As the once #3 developer of iGoogle gadgets (before igoogle had a problem with their system deleting gadgets, i had 200+), I'm still recommending to my clients to stay away from this platform unless they have a specific need for iGoogle or the cost of development is "trivial."
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Gadgets-API/browse_thread/thread/19571c8faadb780e/6778f5c818a64286?lnk=gst&q=javalizard#6778f5c818a64286 Not a single issue I mentioned has been officially addressed with the community at large. I even laid out a very specific, very reasonable, and very executable plan to rebuild developer confidence. Until they prove otherwise, my business is staying away from the platform due to the massive business risk it possesses, lagging API, and weak toolkit. There are some positive changes in iGoogle but it's too little, too late. I'm still up in the air as far as upgrading our gadgets to the 2.0 API. Given that it doesn't do anything amazingly new to capitalize upon, the upgrade wouldn't serve much purpose but to keep non-$-performing gadgets functioning for the user base. Your gadgets may be worth upgrading but that's up to you. And congrats to all the developers that came late to the game as your gadgets will continue to work and have less competition. And the rest of you: Evolve or die. If there isn't good tool yet for upgrading gadgets, we might write one. If we do, we will expose that functionality either through a website or open source. Open Social? Facebook beats the pants off of it in functionality, user base, development cost for complex apps/gadgets (unless you know the tricks), directory searching, sociability, marketing & advertising restrictions, cross marketing opportunities (and up and down), and the list goes on. Google's focus on just the technology which was then, essentially, abandoned, is its downfall. Customer Rel... ahem, Developer Relations is nice, but there is still much amiss. Brad Anderson President & Lead Software Architect, Go Global Gadget LLC PS. I wish I _could_ recommend the iGoogle platform. Lastly, I'm not saying you can't be successful using it. It's extremely rare but possible. I hang around here mainly because I want to remind iGoogle that it's not just the technology that makes the platform. On Apr 20, 5:13 am, Roy <[email protected]> wrote: > We are considering a major software development project which will > result in a number of public gadgets. However we are concerned by the > lack of support from Google for such development. > > Specifically:- > > - requests for support such as removal from the directory seem go > unheeded > - development (we prefer to use GWT) seems problematic beyond a simple > "hello gadget" > > Do any gadget developers, or even Googlers lurking in this group, have > a view? > > kind regards > Roy > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "iGoogle Developer Forum" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/Google-Gadgets-API?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iGoogle Developer Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Gadgets-API?hl=en.
