or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google engineers talk fragmentation, how to make Android work for emerging markets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google engineers talk fragmentation, how to make Android work for emerging markets - Page 4

post #121 of 178

wow, first time I've looked at an article about android on a apple site, but I must say I'm disappointed. I haven't seen a comment thread filled with such bile for ages

 

But I thought I might clear a few things up. The vast majority of apps are compatible back to 2.3, there is a support library for developers that includes things like fragments that have been introduced in newer versions of android. Google services are separated from the OS and bundled into the google play services and updates are pushed out without the user even knowing. Sharing info between apps is very easy, the sending app asks the OS for something that can, for example, play a video, all apps that say they can are presented in a list for the user to select(defaults can also be set) as far as I know iOS has nothing as flexible as that. 

 

Quote:

EricTheHalfBee-

 

iOS has always been a fully pre-emptive, multitasking, multi-threaded OS. Apple made a "choice" to not allow third party Apps to run in the background. They then did a very smart thing in 4.0 and added "services" where you could have a portion of your App run in the background for tasks that actually NEED multitasking (phone calls, e-mail, notifications, location, audio and so on).

 

Apple could allow third party Apps to multitask tomorrow by "flipping a switch" in their OS. There's nothing missing or faulty with the core architecture of iOS that prevents multitasking, as many Android fanboys constantly try to insinuate.

 

In fact, Android doesn't do "true multitasking" (a term they coined since I never heard of "true multitasking" until a fanboy mentioned it). Android, like iOS, does not have virtual memory or a swap file and will force close Apps when resources run low. No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". Apps can be suspended or swapped out to virtual memory, but they shouldn't be closed outright. Android does this. So does iOS. They both remember the "state" the App was in so it can be "restarted" in such a way to make the user think the App was always running when in fact it wasn't.

 

 

Pre-emptive multitasking multithreaded magic machine??That does sound awesome. But your basicly right about how they handle multitasking. And no apps run in the background on iOS except for a few very clearly defined API's like playing audio, but on android apps don't have to explain why that want to continue processing in the background, for example I use a upnp controller app to send audio or video from my media server to my tv and it can maintain the connection to both and continue through the playlist even if I'm using another app, I don't think such a thing is alowed on iOS, can the system be abused? sure, but if an app does that its easy to know because the battery usage of every app is listed.

And task managers are stupid, most of the apps they list are stopped and harmless, or pre-emptively cached, android trys to have about 80% of RAM filled at all time, any RAM that isn't in use is used to cache frequently used apps. Use a task manager to kill a cached app? android sees free space and fills it, so you would end up using more power not less

iOS is nice, but smartphones are computers, and having so many limitations just makes it so much less useful to me. And I seriously HATE iTunes, needing to sync to that piece of crap to copy anything to my phone will never be acceptable.

post #122 of 178

wait one more year android users know the difference between apple and android . most of the android users are start up age .

post #123 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

blah, blah, blah... My mistake was assuming you had any interest in knowing the difference... blah blah blah

 

No.

 

For that there is Bing.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #124 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Ok ok I got that point several posts ago. No need to keep hammering it in.

 

Sorry, just that some are quicker than others who need a reminder of the context of what they are replying too.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #125 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm pretty darn sure that Eric said Android won't multi-task according to the definition he offered. Read it again.

 

I'm pretty damn sure I didn't.

 

What I did say is that iOS and Android are very similar - so similar it would make many Android fanboys upset to realize it. Android is also fully pre-emptive multi-threaded and multitasking just like iOS.

 

The ONLY difference is what PERMISSIONS they allow third party Apps. Android allows them to run while iOS doesn't. It's a design CHOICE made by each side and not a function of the architecture of the kernel.

 

As to the "definition" of what true multitasking is, it can't really be defined since it's a made up term. But Android fanboys love it since they think they can point out something Android does that iOS doesn't, which I pointed out was false in my original post. Just like how the Android fanboys love to use the term "open source" without having a clue what it really means. Which is ironic since these same fanboys are always chirping about how Android users are more tech-savvy than iOS users.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #126 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

In fact, Android doesn't do "true multitasking" (a term they coined since I never heard of "true multitasking" until a fanboy mentioned it).

 

That would have been a Nokia fanboy, back when Symbian was as dominant as Android is now, before iOS and Android ate their lunch.

 

I think most of them now support Samsung.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #127 of 178

I think a few haters need to do a Youtube search for "Audiobus" and look at all the demos and then come back and say iOS can't multitask.

 

When they see an iPad multitask 3-4 audio Apps and see sounds being played (input source), manipulated (effects processing) and recorded (to a multitrack DAW) in real-time their heads might explode. Android can't even run a single audio App without running into lag issues.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #128 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

I'm pretty damn sure I didn't.

 

What I did say is that iOS and Android are very similar - so similar it would make many Android fanboys upset to realize it. Android is also fully pre-emptive multi-threaded and multitasking just like iOS.

 

The ONLY difference is what PERMISSIONS they allow third party Apps. Android allows them to run while iOS doesn't. It's a design CHOICE made by each side and not a function of the architecture of the kernel.

 

As to the "definition" of what true multitasking is, it can't really be defined since it's a made up term. But Android fanboys love it since they think they can point out something Android does that iOS doesn't, which I pointed out was false in my original post. Just like how the Android fanboys love to use the term "open source" without having a clue what it really means. Which is ironic since these same fanboys are always chirping about how Android users are more tech-savvy than iOS users.

Eric, I went back are re-read what you originally wrote. In hindsight I read it a bit too strictly instead of seeing the idea you were trying to convey. My apologies. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #129 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapbeerbaron View Post

wow, first time I've looked at an article about android on a apple site, but I must say I'm disappointed. I haven't seen a comment thread filled with such bile for ages

 

And no apps run in the background on iOS except for a few very clearly defined API's like playing audio,

 

Take your own advice.

 

Apple Apps will run in the background and multitask. API's are for third party Apps, not Apple's own Apps in the OS itself. You shouldn't call others stupid and then post something incorrect yourself.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #130 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Never heard that one before. Where did you find that? If there's some at least semi-official definition somewhere it would put to rest all the silly arguments about whose mobile OS really multitasks.

 

FWIW I don't see why it's important to know anyway, nor what's lost or gained by the different uses, but for you and a couple of others it seems to be an important distinction.

 

2007 N95 discussion "true multitasking"

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #131 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

2007 N95 discussion "true multitasking"

Here are a couple gems

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #132 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". ...

 

I appreciate the clarification of terms but the above bit is just nonsense.  Everything else seems logical and sensible, but this statement just reeks of "made it up for this post"-ness.  

 

By this definition neither Windows nor Mac OS X are "multitasking."  I can't even think of an OS that would qualify as multi-tasking at all based on this stipulation.  Unix would also be a "non multi-tasking" OS by this definition.  

post #133 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I appreciate the clarification of terms but the above bit is just nonsense.  Everything else seems logical and sensible, but this statement just reeks of "made it up for this post"-ness.  

By this definition neither Windows nor Mac OS X are "multitasking."  I can't even think of an OS that would qualify as multi-tasking at all based on this stipulation.  Unix would also be a "non multi-tasking" OS by this definition.  

Of course it's made up nonsense. That's his point. Some anti-Apple people drew an arbitrary line in an attempt to paint iOS as inferior.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #134 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". ...

 

By this definition neither Windows nor Mac OS X are "multitasking."  I can't even think of an OS that would qualify as multi-tasking at all based on this stipulation.  Unix would also be a "non multi-tasking" OS by this definition.  

There is a difference. On iOS you would not see an error like this. From some perspectives iOS is perhaps a better multitaking OS than OS X because it would suspend a background task to avoid low memory situations where OS X will give an error message or an app may just crash when low on memory.

2011-06-02-itunes2.jpg

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #135 of 178

Gingerbread is great and fits the bill nicely for the low end market.  Some areas of the world are very price sensitive and they just want a phone that can make calls, text/email, and browse the web.  Basic, but cheap.  Gingerbread lets vendors make phones with very low hardware specs.

 

It would be very hard for any phone running ICS or later, or iOS6 or later to compete on price with a bare bones Gingerbread phone.

 

That's not a market Apple has gone after and that's fine too.

 

Developers making Apps to market and sell are far more interested in their actual market- which is pretty much the Play store.

 

 

Fragmentation is a minor problem for users- but there really is no shortage of great apps on any version of Android.

Its a nuisance for developers, but self correcting as updates are becoming more feature iterations than 'all new' API's.

It is a major problem for Apple fans, because it gives them something to post about :)

 

I actually find Apples version of fragmentation more confusing as a user.  Google could just issue an 'update' that tells any Gingerbread phone or ICS phone that it is now running 'Jellybean!' and update the software number.  TaDa!  Fragmentation is fixed!  Of course the phones themselves couldn't use any of the features in Jellybean or that they don't have the hardware for.  That's a little the boat Apple puts its users in.  A 3gs owner or iPhone 4 owner will get 'upgraded' to iOS 6.  Their phone will run slower, burn through the battery faster, and they won't actually be able to use the most significant features of their unfragmented OS (Siri, Flyovers, LTE, turn-by-turn navigation etc etc).  If they click on their OS version though, they will happily see they are indeed running iOS6 and part of the 82% that isn't 'fragmented'  With android you at least know which features are and aren't available by software version.  Either way the problem comes down to if you are running a two or three year old phone- it is not going to be able to do everything the newer phones can do.

 

If you know you don't need to splice 83827271 pictures together, don't need a nifty personal assistant, and don't need anything more than browser- its nice to have an OS that has more DOS-like system requirements than a Crysis capable phone.  Gingerbread actually gives Android a competitive edge in the low end markets.  Apple would have a hard time making a bargain iOS7 capable phone if they do indeed choose to go after the lower end markets (which is another topic of speculation entirely).

post #136 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". ...

By this definition neither Windows nor Mac OS X are "multitasking."  I can't even think of an OS that would qualify as multi-tasking at all based on this stipulation.  Unix would also be a "non multi-tasking" OS by this definition.  
There is a difference. On iOS you would not see an error like this. From some perspectives iOS is perhaps a better multitaking OS than OS X because it would suspend a background task to avoid low memory situations where OS X will give an error message or an app may just crash when low on memory.

2011-06-02-itunes2.jpg

I am away from my Mac and XCode, but I believe both OSX and iOS will notify an app of its pending termination through app delegate callbacks... It allows the app to (possibly) save state, present a dialog and fail gracefully.

With the advent of iOS user multitasking, the app termination callbacks were enhanced and provided additional granularity to allow the terminating app more participation and a more graceful termination. I assume that OSX has has been similarity enhanced.

I suspect that there are quite a few OSX apps that have not been updated to take advantage of the enhanced callbacks...

It wouldn't surprise me if iTunes were one of those apps 1smile.gif
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #137 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

There is a difference. On iOS you would not see an error like this. From some perspectives iOS is perhaps a better multitaking OS than OS X because it would suspend a background task to avoid low memory situations where OS X will give an error message or an app may just crash when low on memory.

[image]

It's been needed much less over the decades as virtual memory does it's shell game very well, but I wouldn't be surprised as we move into solid-state drives if Mac OS X adopts creating a saved state of apps. In fact, does it already do that right now since everything is saved as you make changes? Wasn't back in Lion that they even defaulted to not letting you know which apps in the Dock were actually "running"? I still use the blue dots to denote which apps are active but that is probably habit more than need as I have 24GB RAM in my iMac.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #138 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

 

That always reminds me of this scene from Me, Myself and Irene... ah classic Jim Carrey.

 

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #139 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapbeerbaron View Post

wow, first time I've looked at an article about android on a apple site, but I must say I'm disappointed. I haven't seen a comment thread filled with such bile for ages

 

 

 

 

I just bought an Android phone after being an iPhone user for many years (I still love my iPhone 5). Visit almost any Android forum and you'll see anti-iPhone "bile" there as well. Furthermore, they argue among themselves over whose Android phone model is better. There's enough juvenile behavior to go around for everybody.

post #140 of 178

That photo is cringe worthy.
 

post #141 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

The bolded part is not necessarily true and basically a bold assumption on your part.  It seems far more likely to me that if a user never accesses the store, that they aren't using the phone as a "smartphone" at all and are thud not using Google's services either.   

 

Maybe. But how many people sync to google, or use gmail but never use the play store?  There's also calendar and contacts, etc.  Anyway, like I said in another post, activations are mostly a pointless number.

post #142 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I appreciate the clarification of terms but the above bit is just nonsense.  Everything else seems logical and sensible, but this statement just reeks of "made it up for this post"-ness.  

By this definition neither Windows nor Mac OS X are "multitasking."  I can't even think of an OS that would qualify as multi-tasking at all based on this stipulation.  Unix would also be a "non multi-tasking" OS by this definition.  
Sure Windows (for example) can close an App, but it should only close an App if it's misbehaving or not responding (crashed).

In any other case (too many Apps running, low RAM), then lesser used Apps can be swapped out to virtual memory and brought back later when the user requests them. In this case the App will be in the EXACT same state it was since all memory associated with it has been preserved. The App doesn't need to be specially coded to do something (like save state) as it would never be in the position of being forced closed (outside of crashing).

This is the major difference between Windows and Android/iOS. In Android/iOS you could have a perfectly behaving program end up getting closed for no other reason than another program requesting too much memory. To me that's unacceptable for a modern OS.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #143 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursadorable View Post

I said before, Apple made the right decision in demanding carriers allow Apple to control the OS on the iPhone.  

And the hardware. If Apple decides to create one model phone with both gsm and software switchable CDMA there's nothing the carriers can do about it.
post #144 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I appreciate the clarification of terms but the above bit is just nonsense.  Everything else seems logical and sensible, but this statement just reeks of "made it up for this post"-ness.  

By this definition neither Windows nor Mac OS X are "multitasking."  I can't even think of an OS that would qualify as multi-tasking at all based on this stipulation.  Unix would also be a "non multi-tasking" OS by this definition.  
Sure Windows (for example) can close an App, but it should only close an App if it's misbehaving or not responding (crashed).

In any other case (too many Apps running, low RAM), then lesser used Apps can be swapped out to virtual memory and brought back later when the user requests them. In this case the App will be in the EXACT same state it was since all memory associated with it has been preserved. The App doesn't need to be specially coded to do something (like save state) as it would never be in the position of being forced closed (outside of crashing).

This is the major difference between Windows and Android/iOS. In Android/iOS you could have a perfectly behaving program end up getting closed for no other reason than another program requesting too much memory. To me that's unacceptable for a modern OS.

Idealistically, I agree with you.

However with a mobile device like a phone you cannot depend on:
  • A large PDS (Virtual Memory) *
  • Reliable Power
  • Large RAM
  • Large processing power
  • The time to manage sophisticated multitasking

* Flash Storage is not the best solution for a PDS

So from, a practical standpoint, I do think that it is reasonable for a mobile OS to force close programs while giving them the opportunity to save state.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #145 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Idealistically, I agree with you.

However with a mobile device like a phone you cannot depend on:
  • A large PDS (Virtual Memory) *
  • Reliable Power
  • Large RAM

* Flash Storage is not the best solution for a PDS

So from, a practical standpoint, I do think that it is reasonable for a mobile OS to force close programs while giving them the opportunity to save state.

As Apple continually moves their innovations between Mac OS X to iOS and vice versa I can't help but wonder if we'll see a more intelligent option for Mac OS X in regards to memory usage, especially as flash-based drives will likely be standard in all Macs soon, even they do have an HDD attached as well.

I wouldn't expect the same limitations as the multi-talking APIs we see with 3rd-party apps in iOS but I could see them leverage the instant one of an app on an SSD with the auto- and instan-save state of the current Mac apps to afford a more efficient way of allowing the system to be faster and more efficient without the user every really knowing anything is going on.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #146 of 178
My first serious iPhone app was built on the iPhone 1 -- don't remember the iOS version, but it was late 2007 or early 2008.

The app was used by a mover to go on site and gather information.to prepare a bid estimate. The app had 3 databases: customers; items; bids.

Each database was updated by a separate View/View Controller.

It was quite easy to save state whenever a View (that changed the database) was about to be unloaded.

With some simple code it was trivial to save and restore state... Even in the event of an app or system crash.


No big deal... Really!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #147 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Idealistically, I agree with you.

However with a mobile device like a phone you cannot depend on:
  • A large PDS (Virtual Memory) *
  • Reliable Power
  • Large RAM

* Flash Storage is not the best solution for a PDS

So from, a practical standpoint, I do think that it is reasonable for a mobile OS to force close programs while giving them the opportunity to save state.

As Apple continually moves their innovations between Mac OS X to iOS and vice versa I can't help but wonder if we'll see a more intelligent option for Mac OS X in regards to memory usage, especially as flash-based drives will likely be standard in all Macs soon, even they do have an HDD attached as well.

I wouldn't expect the same limitations as the multi-talking APIs we see with 3rd-party apps in iOS but I could see them leverage the instant one of an app on an SSD with the auto- and instan-save state of the current Mac apps to afford a more efficient way of allowing the system to be faster and more efficient without the user every really knowing anything is going on.

I think you are on to something.

One of the great benefits for people who use Final Cut Pro X -- is that you never lose anything. And you never [can] save anything. This is significant when compared to the orior versions of Final Cut -- where you had to save frequently and still could lose a lot of work.

They could enhance something like CoreData and tell the developer that the OS will take responsibility for backup, state, etc. when you use it.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #148 of 178
Originally Posted by geekdad
Careful...Soli is saying you should be banned....next TS will show up and start deleting your posts....
Originally Posted by geekdad
Really how would you know? Aren't you banned on MacRumors?

 

I thought you had grown up, or at least gained the intelligence required to hold a logical conversation.

 

Oh, well.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #149 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It's not closed and not fully open unless Google's rules are followed so, it's really ajar.

"Ajar", I like it. Good one!
post #150 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

MacRumors has a nicely worded rule on the subject of hoaxes (under which all that would fall) that I feel we should adopt.

Pity they don't actually enforce… any of their rules, eh?

MacRumors is more of a bitch and moan site than anything else. I have never read so many cry baby comments as those on that forum. Unless your an android fan, or just want a good laugh, I wouldn't bother with that site.
post #151 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribbean_mac View Post

They are waiting on apple to release something awesome @WWDC to inspire them.

 

Bingo - and let's hope that Apple does, particularly given the non-stop beating it has been taking on the market and in the press since it's going to take a toll on sales/growth. The fact that Ive is (apparently) working to bring hardware and software closer together in development is a good sign, anyway.

post #152 of 178
Quote:

1) where you find the time to read all this, and post back here baffles me.

2) I think the best multithread OS is from Oooh Solipsism as you seem to be in every thread, posting valuable info for us all. Solipsistically sophisticated.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #153 of 178
I wonder how often people upgrade their Android phones to newer Android phones in general compared to iPhone users upgrading to newer iPhones. I would guess that Android users on the whole take far longer to upgrade as iPhones are the first choice amongst most people that have the financial means to upgrade earlier and because so many Android users are at the cheap/free end of the spectrum. I reckon this problem will become worse and worse for Google. Then again, I haven't bought an iPhone5 yet, purely as I don't want an iPhone bigger than my 4S so it's not all rosy for Apple.

I expect this year will see a big disparity between Apple & Google, with Apple introducing major software revisions (at least from a UI perspective) for iOS with Google left trailing behind.
post #154 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hill60, you've often showed a lack of understanding about the Android OS, and probably for good reason. There's Android, and then there's "Google Android" and Google hasn't done a great job of making the distinction clear. Danny Sullivan at Marketing Land wrote one of the best explanations, and added some darn good suggestions too, in a piece from this past September. Have a read at your leisure. I think it might clear up some of your obvious confusion and perhaps help make your future comments about the "openness" of Android more informative.

http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664

Right. So the claims that Android is open and free are false. And the problem of fragmentation is real - and growing worse.


Thanks for clarifying that.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #155 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Right. So the claims that Android is open and free are false. And the problem of fragmentation is real - and growing worse.


Thanks for clarifying that.

You didn't really read the linked article did you?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #156 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76 View Post

 

the fact that there are another X million devices out there that never access google play is irrelevant to the developers as they will never be a potential customer for the app in the first place...

 

ah, you see this is the "techie" thinking that always gets in the way of success.

 

As a developer I would prefer to know, that there are also X amount of people in Y demographic who are also available to target using offline means, in the hope of a certain percentage of them thinking that my new App was something they need and will sign up to the Store to buy it. If that X is big enough, then I know its worth trying to convert 1-5%, but if its unknown, then... 

 

thats the marketing/sales thinking..

 

All the 'new' figures from Google do is help put the blinkers on the Devs.

post #157 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You didn't really read the linked article did you?

Of course I did. Things like:
"Google doesn’t use the terms “real” and “fake” to describe the two major branches of Android. Instead, Google talks about Android interchangeably to mean either of them or both of them combined. That needs to stop. At the same time, the whole idea that Android is “open” for anyone to use should also go away."

and

"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."

Clearly, there are a variety of versions of Android and not all are compatible. That's fragmentation. And Google's restrictions on who can use the Android logo indicates that it's not as open as they claim.

Your own article confirms that I said. Android's openness is a scam and fragmentation is a real problem.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #158 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Of course I did. Things like:
"Google doesn’t use the terms “real” and “fake” to describe the two major branches of Android. Instead, Google talks about Android interchangeably to mean either of them or both of them combined. That needs to stop. At the same time, the whole idea that Android is “open” for anyone to use should also go away."

and

"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."

Clearly, there are a variety of versions of Android and not all are compatible. That's fragmentation. And Google's restrictions on who can use the Android logo indicates that it's not as open as they claim.

Your own article confirms that I said. Android's openness is a scam and fragmentation is a real problem.

Now those are valid comments based on actually reading the article and paying attention. I agree that Google likes to mix comments about the open Android with their more closely controlled "Google Android". I also agree that fragmentation can possibly create some issues for some number of users and/or /developers.

 

You and I just might disagree on whether core Android is open source. It plainly and factually is. If not then explain how Amazon branched off their own custom version? How about B&N for the Nook? Did both slip into Google headquarters in the middle of the night and escape with the code on a flash-drive? Surely you have some explanation how that happens if you claim that core Android isn't open-sourced as you continually do.

 

I'll watch for your answer. I'm truly curious.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/20/13 at 7:00am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #159 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."

It doesn't necessarily need to be forked. The SGS 2 didn't include a number of Google's apps, and at the time there was no way for the user to install them because those apps were built in the OS. Google got smart and put all their apps on Google Play and now even if a manufacturer decides to exclude them the user can still get them plus the apps are easily updated.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #160 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Now those are valid comments based on actually reading the article and paying attention. I agree that Google likes to mix comments about the open Android with their more closely controlled "Google Android". I also agree that fragmentation can possibly create some issues for some number of users and/or /developers.

You and I just might disagree on whether core Android is open source. It plainly and factually is. If not then explain how Amazon branched off their own custom version? How about B&N for the Nook? Did both slip into Google headquarters in the middle of the night and escape with the code on a flash-drive? Surely you have some explanation how that happens if you claim that core Android isn't open-sourced as you continually do.

I'll watch for your answer. I'm truly curious.

Because Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't members of the Open Handset Alliance, and aren't subjected to the same rules. What they've done is Google's worst nightmare, and there's nothing they can do about it.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google engineers talk fragmentation, how to make Android work for emerging markets