QA can do little to speed-up the process of getting apps in if developers do not test their applications fully. Your application had to be tested 3 times, quite likely on many devices, and that was probably one of the simple cases. I'm saying this without denying that there might be room for improvements on Ovi Store's side as well.

[shockreaction]

That's rather odd. The comment system works fine, so I think it may have been a request issue. I will appreciate it if you could try to post it again as you do raise valid points and it contains some useful information. Thanks.

To address your points.
- Basically, the point of the article was to show and compare the paths available towards publishing an application to the Ovi Store. When I did some research, I came across a number of posts on the discussion boards like http://discussion.forum.nokia.com/fo...64&postcount=2 and http://discussion.forum.nokia.com/fo...d.php?t=169019

I was trying to point out that it wasn't a necessary requirement as it was made out to be, which can be seen from the concluding paragraphs.

- You're correct here. I should have cited that I was referring to the Certified Signed requirement which, according to the Symbian Signed guide, requires you to submit your application to testing houses. I was quoting prices for the respective test houses found on symbiansigned.com.

- Noted.

- I didn't know this and never came across it during my forum searches. It would be nice to have this information somewhere more prominent and easily accessible.

- My issue with the QA process was the second round of testing where my application failed for not being signed, when in fact, it was. Considering that this wasn't an issue in the first round of testing, I think it would've been better to double-check.

The first time it failed QA (About dialog version discrepancy), it was only tested on the E71. The second time it failed QA (Application untrusted warning), it was only tested on the E71 and N97. I'd say one or two devices aren't many. I think a major improvement would be to have some sort of definitive timeline so we can know what to expect. Even if it takes 2 or more weeks to test an application, we will have an idea of the timeframe and can manage things accordingly.

[Nokia Ron]

I think a major improvement would be to have some sort of definitive timeline so we can know what to expect. Even if it takes 2 or more weeks to test an application, we will have an idea of the timeframe and can manage things accordingly.

There are many variables that come into play. All I can say is that the times are coming down and what was true in May and June is not true now, the time is much faster and the repoting problems to publishers is much better.

Also there are two steps one is passing QA and then you need to pass exporting and that process affects the time for release as well.

Ron