This could be an emotive subject so please be kind all round.
We’re all playing CIQ-CEO at the moment so here’s another take.
The ecosystem is struggling with app duplication (volume & quality), poor CIQ store UX, lack of resources, slow development pace and lack of meaningful engagement and communication (community) between Garmin and developers.
It is reminiscent of the early days of the iOS/Android app store races to 1 million apps*… stores allowing anything in (thousands of replicated simple solutions, before AI could duplicate faster) resulting in real junk, diminishing the value and user experience. Things there changed; we can learn from this recent history.
* Android narrowly “won” in July 2013, a couple of months ahead of Apple.
Apple Introduced a Fee, Android Always Had One
The Android store has a $25 fee to join. Apple is $99 per annum. Autodesk marketplace is over $1000 per annum.
These fees maybe go into corporate profits, but there is no doubt these (much larger) ecosystems are well managed and supported.
For me, I think one of the most frustrating thing about CIQ is the radio-silence from Garmin on any mediums. Because these is no transactional agreement in place. This forum is a peer-peer network hosted by G and if you want info on a bug or replication issue on another device it’s really just a place to shout into the void… for CIQ to grow and be a benefit to Garmin and developers something has to change, surely?
If there was a fee, ringfenced for resources to support developer communications, allowing meaningful replies to a limited number of public or private queries would this be attractive? Are the numbers of developers just too small (if so, why is it so hard for big-G to reply?).
If a fee was $2 (even $10?) per app/watchface would that still allow those with a passion to create personal projects continue (because it’s not a financial barrier to entry), but prevent spamming AI auto-generation and duplication; encouraging fewer and better solutions even for those mass producing submissions if end-user sales are their target.
There are many other approaches to reducing app volume (and potentially raising quality by virtue of that) but without an approach that improves communication and relationship engagement how will quality – and hence the whole survival and flourishing of the CIQ system – really improve?
The Purge
The second thing the stores did was “The Purge” – quoting from an AI summary “both stores swelled past 2 million to 3 million+ apps before undergoing massive "clean-ups" or "extinction events" around the 2020s, where Google and Apple removed millions of abandoned, outdated, or non-compliant apps to improve security and user experience”
This obviously needs to happen at some point with older CIQ/SDK app versions – they could simply be de-listed from the store search. But that doesn’t help with more current “AI Slop” unless there is a new developer agreement in relation to compliance rules (e.g. de-duplication discussed elsewhere). At the moment some apps, including for example Garmin’s own “Find My Car” have not been updated for 3 years and so, despite over half-a-million downloads gets a 2.5* rating. Is this good for anyone? With apps being able to opt-in to the “auto-republish for new devices” will there always be a long tail of unsupported applications?
This obviously needs new policy and months or years of warnings to users so won’t happen quicky.
Close
CIQ is not why people buy Garmin; but a key app or widget might be the reason they don’t switch to Coros/ Suunto/ Apple / etc so it should have real recognised value.