Notices

Just a simple but working and customisable Twitter widget would be great. It's not something that'll make you rich, but I'd pay 99 cents or 1.49€ for it in Ovi Store.

Who let the troll out?

Because there are not many apps for N900 especially in Ovi store it will be easier for people to find your app and pay for it.
With Android store or iTunes store it's kinda hard to keep your app floating atop to be even recognized by people.
Angry Birds on N900 sold better than on iPhone e.g.
IMHO it's easier to make money on the N900 than on a platform with a hopelessly crowded and spammed app store.

The Apple and Android marketplace is simply 'MORE'.

- More developers
- More buyers
- More competitive

Due to the last part, lower quality (interpret this however you want to) apps have no fighting chance there... so in that sense, the Ovi store (for N900) is still an open field for new/smaller developers.

ps: pycage, Angry Birds have been #1 in Apple's AppStore for months, I think they've hit $10M already by now... and that's at $0.99 for the whole set (app + all level packs).

Nice suggestion. This is very doable. But on wikipedia I see that "tower defense" is a registered trade mark. Does this mean just the name? Or can I be sued for creating something with the equivalent game play?

I would suggest to just copy popular game mechanics from current mobile platforms (angry bird projectile types, tower defence, doodle jump, etc) but implement them with simplified (yet endearing) artwork.

Perhaps substitute the objects with ASCII characters... or geometric shapes, or whatever.
Something that resonate with 'this' crowd.

You mean QT based not Meego based. Building it in QT (ideally) means that it'll be compatible with Maemo, Symbian, and Meego.

A good strategy RPG would be nice.

As I understand Trademarks, you can't trademark a type of gameplay. Laws might be different in various places where Ovi Store and Nokia operate, or where you are. (Be advised, I am not a lawyer, and while I may be right, I cannot guarantee that this is the case, or that my knowledge covers any and all legal loopholes involved.)

Also, at least by US Trademark law (perhaps it's not codified, but there's court precedent for it), Tower Defense is hopelessly not-trademarkable. It's like the yo-yo or the frisbee. Both were trademarks. But because there is simply nothing similar enough to it for it to have an already existing 'generic' name, the trademarked name ended up devolving into the generic name. (like how people call tissues Kleenexes in the US [not sure about elsewhere], if the English language had no word for "tissue", whoever first released the version that became really popular would lose that trademark.)

Tower defense is perfectly usable as a phrase to describe type of game play, simply because it's so very specific of a game play type. Legalese would abound regarding the fact that you can argue that every video game has a generic name "video game" - but nevertheless, I think that can be reasonably well tackled by a sufficiently articulate lawyer if it comes to that - I doubt it would though: "Tower defense" is thrown around so much, I'm sure the original trademark holders just gave up by now.

Edit: I noticed that the trademark holder was succesfully awarded the trademark just recently, and has been enforcing it. This is, in my opinion, pure bs [must... not... rant... off-topic.... politics.... legal-system.... GrRAAAAHH!!!]. I would argue you should avoid using it as a NAME, as per first paragraph of my post; you may have some legal trouble (which if you're up for taking on, I think you would win in any reasonable court) if you use it in the description. Since a company holds it and was RECENTLY enforcing it, I would say it's not AS safe to use it as a description as I suggested it was in my above paragraph (though I think you could legally win that kind of battle, at least if you know your way around the legal system and have the endurance to work through it, or the finances to have a lawyer do it for you). But the gameplay style is certainly not trademarkable either way, and there's no way in hell you'd get in trouble for that.

We'll see. I can't put to much time into it either. You know what they say, KISS. (Keep it simple stupid). The primary goal is to just make something to patch my CV with, so it could be opensource as well. I wouldn't charge somebody for something I wouldn't by myself.

I'd pay for a Tasks app with recurring tasks and desktop widget.

If you want more complex, I'd also pay for something like SPB Diary for winmo.