• Replies 25 replies
  • Subscribers 23 subscribers
  • Views 2322 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Garmin CIQ Monetization

jim_m_58
3 months ago

This is new!

developer.garmin.com/.../

  • 3 months ago

    It seems like some have had early access to it, because I see some third-party apps that are already for sale with the new system.

    It's a bit of a shame that old apps/watchfaces can't easily be turned into a paid app with the new system at a later date as a large number of old devices are not supported.

    "Enduro 3" is also interesting among the supported devices.

    Well, let's see how that pans out. I still have too many unanswered questions, but I'm sure that will be clarified over the next few months.

  • 3 months ago

    , I am unable to complete the registration - it says my address is invalid. Yet, you had no problem charging me the enrolment fee using the very same address (which is 100% valid of course). Where do I go for support or refund of the fee? Your documentation doesn't mention support for some reason... 

  • 3 months ago in reply to TitanicTurtle
    TitanicTurtle said:
    "Enduro 3" is also interesting among the supported devices.

    Yeah I wonder if they dun goofed or if this was an intentional "mistake". But none of the usual "leaker sites" have noticed (not that I expect any of them to hang out here tbh.) I'm leaning towards a legit mistake tbh. We'll see if it gets edited at some point.

    It's interesting, yet entirely expected, that Garmin limits supported devices for monetization to those that are currently "supported" by Garmin (i.e. receiving regular firmware updates, not discontinued in on the Garmin website or placed in the "previous products" section.)

    It's also notable that the list of supported devices is followed by "this list is subject to change". While you could just say they're covering the bases especially bc money is involved, I wouldn't be surprised if older devices fall off that list as time passes.

    I bet 1-2 years from now, you won't be able to sell a new app for 255/955 using the Garmin monetization system. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong tho.) Eventually, there just might not be any MIP devices on that list - depends on the future of Enduro and the Fenix lines (yeah I'm aware of the Fenix rumours, but what isn't clear is whether Fenix will have any MIP variants in the long term.) In 5 years or less, Garmin will probably just delete the "1 Hz" watchface documentation from their dev site.

    This seems like it could be an interesting way for Garmin to nudge all those users hanging on to their 235 or 920XT into getting a new device. If you want the kind of polished app from a big corporation (like GoPro) that users have been asking for over the last 9 years, you'll just have to buy a new watch. Maybe this will capture some users who weren't convinced by AMOLED.

    Tbf it also makes things a lot easier for devs who want to sell a polished paid app. They don't even have to consider supporting legacy devices for a second.

  • 3 months ago

    My thoughs on this are following:

    • 100 USD per year is a lot if compared to other companies (google and apple both only want a one time payment of, I think, 20€ and 100€)
    • garmin does make it's money with the 15% share (same as google and apple) - that's fine, that's the standard anyways...
    • if I can't support ALL devices that I do already support usage of the monetization system is very limited, not to say unpractical

    I don't get the reason behind not supporting all devices - why is the system so limited?

  • 3 months ago in reply to Michael
    Michael said:
    I don't get the reason behind not supporting all devices - why is the system so limited?

    As I implied above, I think they want to use this as a carrot to encourage users to buy new devices. The #1 complaint (outside of these forums) that I've seen about CIQ since it started is that there were no slick apps from big corporations. (Yes, this was before Spotify, and that's still the exception to the rule, regardless.)

    Well now users can have their slick apps from big corporations, but they have to buy a new watch first.

    It probably doesn't hurt that newer watches have a GPU and therefore support certain graphics operations (antialiasing, alpha blending, rotation, etc.) that older watches don't, which would allow devs to create nicer UIs.

    Newer watches also got rid of certain UI / CIQ app paradigms - e.g. really old watches have full screen widgets and not glances, old watches have either glances or full screen widgets (based on user config), and newer watches only have glances. Furthermore, newer watches allow a CIQ single device app to support a glance view *and* be launched from the activity/app list (they don't even truly have the concept of a CIQ widget anymore.) By excluding older watches from monetization, they ensure that new apps (with monetization) only run on devices with the new paradigms. (Garmin has already deleted certain dev documentation relating to the transition between the old paradigm and the new paradigm - specifically the docs on "super apps", which are the merging of device apps and widgets as described above.)

    I think they're also maybe taking this opportunity to (further) sunset older devices, by not supporting them for this exciting new initiative.

    Michael said:
    100 USD per year is a lot if compared to other companies (google and apple both only want a one time payment of, I think, 20€ and 100€)

    Yeah it's also pretty bold when you compare the state of the devices, developer tools, documentation, app store and overall ecosystem between Garmin vs Google/Apple.

    Then again, some Garmin watches are pretty expensive compared to Apple Watch and Samsung wearables, too. (Yeah I'm not doing a rigorous comparison here, just going by vibes)

    But maybe the same argument can be used in both cases: sometimes things that are more niche are necessarily more expensive, to make up for weaker demand. idk, I'm not a business expert

  • 3 months ago in reply to Michael

    Google has small payment, but it's not a Merchant of Service (reseller).

    Apple wants 100$ for developer account each year, but they are MOS (it's better for indie developer).

  • 3 months ago in reply to Dr House
    Dr House said:
    100$ for developer account each year

    My fault, I did remember this wrong... In this case only google is cheaper.

  • 3 months ago

    Where do I get the support for registration? I paid, but unable to to register:

    MobileDriveway said:
    I am unable to complete the registration - it says my address is invalid. Yet, you had no problem charging me the enrolment fee using the very same address (which is 100% valid of course). Where do I go for support or refund of the fee? Your documentation doesn't mention support for some reason...