Languages

Menu
Sites
Language
Native app validation rejected

I've got a Tizen 2.3 mobile native app that I've submitted to the Tizen Store and got rejected. I somehow expected this as a first time submittal, so no hard feelings :)) Problem is: the explanation lacks even the basic pointers to help a developer to fix the issues before resubmitting the app to the store. The validation report says  that there were 2 errors:

--- Error #1 ---

Defect ID = 2388775
Title = [Content] Invalid Configuration

Test Result:

[Defect]
Configuration file(config.xml or manifest.xml) is not valid. 

[Test Procedure]
Check if the config.xml or manifest.xml is valid. 

[Expected Result]
1.The config.xml file should be vaild in accordance with Tizen web application specification.
2.The manifest.xml file should be valid in accordance with Tizen native application specification.

That is very limited information, and nothing helpful at all. My manifest file looks like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<manifest xmlns="http://tizen.org/ns/packages" api-version="2.3" package="XXX.YYY.ZZZ" version="1.0.0">
    <author email="XXX@YYY.com" href="http://XXX.YYY">XXXX YYY</author>
    <description>XXXXX</description>
    <profile name="mobile"/>
    <ui-application appid="XXX.YYY.ZZZ" exec="XXX" multiple="false" nodisplay="false" taskmanage="true" type="capp">
        <label>XXX</label>
        <icon>XXX.png</icon>
    </ui-application>
    <privileges>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/packagemanager.info</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/systemsettings</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/network.get</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/camera</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/appmanager.launch</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/telephony</privilege>
    </privileges>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.all">true</feature>
</manifest>

I've replaced some info with XXX, YYY and ZZZ, but please note that they all contain valid information about the publisher of the app, so that shouldn't be a problem at all. I've done a bit of RTFM, and my only guess about the issue would be that the manifest only lists "screen.size.all" feature, but not the individual screen size features besides that one. Should I add all screen sizes as features? I would be a bit surpised if that was an issue, since I've tested the app with multiple emulator screen configurations, and also on the Z1 device, and never had a problem installing the app.  If that (screen size features list) is indeed the issue, then how come there is that HUGE inconsistency between what runs in both the emulator and an actual test device, but fails to run according to Tizen Store rules? Shouldn't then the emulator and the test device reject to install the package if the screen sizes are incorrectly featured in the manifest file?
 

--- Error #2 ---

 

Defect ID = 2388815
Title = [Installation Error] It's not able to install the application with 'Failed to install the app' POPUP. (3/3, 100%)

Test Result:

<Defect>
It's not able to install the application with 'Failed to install the app' POPUP. (3/3, 100%)
* Same as after 'Factory data reset'

<Procedure>
1. Download application
2. Check the POPUP

<Expected Results>
It should be able to install the application.

And there's a video attached to the report that clearly shows that the app fails to install. It asks for the necessary permissions, the user pushes the Accept button, and then it fails with the mentioned popup. Once again, this is a very odd issue, since I never experienced this issue when installing the app on the emulator and the Z1 device, although I relied on the SDK to deploy the app on the device. I of course tried to install the TPK package that I've submitted to the Tizen Store on the Z1, but it failed to install due to the permission setting bug in Tizen SDK 2.3.0_Rev2, as mentioned here:

https://developer.tizen.org/forums/native-application-development/failed-install-tpk-my-files

I've extracted the package and compressed it into a new ZIP archive, renamed it to .TPK, and it installed on the Z1 without any errors.  How to find out what the problem is, when the submitted package installs fine on my Z1, but fails to install on a Z1 in the Validation Center? :)  Or maybe the guys at the Validation Center are not aware of the permissions setting bug of the SDK?  Or maybe during the validation process there's no automatic process to change the file permissions of the files in the TPK package, before performing a test on a real device?

 

Thanks,
Tamas

Edited by: Tamas Miklos on 22 Jun, 2015

Responses

33 Replies
Tamas Miklos

Update: I've done a factory reset on the Z1, and after then it failed to install the previously working TPK package.  That's the TPK that I've extracted and then compressed again to get around the file permissions issue. I've tried to enable developer mode and USB debugging, but it didn't help.  Then I've done a right-click in the list of devices in the SDK --> Permit to install applications, and it fixed it up, the TPK installs fine now again. Does it mean that my TPK lacks a developer certificate file or information? Or does it only mean that on a regular device (without "Permit to install applications") noone can install any side-loaded TPK packages?

Is there a sample TPK file with a sample Tizen 2.3  native mobile app in it that one can download and analyze to see if it has the same file structure as an app under development, and got similar information in the manifest file? It would be a huge help IMHO to diagnose such issues that I'm facing.

Thank you again for your time.

 

daniel kim

Hi,

Regarding your error #2 I would suggest to submit TPK which is created by 'Bulid Pacakge' menu of IDE into App Store as I didn't expereince such thing with this way.

Regards

 

Tamas Miklos

Yes, I've done that. I've submitted the package that was generated by the Tizen SDK IDE 2.3.0 Rev2, under Build Package --> TPK, without altering it in any ways.  What I'm doing now is desperately trying to replicate the issue of #2. And I'm not sure whether the issue may be related to the bug of SDK 2.3.0 Rev2, ie. the setting of wrong file permissions in the generated TPK.  I would assume the validation process would fix such issues by automatically modifying the TPK, but I'm not sure if that happens or not.  I've checked the logs that was sent by the Validation Team concerning issue #2 in the validation report, but I'm not sure how could these messages come up about a TPK that was generated by the IDE:

... (the forum engine doesn't seem to accept the quote from the logs, I'll try it in a separate message)

Note that I've replaced the package name with XXX.YYY.ZZZ.

 

daniel kim

Hi,

For error #1..    as I remembered, I saw a warning pop-up during submitting tpk with this feature only into App Store.

     <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.all">

Therefore, I configured the screen size for Samsung Z1 something like this.

   <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.720.1280"/>

Regards.

Tamas Miklos

I haven't got a warning message in the Tizen Store about using screen.size.all.  I assumed by having that my app would be compatible with all screen sizes.  But maybe I have to add that one, and also every other screen size features, including all resolutions currently defined. If that's the trick about issue #1, then I suppose either the Tizen SDK IDE has to be improved to warn users about such issues.  The SDK already warns when no screen feature is defined at all, so it wouldn't be too difficult to warn when only screen.size.all is defined, but no individual resolutions.  And BTW, the validation process should also be improved to specifically indicate the problem in the manifest file, rather than just throwing a generic error message about "Configuration file(config.xml or manifest.xml) is not valid."  If the Tizen ecosystem wants to grow significantly, it shouldn't make lives of developers even harder than it already is.  I had to port quite a bit of Java code from Android to Tizen native C code, tested my app with multiple emulators, bought a real device and tested with it too.  After doing all that I would expect a smoother process to publish the app that I've developed. I don't mind being rejected in any stores, but I would need more specific error messages to let me fix the errors. If I have no idea where the error could be, it's very hard to fix it up, even though I am fully dedicated to pushing the app to the Tizen Store. Rant over, I apologize :)

Tamas Miklos

Here are the log entries concerning my app:

06-19 12:41:37.534+0900  3640  3640 E PKGMGR_SERVER: pkgmgr-server.c: __get_type_from_msg(289) > [0;31m[__get_type_from_msg(): 289](pkgtype == NULL) pkgtype is null for /opt/usr/apps/org.tizen.tizenstore/data/app/XXX.YYY.ZZZ.tpk

06-19 12:41:37.854+0900  3641  3641 E Tizen::App: (861) > invalid extension! - packagePath = [/opt/usr/apps/org.tizen.tizenstore/data/app/XXX.YYY.ZZZ.tpk], extension = [tpk]
06-19 12:41:37.874+0900  3641  3641 E Tizen::App: (336) > packageId is empty

[DrmSdcSvc.cpp:DrmSdcGetFileHeader:72]:[DRM-ERROR-SAPPS]DrmSdcGetFileHeader Error : SADC_GetDRMHeaderFromFile (/opt/usr/apps/org.tizen.tizenstore/data/app/XXX.YYY.ZZZ.tpk)

Marco Buettner

dont use "." in your filename ... better call it XXXYYYZZZ.tpk

Tamas Miklos

I don't use dots specifically in the filename. The filename was generated by the Tizen SDK IDE.  My app's appid has got dots in it, but Tizen SDK IDE never warned me about that being an issue. Is it an actual issue that could cause a validation rejection? It would be odd, since even if I use let's say simply XXX as appid, the generated TPK filename would be defined by Tizen SDK IDE as:

XXX-1.0.0-arm.tpk

So it would still have dots in it, due to the version number.

Robert

Hello!

I have similar problem with my app. I can't realize what is the problem with the tizen-manifest.xml

I'm working on an OpenGL game for Z1 and above.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<manifest xmlns="tizen.org/ns/packages" api-version="2.3" package="org.tizen.lightfield2" version="1.0.0">
    <author email="info at 4dillusions.hu" href="4dillusions.hu">Robert Oze</author>
    <profile name="mobile"/>
    <ui-application appid="org.tizen.lightfield2" exec="lightfield2" multiple="false" nodisplay="false" taskmanage="true" type="capp">
        <label>lightfield2</label>
        <icon>lightfield2.png</icon>
    </ui-application>
    <privileges>
        <privilege>tizen.org/privilege/systemsettings</privilege>
    </privileges>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.600.1024">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/platform.core.cpu.arch.armv7">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.480.800">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.720.1280">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/graphics.acceleration">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/opengles.version.1_1">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.540.960">true</feature>
    <feature name="tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.1080.1920">true</feature>
</manifest>

Any idea or something else?

Tamas Miklos

As you can tell from my threads on this forum, I'm no real expert in Tizen matters, not to mention my struggle with the app submittal/validation process :) In your manifest file however, I've noticed a single issue that may cause a refusal during validation. Are you sure it's allowed to use the "org.tizen." string in your appid, or tizen in any forms in the appid? If you use a domain like that, it should be more like "com.yourcompanyname.yourappname". I use the same format for my app, although I'm not entirely sure if it's right or valid.  But I don't think using "com.tizen." is appropriate, unless you work as a Tizen employee :)

daniel kim

Hi,

I've looked at your tizen-manifest.xml. but can't find any other clue.

Could you post the description of your issue which was from AppStore here?

Regards.

Robert

I was a Bada developer and I was suprized this interesting problem what you wrote. I just made a game application (like Basic UI application) and implement C++ game engine. I will try upoad .tpk with your suggestions, but the bug report is not helpful. No exception or whatever. (köszi!)

Tamas Miklos

I've updated the manifest file and submitted the app again. I've indicated in the validation comment field that I've fixed issue #1, but I have no idea about where to got about issue #2. I've mentioned the file permissions bug of Tizen SDK 2.3.0 Rev2, and asked for help.  I've got the rejection today, again, with the same 2 errors, and got no help or response to my comment.  It's quite disappointing, but I suppose now I have to contact Tech Support directly to find out more about this.

My updated and submitted manifest file looked like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<manifest xmlns="http://tizen.org/ns/packages" api-version="2.3" package="XXX.YYY.ZZZ" version="1.0.1">
    <author email="XXX@YYY.com" href="http://XXX.YYY">XXX YYY</author>
    <description>XXX</description>
    <profile name="mobile"/>
    <ui-application appid="XXX.YYY.ZZZ" exec="XxX" multiple="false" nodisplay="false" taskmanage="true" type="capp">
        <label>XXX</label>
        <icon>XXX.png</icon>
    </ui-application>
    <privileges>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/packagemanager.info</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/systemsettings</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/camera</privilege>
        <privilege>http://tizen.org/privilege/appmanager.launch</privilege>
    </privileges>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.600.1024">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.480.800">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.240.400">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.540.960">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.360.480">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.320.480">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.320.320">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.1080.1920">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.all">true</feature>
    <feature name="http://tizen.org/feature/screen.size.normal.720.1280">true</feature>
</manifest>

The changes were basically that I've removed 2 non-utilized privileges, and I've added the individual screen size features.  It seems it's still not a proper manifest, but since the validation team didn't specify the actual error, I'm stuck now.  I can only hope this whole headache is not caused by the file permissions issue of Tizen SDK 2.3.0 Rev2...

 

Tamas Miklos

Tech Support already responded to my inquiry.  Very fast reply, but now I'm in an infinite loop, since they said:

"Regarding your inquiry, we are sorry to inform you that we are unable to provide you with enough technical related information since we support Tizen Store Seller Office issues only. If you need technical assistance, please check out relevant information at Tizen Developers site (https://developer.tizen.org/) where you can find application development guides and solutions to the related problems. We also recommend you to submit an inquiry with the following steps at Tizen developer site, where you will find useful answers and further technical-related assistance: Tizen Developers > Forums > Click the relevant subject > Click [New topic]."

Where to go from here?  Who can I contact to get more information about the validation rejection?

 

Robert

Did you rename your binary xxx.yyy.zzz-1.0.0-i386.tpk to aaa.tpk?

look at this tutorial: youtube.com/watch?v=cQW4WkzqfZg

However the app was renamed to Sample.tpk, but the package id name is org.sampleUpload.tizennative. Unfortunately this video didn't show the tizen-manifest.xml and correct validation.

I also uploaded my app yesterday, but they didn't reject yet. That was my 4th attempt. The tester can see what name is tpk and other settings. I can't realize why can't tester write some informations if he/she see something wrong.

Tamas Miklos

No, I don't think renaming the file would help.  The submittal form accepts the file and correctly decodes the TPK, so it should have no problems. I use the ARMv7 platform though, not i386. Are you trying to perform the app submit using Tizen SDK IDE 2.3.0 Rev2?  I'm now considering setting up a separate development environment, using Tizen SDK IDE 2.3.0 Rev1 and trying to do the submit using a TPK generated under that environment.  But that would be my last idea, and it's not even a great idea IMHO :(

Robert

Yes you right. I rebuild the application and libraries with armv7 compiler settings. 4 testers can't see that, 4 testers can't write me: "Hey man your binary is wrong!" or something else. I uploaded my tpk as armv7 binary and I renamed it to aaa.tpk. What's next? I also don't know what is their problem. (Bada was much easier.)

Robert

I'm using Tizen SDK 2.3.0_Rev2, build id: 20150121-1703.

Tamas Miklos

I think the best solution would be to make sure the SDK IDE compiles both ARMv7 and x86 binaries, and include them both in the same TPK.  That would be a future-proof solution that soon Tizen SDK developers will have to think about. It would be an even more elegant solution than how Android NDK works.

BTW, now that the ARMv7 vs i386 issue came up, I'm wondering whether it is necessary or advised to use the feature called "tizen.org/feature/platform.core.cpu.arch.armv7".  The online doc says: "Specify this key, if the application requires the ARMv7 CPU architecture. The key is automatically added by the Tizen IDE during application compilation", but I cannot see the key automatically added to my manifest file in the compiled TPK package. That could be one reason that could trigger a validation rejection, although it's one more odd thing about the SDK IDE.  It should warn us about such issues, and/or the online TPK uploading process should warn us about it being a potential issue.  That is why it would be very useful to lay our hands on an actual sample Tizen 2.3 native mobile TPK package that has been submitted to the Tizen Store and got accepted + published.  It may contain such tricks that we are not aware of, such tricks that Tizen SDK developers forgot to documentate and handle in the SDK IDE.

Since you use 2.3.0 Rev2 like me, that alone may explain why we both suffer from the same 2 issues while validation. I'll set up the 2.3.0 Rev1 development environemtn in a virtual machine and try to generate a TPK in there.  If that TPK gets accepted in the validation, we can at least put the blame on 2.3.0 Rev2.

Robert

"BTW, now that the ARMv7 vs i386 issue came up, I'm wondering whether it is necessary or advised to use the feature called "tizen.org/feature/platform.core.cpu.arch.armv7".  "

Yes, you have to put this into config file too. Look at this my old Bada config what was good for validation:

<?xml version='1.0' ?>
<Manifest>
    <Id>00a753lz42</Id>
    <Secret>CEBD05262CEA04A0A943017B5A445E99</Secret>
  <AppVersion>1.0.0</AppVersion>
  <ManifestVersion>1.1</ManifestVersion>
    <Privileges>
        <Privilege>
            <Name>IMAGE</Name>
        </Privilege>
        <Privilege>
            <Name>SYSTEM_SERVICE</Name>
        </Privilege>
    </Privileges>
    <DeviceProfile>
        <APIVersion>1.0</APIVersion>
        <CPU>Cortex8</CPU>
        <Accelerator3D>OpenGL-ES1.1</Accelerator3D>
        <Accelerator3D>OpenGL-ES2.0</Accelerator3D>
        <ScreenSize>480x800</ScreenSize>
        <Connectivity>Bluetooth</Connectivity>
        <Connectivity>Wi-Fi</Connectivity>
        <Sensor>GPS</Sensor>
        <Sensor>Wi-Fi_and_cell-based_positioning</Sensor>
        <Sensor>Magnetic</Sensor>
        <Sensor>Proximity</Sensor>
        <Sensor>Accelerometer</Sensor>
        <Sensor>Tilt</Sensor>
        <UserInteraction>Vibration-effects</UserInteraction>
    </DeviceProfile>
</Manifest>

However that was generated automatically I didn't put any settings manually (except IMAGE privilege), just create an OpenGL application, compile it and upload to the store. :) It was work on emulator and real device too.

Tizen is more difficult for me. :(

Tamas Miklos

Thank you, I've added armv7 to the features list, compiled the TPK via 2.3.0 Rev2 (I gave it a last chance), renamed the produced TPK package to simply XXXX.tpk, and submitted. I've also expressed my frustration (in a restrained and diplomatic way of course) in the validation comments, but I'm not sure if anyone reads those comments anyway :(  Fingers crossed. If it works out, then IMHO it would be imperative to compile a how-to guide to new Tizen developers, since getting through all those pitfalls could quickly repell otherwise excited developers.

Robert

Unfortunately we can't get Z1 device in Hungary and test tpk on real device. RTL is also doesn't work. It is not an easy situation for developing.

Tamas Miklos

I may be able to help you about that issue. Contact me in email at uusi KUKAC freemail.hu  ;)

daniel kim

Hi Tamas,

You seems that you're building your code on the ubuntu system now. and the permission of resource can cause this kind of problem if its permission is read-only.

I would recommend you to change the permission of resouce file(/uib/res) to 999 manually by chmod on console and try to publish it again.

Regards.

Tamas Miklos

Thank you, but I'm not sure what you mean. My development environment is Windows 7 64-bit SP1. My app only uses one file in the shared\res folder, and it's the main app icon.

Tamas Miklos

"Of course" adding the armv7 feature to the manifest file didn't help: my app was rejected the 3rd time too, with the same 2 errors than with the previous submit attempts. I'm trying to install Tizen SDK 2.3.0 Rev1, but "of course" it doesn't seem to work properly as well:

https://developer.tizen.org/forums/sdk-ide/tizen-sdk-re-install-signing-failed-when-trying-build-tpk

Maybe I should just give up? :)

daniel kim

Hi Tamas,

Your application was accepted in AppStore?

Regards.

Tamas Miklos

No, I've just received the 4th rejection from the Validation Team, and this time it is a really unfriendly and unprofessional kind of rejection.  Here's the thing: what I've done is simply dropped using Tizen SDK 2.3.0 Rev2, and installed Tizen SDK 2.3.0 Rev1 from scratch.  I've compiled the TPK package using 2.3.0 Rev1 and submitted.  This time the original 2 error messages are no longer a problem, so we can draw a pretty nice conclusion: Tizen SDK 2.3.0 Rev2 is not suitable to compiling a TPK package, since the resulting TPK package will never be accepted by the Validation Team.  IMHO it is very sad that Samsung never tried to go through that process to validate their own software package to providing the expected functionality.  I've spent several hours on trying to solve this issue, and during the process I've received absolutely no help from the Validation Team or Samsung.  From a big and respected company like Samsung I would have expected a whole lot more than this. But, the response for my 4th validation attempt can top this!  Here's what it says:

Defect ID = 2389261
Title = Application Usability

Test Result:

[Defect]
Application does not provide valuable, entertaining, unique and/or informative uses.

Now, the app in question is a virtually 100% porting of an existing Android app that I've personally developed from scratch.  It provides almost the similar layout, almost the same content (but relevant to Tizen, since this is a system utility).  The Android app is out since January, but was only publicly unveiled in March. It has been downloaded over 184000 times, and almost half of those folks still has the app installed.  The users community is growing by roughly 1000 per day.  The app has received an average rating of 4.65 from 5600 users.  The app has never been rejected by Google, and the general consensus is that it's a good and useful app.   Now, I've ported the app to Tizen, keeping the same features set, but tailored it to Tizen.  It has the standard Tizen look'n'feel and navigation pattern, and it looks and works great on the only Tizen device out there, the Z1.  How come 184000 Android users and Google find my app useful and good, but Samsung says "meh" ?  And even if they don't find my app useful (which IMHO is just bulls*), is the Tizen app ecosystem so huge with millions of apps in the Store that Samsung can simply afford to alienate a developer who spent many hours not only to develop an app, but also to desperately try to submit it into the Store?

I'm just pissed now, I'm sorry. I've never got such feedbacks for the software I've developed through the years.  I've been developing software for various platforms for over 26 years now, gone through BASIC, x86 assembly, Pascal, Delphi, C/C++, Java, C#, and never had such experiences, ever.  What Samsung does is simply unacceptable.  I'm on the verge of pressing a big DEL key on my Tizen project folder and forget that Tizen or Samsung ever existed.

 

 

Marco Buettner

I understand your emotion... The defect of unqiue and so on is in my opinion - on the start of new OS the biggest bullshit.

One of my apps was rejected also has "not valuable, entertaining, unqiue or informative"... But on the next submit it was =) Sometimes the  validation team fails so often. imo the validation was on the start of the seller office more qualitative... Now it feels like the whole bada validation team has switch to tizen and you have the same noob tester like before.

daniel kim

Hi Tamas,

Could you let me know the name of you android application? I wonder how these things occurred.

Regards

Tamas Miklos

Thank you for looking into my issue.  I suppose it was you who notified the Tizen Validation Team about this issue, since just now I've got a message from them:

"Dear valued seller, First of all, thank you for being with Tizen Store. This is to inform you that the status of application is changed to for sale. We found out your comment on the latest validation report to you. After investigating more details, our finding is that our reviewer made mistake to check your application's usability. We apologize for any inconvenice this may cause and we will support you for your timely business again. Sincerely, Validation Team, Tizen Store"

And the app is already published in the Store :)  Its name is AIDA64.  The Android version, iOS version and Windows Phone 8.1 version shares the same app name, so if you want, you can check them out their respective stores.

Is it possible to get a direct URL for the app in the Tizen Store to place the link to a web page?  Just how you can link to App Store and Play Store apps directly?  Or the Tizen Store is only available for browsing on a Tizen based device?

daniel kim

Hi Tamas,

Sound great!  but I guess that one of Samsung engineer have looked at your comment here.

As far as I know, there is no way to make a direct URL for the app in the Tizen store to web page. because we can't browse any application of Tizen App Store in the web site. So far, Tizen store is available in Tizen device only.

Regards.

 

Tamas Miklos

Thank you for the info. I hope that policy will change soon, and we will also have some fancy badges like "Available in the Tizen Store" :)