Post-answer about whether Samsung really "loves" its customers
November 24, 2010 on Habré, in a blog for mobile application developers, a post was published titled How Samsung Apps "loves" its customers , in which the person under the nickname natuzzi and at the same time one of the members of the Freeje application development team expressed dissatisfaction with our company's policy for bada-based VoIP services.
Opinions of users were divided, there were comments both in support of the words natuzzi, and vice versa, the reason for discussion was chosen rather serious, and therefore we decided to give an answer in expanded form, thus dot the i in this question with this post.
So let's start by identifying the essence of the claims that have been made against Samsung and its policies regarding its mobile platform platform bada. I will take opinions both from the comments and from the post itself, since the dialogue at the moment certainly occurs not so much with the natuzzi user, as with the habrasoobschestve as a whole.
')
1. The application control service is incompetent and incorrectly interpreted the Freeje application as a program using VoIP technology.
2. The discrepancy between the policy of monetary relations between the user and the developers of the Freeje team’s perception of it.
3. Engagement and protection of the interests of "internal" operators.
4. Infringement of developers in comparison with other platforms and operating systems.
5. "Lag" from other manufacturers of mobile devices and platforms.
6. The inability to maintain the same policy in all areas of its activities, and to control Java applications.
So, it seems to be all the main points on which we have to answer today. Now let's define the terms and the area of ​​their application, as is customary in a serious conversation.
Actually, I have been writing about the platform in detail for a long time. But right now we are interested in this:
Bada is positioned as a platform (in this context, OS), which should have both broad functionality comparable to smartphones in their traditional sense, and ease of use for an ordinary user who has both the need for this functionality and does not have the time / desire for independent study of all subtleties of certain applications, the nuances associated with their use, and so on.
Everything should be as simple as possible - the interface, the functionality of the programs, their choice, payment for certain services.
Of course, this concept imposes certain restrictions on software developers - the company, without going beyond the framework described above, cannot afford the uncontrolled growth of the application database, in which even an advanced user can easily get confused, although this does not exclude alternative clients for any social networks, and so on - on the contrary, high-quality products with unique functionality (do not confuse them with the different cost of their services) are extremely important companies - after all, in fact, this is an immediate part of the phone.
Developers, if they understand the above concept, will be given full support, I already wrote about this here: HeroCraft: a look at the development of mobile applications from the inside [interview] .
It is extremely important in this matter to understand that the conversation is solely about the bada OS, and nothing else. Samsung is a manufacturer of devices on Android, and until recently on Symbyan, and on WM, which I think is known to all users of Habr. And speaking here about any restrictions in the rules for developers - I am speaking strictly about bada and its native applications (not java). It is important.
In general, I think that if we had a forum for lawyers, and not for IT workers and those adjacent to it, then we could have a great discussion on what can be considered applications providing services based on this technology, and what not. But it so happens that a certain part of non-biased users thinks that VoIP traffic does not have to be present on the entire length of the channel in order for the program to be called using VoIP services.
To agree with them or not - the right of each individual user, but it is difficult to imagine that their opinion was either biased on our part.
How does this program work? Everything is simple - the callback technology is used, which has long been known and prohibited in many countries:
Many countries have banned callback services that are not licensed or authorized by international governments. People who provide or use callback services have argued that they have often been charged for international calls. It can also be from the United States of America to the Middle Eastern countries.
Calling dial tone. However, this is also the case for speed dialing numbers.
Such a decision is clear and logical - business is trying to protect its rights, and this general rule for the capitalist world is one thing when the program applies technologies honestly, allowing an operator providing their channels to earn, if not by voice transmission via GSM, then VoIP traffic, and another thing, when the service is parasitic on the operator, not giving him the opportunity.
If you have not yet understood, the Freeje program works according to the following algorithm:
You want to call this or that subscriber => dial his phone number in the program => she sends an http request to her server => the GSM gateway calls you back and connects with the subscriber you need.
Thus, you only pay the developers of the program for the service provided, the cellular operator does not have the right to charge you for an incoming call within your home region, and only receives a penny for a short http request.
But let's leave the honesty of this way of working on the conscience of developers, in the end everything that is not prohibited is allowed.
The answer was practically given above - firstly, in the agreement with the developers there is not a word about VoIP-traffic, but there are stipulated conditions on VoIP-services, which the program Freeje certainly uses. This was written by site users:
As I wrote above, the bada OS platform is aimed at the simplicity of its use by the end user, so the claims on this point are also not justified, especially since everything is spelled out very simply and directly in the agreement. The fact that in the correspondence this was not mentioned in the first letter can be explained at least by the banal unexpectedness of such a provision for the application control service - why are agreements written and why they cannot be read carefully, especially if the application is going to be used for earnings?
Not true.
a) Samsung in working with mobile operators and their subscribers is trying to simultaneously simplify the work of the first (at the very beginning of the platform’s becoming) it was announced that payment for various services would be possible not only using a bank card, but also directly from the subscriber’s account ), and provide the user with the most optimal prices for certain services.
Check the prices for applications in SamsungApps - some of the excellent applications are either fully or partially sponsored by the company, with the result that the programs are either free or their cost does not exceed 50-100 rubles. If such prices are called the protection of the interests of “internal operators” - I honestly do not even know what to say about this;
b) the user is not deprived of VoIP traffic, despite all the assurances of us in this post, at the moment the company's developers are working with Skype , and perhaps quite soon their client will appear in version 1.2, and in version 2.0 it can be expected almost with 100% confidence. As you can see, the repetition of the story with Apple is not in sight, and the delay in the release of the client for Skype is more likely to have organizational reasons than those offered by conspiracy theorists.
This is also wrong, the restriction is justified by the very essence of the platform, and at the same time we are manufacturers of devices for other platforms where you will not encounter such “infringements”, simply because Samsung has no need for this - we try to provide honest working conditions for mobile operators at the same time and fair conditions to their subscribers using our devices.
As I wrote above, this cannot be called a lag. On the contrary, this is just another application market, with its pluses and minuses. Do not forget how meticulously and competently our services approach their work, and if you don’t believe us, you can talk to third-party developers - there are problems, of course, but if the agreement is not broken, then surely any of them will say that in the end the desired The result was achieved by both parties.
The fact is that this is not required - control is carried out only for native applications that are an inseparable part of the platform. If the user is able to independently figure out where and where to get the application on java, then we have absolutely no complaints about him or the program developer. Is this not the best proof that all the cries about our corruption and work in favor of "PPSOS" are empty words?
Yes, we really do not allow developers using the bada OS platform to develop software using VoIP services. But this does not mean that we deny the right of users of our platform to use these services on their devices and by all means tries to cooperate with those who provide them according to generally accepted international standards - by Skype. And this is where our love for our customers is expressed. Also, nothing prevents the users of our mobile devices from using the Freeje application in its java-version.
Thanks to all.
Opinions of users were divided, there were comments both in support of the words natuzzi, and vice versa, the reason for discussion was chosen rather serious, and therefore we decided to give an answer in expanded form, thus dot the i in this question with this post.
So let's start by identifying the essence of the claims that have been made against Samsung and its policies regarding its mobile platform platform bada. I will take opinions both from the comments and from the post itself, since the dialogue at the moment certainly occurs not so much with the natuzzi user, as with the habrasoobschestve as a whole.
')
Samsung is charged with the following points:
1. The application control service is incompetent and incorrectly interpreted the Freeje application as a program using VoIP technology.
What kind of VoIP service has Samsung dreamed of? The application is an elementary callback! True with quite attractive prices, Skype support and excellent quality.
2. The discrepancy between the policy of monetary relations between the user and the developers of the Freeje team’s perception of it.
3. Engagement and protection of the interests of "internal" operators.
What “external” networks are we talking about? What interests of the “internal” operators are so zealously defended by Samsung?
4. Infringement of developers in comparison with other platforms and operating systems.
5. "Lag" from other manufacturers of mobile devices and platforms.
6. The inability to maintain the same policy in all areas of its activities, and to control Java applications.
For some reason, Freeje is perfectly allowed on the App store, on the Android Market (Freeje lite). Also pending on Nokia Ovi, it works great on Windows Mobile.
And, by the way, the very first Java Me version works on any phones with built-in Java support, including Samsung :-)
We modestly do not comment on the fact that VoIP applications have already opened doors in the Appstore and Android Market and Nokia Ovi for a long time. But that's another story.
But in general - draw conclusions, colleagues.
So, it seems to be all the main points on which we have to answer today. Now let's define the terms and the area of ​​their application, as is customary in a serious conversation.
Bada os
Actually, I have been writing about the platform in detail for a long time. But right now we are interested in this:
Bada is positioned as a platform (in this context, OS), which should have both broad functionality comparable to smartphones in their traditional sense, and ease of use for an ordinary user who has both the need for this functionality and does not have the time / desire for independent study of all subtleties of certain applications, the nuances associated with their use, and so on.
Everything should be as simple as possible - the interface, the functionality of the programs, their choice, payment for certain services.
Of course, this concept imposes certain restrictions on software developers - the company, without going beyond the framework described above, cannot afford the uncontrolled growth of the application database, in which even an advanced user can easily get confused, although this does not exclude alternative clients for any social networks, and so on - on the contrary, high-quality products with unique functionality (do not confuse them with the different cost of their services) are extremely important companies - after all, in fact, this is an immediate part of the phone.
Developers, if they understand the above concept, will be given full support, I already wrote about this here: HeroCraft: a look at the development of mobile applications from the inside [interview] .
It is extremely important in this matter to understand that the conversation is solely about the bada OS, and nothing else. Samsung is a manufacturer of devices on Android, and until recently on Symbyan, and on WM, which I think is known to all users of Habr. And speaking here about any restrictions in the rules for developers - I am speaking strictly about bada and its native applications (not java). It is important.
VoIP
In general, I think that if we had a forum for lawyers, and not for IT workers and those adjacent to it, then we could have a great discussion on what can be considered applications providing services based on this technology, and what not. But it so happens that a certain part of non-biased users thinks that VoIP traffic does not have to be present on the entire length of the channel in order for the program to be called using VoIP services.
The author does not understand a little what they are trying to explain to him in the comments and support of the samsung. They do not just prohibit VoIP traffic, they prohibit any VoIP services on the operator’s networks (and the idea was probably not just to prohibit VoIP, but to prohibit communication on the operator’s networks), what the author does is use VoIP to organize cheap calls, because In many countries, incoming calls are not charged or a substantial discount is given. It does not matter that the connection itself is established using an HTTP callback.
Mobile operator network is, VoIP is also there. And I can explain the essence of the problem:
There is a phone that is connected to mobile operator A. There is a mobile operator B, which pays mobile operator A, when a subscriber of operator B calls a subscriber of operator A. And he pays by the minute. Those. Operator A earns denyuzh on every call from network B. This is called interconnect. It is thanks to this interconnect that there are tariff plans, where a subscriber pays extra money for incoming calls.
Here you appear with your certainly useful and good program Freeje. And the operator A not only does not earn on the outgoing call of the subscriber, but also loses the opportunity to earn on the incoming
To agree with them or not - the right of each individual user, but it is difficult to imagine that their opinion was either biased on our part.
Freeje
How does this program work? Everything is simple - the callback technology is used, which has long been known and prohibited in many countries:
Many countries have banned callback services that are not licensed or authorized by international governments. People who provide or use callback services have argued that they have often been charged for international calls. It can also be from the United States of America to the Middle Eastern countries.
Calling dial tone. However, this is also the case for speed dialing numbers.
Such a decision is clear and logical - business is trying to protect its rights, and this general rule for the capitalist world is one thing when the program applies technologies honestly, allowing an operator providing their channels to earn, if not by voice transmission via GSM, then VoIP traffic, and another thing, when the service is parasitic on the operator, not giving him the opportunity.
If you have not yet understood, the Freeje program works according to the following algorithm:
You want to call this or that subscriber => dial his phone number in the program => she sends an http request to her server => the GSM gateway calls you back and connects with the subscriber you need.
Thus, you only pay the developers of the program for the service provided, the cellular operator does not have the right to charge you for an incoming call within your home region, and only receives a penny for a short http request.
But let's leave the honesty of this way of working on the conscience of developers, in the end everything that is not prohibited is allowed.
Now you can answer directly to the claims themselves.
1. The application control service is incompetent and incorrectly interpreted the Freeje application as a program using VoIP technology.
The answer was practically given above - firstly, in the agreement with the developers there is not a word about VoIP-traffic, but there are stipulated conditions on VoIP-services, which the program Freeje certainly uses. This was written by site users:
VoIP services! = VoIP traffic. The fact that you exploit the cheapness of incoming calls and from yourself begin your VoIP is included in their definition of a VoIP service. And it is absolutely legitimate.
2. The discrepancy between the policy of monetary relations between the user and the developers of the Freeje team’s perception of it.
As I wrote above, the bada OS platform is aimed at the simplicity of its use by the end user, so the claims on this point are also not justified, especially since everything is spelled out very simply and directly in the agreement. The fact that in the correspondence this was not mentioned in the first letter can be explained at least by the banal unexpectedness of such a provision for the application control service - why are agreements written and why they cannot be read carefully, especially if the application is going to be used for earnings?
3. In the commitment of Samsung and the protection of the interests of "internal" operators.
Not true.
a) Samsung in working with mobile operators and their subscribers is trying to simultaneously simplify the work of the first (at the very beginning of the platform’s becoming) it was announced that payment for various services would be possible not only using a bank card, but also directly from the subscriber’s account ), and provide the user with the most optimal prices for certain services.
Check the prices for applications in SamsungApps - some of the excellent applications are either fully or partially sponsored by the company, with the result that the programs are either free or their cost does not exceed 50-100 rubles. If such prices are called the protection of the interests of “internal operators” - I honestly do not even know what to say about this;
b) the user is not deprived of VoIP traffic, despite all the assurances of us in this post, at the moment the company's developers are working with Skype , and perhaps quite soon their client will appear in version 1.2, and in version 2.0 it can be expected almost with 100% confidence. As you can see, the repetition of the story with Apple is not in sight, and the delay in the release of the client for Skype is more likely to have organizational reasons than those offered by conspiracy theorists.
4. Infringement of developers in comparison with other platforms and operating systems.
This is also wrong, the restriction is justified by the very essence of the platform, and at the same time we are manufacturers of devices for other platforms where you will not encounter such “infringements”, simply because Samsung has no need for this - we try to provide honest working conditions for mobile operators at the same time and fair conditions to their subscribers using our devices.
5. In the "lag" from other manufacturers of mobile devices and platforms.
As I wrote above, this cannot be called a lag. On the contrary, this is just another application market, with its pluses and minuses. Do not forget how meticulously and competently our services approach their work, and if you don’t believe us, you can talk to third-party developers - there are problems, of course, but if the agreement is not broken, then surely any of them will say that in the end the desired The result was achieved by both parties.
6. The inability to maintain the same policy in all areas of its activities, and control applications in Java.
The fact is that this is not required - control is carried out only for native applications that are an inseparable part of the platform. If the user is able to independently figure out where and where to get the application on java, then we have absolutely no complaints about him or the program developer. Is this not the best proof that all the cries about our corruption and work in favor of "PPSOS" are empty words?
Summary
Yes, we really do not allow developers using the bada OS platform to develop software using VoIP services. But this does not mean that we deny the right of users of our platform to use these services on their devices and by all means tries to cooperate with those who provide them according to generally accepted international standards - by Skype. And this is where our love for our customers is expressed. Also, nothing prevents the users of our mobile devices from using the Freeje application in its java-version.
Thanks to all.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/109442/
All Articles