So the choice comes down to, SmartPhone vs portaPC. I'll take the SmartPhone made by Apple please. As I don't want to worry about viruses, hardware/software fragmentation, and unreliability.
Your being a bit disingenuous here yourself to say the least.
Lastly, you are arguing that there is no problem, but then advising people to play it with all network connectivity turned off so it will work right? Seriously? And you don't see the problem with that statement or how it basically proves the opposite of what you are arguing?
Well, first off, I'm not sure if you're saying Apple is bad or not, but I think you are because your title says Android Open, Android ONE. I apologize if I misunderstood you (I'm not the best reader)
If you are being negative about Apple's decision to be "closed" and don't allow freedom, well, think about this. The article proves that too much openness is bad, but also, it's actually good that Apple is closed and not so much open. Here's an example story.
Apple cares about their iOS so that the customers can have a much better experience.
...you obviously missed my "irony-off" mark at the bottom of my post.
More to the point we are talking about business decisions, decisions about how best to support an ecosystem, what the key business drivers are for each corporate entity and so on. The answers are fairly easy to understand - Apple provides "complete solutions" hardware+software,as their core business model, instead of the Microsoft model (for example) which is licensing software to hardware makers. Google is an ad-revenue model - everything Google does supports the core business of ad revenue. Google saw Android as the means to establish itself in the mobile device market in order to drive their core business. Every piece of free software, every deal with the handset makers is tied to their core business. Android may have even been a necessary stopgap measure as ChromeOS wasn't quite ready for primetime.
While there is a lot of truth in Daniel's article, I guess he misses the main point here. Google has almost zero interest in high quality apps, they want users to use search (where they are king) and watch ads. After all, these were the only reasons to create the platform.
Indicators / Proof:
- Still no way to charge for apps in most countries
- Not even a hint at a date for a tablet ready SDK, no standard for additional GUI elements
- Development of Chrome OS (an app-free environment) continuing despite zero demand
Google only supports apps for the sake of being competitive, they do not want them to be great. As soon as the next generation of Android devices, sporting dual core CPUs and more memory, will be widely available (around mid/end 2011), you will see support of the SDK drop even further. Once Flash is a viable alternative for the crappy apps they have now, the browser will be the main focus, and users will be in the environment that Google rules (the web); AdMob ads in mobile apps only capture a much smaller fraction of the market, as there is ample competition. In the end we will have quality apps on iOS, web apps plus Flash/AIR on Android and RIM, pseudo apps on WebOS and Silverlight apps on WP7. Knowing how well web apps resonated with iPhone users and developers... this is good news for Apple.
I guarantee you that 95% (or more) of users will NOT find replacing the GUI trivial.
Again, devices built on the Android frameworks (let's stop calling it an OS please) appeal to chronic fiddlers and their unfortunate relatives who they talk into buying them.
You're right! They're so hard to figure out
BTW, "replacing the GUI" is a stretch. The differences Jobs talk about can be changed by opening up market place, searching for "Launcher" and installing one of your choosing, then hitting the home button once it's isntalled and selecting the new launcher as the default launcher. Couldn't be easier.
It REALLY isn't hard! The reason companies are trying to be different is because they are trying to have the best launcher. Imagine that! Competition DRIVING innovation and progress. WEIRD
Android is so open that people are rooting their android devices....
Talking about public API vs private. Android isn't entirely open since there's private API that can't be accessed from the SDK, but you can access a buttload, which is why it's considered "open."
Rooting your phone gives you access to the system's innards if you will. It's a way to do things like change themes and uninstall bloatware installed into system sub folders.
See why some people would find your comment so stupid it's funny?
While there is a lot of truth in Daniel's article, I guess he misses the main point here. Google has almost zero interest in high quality apps, they want users to use search (where they are king) and watch ads. After all, these were the only reasons to create the platform.
Indicators / Proof:
- Still no way to charge for apps in most countries
- Not even a hint at a date for a tablet ready SDK, no standard for additional GUI elements
- Development of Chrome OS (an app-free environment) continuing despite zero demand
Google only supports apps for the sake of being competitive, they do not want them to be great. As soon as the next generation of Android devices, sporting dual core CPUs and more memory, will be widely available (around mid/end 2011), you will see support of the SDK drop even further. Once Flash is a viable alternative for the crappy apps they have now, the browser will be the main focus, and users will be in the environment that Google rules (the web); AdMob ads in mobile apps only capture a much smaller fraction of the market, as there is ample competition. In the end we will have quality apps on iOS, web apps plus Flash/AIR on Android and RIM, pseudo apps on WebOS and Silverlight apps on WP7. Knowing how well web apps resonated with iPhone users and developers... this is good news for Apple.
Well, the ads have become a defining aspect of the platform, since it's the only way for developers to make money, so, even if it is the ads, it's still entirely relevant. And, Rovio did say fragmentation caused them problems, as did many commenters on their blog. The sooner people come out of denial about the problems inherent in Android, the happier they will be.
LOLWAT?
If there was a paid version im sure it would sell immensely, but Rovio seems to have been extremely smart and gone the Ad route, which loads an ad on every new stage as you proceed and i believe every other retry. I dont care for Angry Birds because i dont find it to be that great a game but if your average person plays 10-20 minutes a day with a few retries, and there are im sure well over 2+ million players on Android they can easily make much more money than they ever did on iOS.
Also this isnt a fragmentation issue, its a performance one. People reporting issues are those running low tier phones and those listed by Rovio are:
Droid Eris
HTC Dream
HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
HTC Tattoo
HTC Wildfire
Huawei Ideos/U8150
LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
LG GW620/Eve
Motorola Backflip/MB300
Motorola Cliq/Dext
Samsung Acclaim
Samsung Moment/M900
Samsung Spica/i5700
Samsung Transform
Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
T-Mobile G1
If anyone hasnt noticed, these are all old budget phones that have incredibly weak hardware (all of these listed are ARM11 phones with poor GPUs) and as such the games dont run exactly spectacular on them.
Now im sure some astute people will notice that these phones are roughly on par spec wise with the iPhone 3G. Unfortunately Rovio decided for the Android version of Angry Birds to code in OpenGL ES 2.0 while the iOS version runs on OpenGL ES 1.1 (obviously to grab the entire iOS userbase since the 2G/3G don't support it) and thus isnt as intense on the hardware.
This is not the same fragmentation that Android haters love to throw around, it simply doesnt run good on slow hardware. Its like expecting a netbook to perform like a Mac Pro would, lets just be real here, its not gonna happen. This is a side effect of being able to chose what you want.
Talking about public API vs private. Android isn't entirely open since there's private API that can't be accessed from the SDK, but you can access a buttload, which is why it's considered "open."
Rooting your phone gives you access to the system's innards if you will. It's a way to do things like change themes and uninstall bloatware installed into system sub folders.
See why some people would find your comment so stupid it's funny?
when you need to root your device to gain access to "system's innards".. it's called LOCKED DOWN.
iOS also has some fragmentation, just not as bad as Android. 3 screen resolutions, 4 generations of processing power on the iPhone, a few on iPod Touches and of course 1 generation of iPads. Different memory sizes.
Again, not nearly as bad, but there is something.
You're wrong. For one the first 3 generations of the iPhone and iPod touch had the same screen resolution. Second, they've officially stopped supporting the 1st generation products. The iPhone 2G and the 1G iPod touch are unable to run iOS 4. Another point is the iPhone 2G and iPhone 3G had the same exact memory and processor and so did the iPod touch 1G and 2G (same processor and ram as the iPhone just a higher clock speed for processor). The iPhone 4, iPod touch 4, and iPad all have the same a4 processor clocked at 1GHZ (iPad and iPod touch 4 have the same amount of ram). The only difference is the iPhone 3GS and iPod touch 3G which both have the same ram and clock speed.They really don't support the 3G anymore hence the stripping of features but than again if an app works on iOS 2.0 it works on the newer versions and every current model of iDevice runs the same OS. There are a few apps that require the new devices because of their hardware such as iMovie, RAGE HD and others. Those apps are well documented and you can easily determine whether it works on your previous generation device, which is not the case with Android. iDevices have more of a problem of obsolescence than fragmentation
If there was a paid version im sure it would sell immensely, but Rovio seems to have been extremely smart and gone the Ad route, which loads an ad on every new stage as you proceed and i believe every other retry. I dont care for Angry Birds because i dont find it to be that great a game but if your average person plays 10-20 minutes a day with a few retries, and there are im sure well over 2+ million players on Android they can easily make much more money than they ever did on iOS.
Also this isnt a fragmentation issue, its a performance one. People reporting issues are those running low tier phones and those listed by Rovio are:
Droid Eris
HTC Dream
HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
HTC Tattoo
HTC Wildfire
Huawei Ideos/U8150
LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
LG GW620/Eve
Motorola Backflip/MB300
Motorola Cliq/Dext
Samsung Acclaim
Samsung Moment/M900
Samsung Spica/i5700
Samsung Transform
Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
T-Mobile G1
If anyone hasnt noticed, these are all old budget phones that have incredibly weak hardware (all of these listed are ARM11 phones with poor GPUs) and as such the games dont run exactly spectacular on them.
Now im sure some astute people will notice that these phones are roughly on par spec wise with the iPhone 3G. Unfortunately Rovio decided for the Android version of Angry Birds to code in OpenGL ES 2.0 while the iOS version runs on OpenGL ES 1.1 (obviously to grab the entire iOS userbase since the 2G/3G don't support it) and thus isnt as intense on the hardware.
This is not the same fragmentation that Android haters love to throw around, it simply doesnt run good on slow hardware. Its like expecting a netbook to perform like a Mac Pro would, lets just be real here, its not gonna happen. This is a side effect of being able to chose what you want.
i think your just explained why there is such a fragmentation issue with all these low powered phones it hard to keep track of how your game will run, keep in mind that a lot of android users buy the cheap phones hence androids success
If I were an android fan, I would be pretty pissed about the fragmentation, and how some developers have no choice but to develop for the lowest common denominator
Google needs to reboot Android. And why can't Google do this:
1. Have the source open to keep the geeks happy.
2. Maintain ONE version of Android that the box-builders license from Google. If you want to use the Android name, you use Google's OS (just like MS's Windows model).
Then again what do I know. I've been calling for MS to throw out Windows and start completely over since Windows 95, and that hasn't happened either...
I've posted this on other boards and I will post it here....
Fragmentation is the biggest strategic problem that Android (Linux) will face --- a divided house will fall.
Those deep within the Linux community think that fragmentation is a feature. Those outside the Linux community, and looking at Linux as a possible solution, see fragmentation as a deal-breaker.
If I were Microsoft or Apple, I'd start a grass roots effort to extol the virtues of multiple versions and flavors of Android (Linux). The best way to defeat an enemy is to make it internally divisive.
i think your just explained why there is such a fragmentation issue with all these low powered phones it hard to keep track of how your game will run, keep in mind that a lot of android users buy the cheap phones hence androids success
Rovio didnt exactly shoot for the lowest common denominator here, they opted for OpenGL 2.0 instead of 1.1, and its clear that these older phones do a terrible job with 2.0 while newer Cortex A8 phones run it without a hitch. We wouldnt even be talking about this if they had gone with 1.1 as these older phones, similar to the 3G would be able to run it no issue. Coding for high powered devices and expecting it to run on low tier devices is incredibly stupid.
This same issue DOES EXIST on the iPhone platform, but its handled in a different way. Example, Epic Citadel. This game runs only on OpenGL 2.0 and attempting to download said game on a device that doesnt support it greets you with a lovely "OpenGL 2.0 is required for this game". It doesnt let you even download it. On the Android side of things, the app could be download (some apps are blocked due to device or carrier, so it might not even show up in the marketplace), but it wouldnt run very well.
Developers have to choose what games they want to run on said iOS devices. Take the entire iOS market and code for 1.1, or cater to the newer device market and code in 2.0? This is the essentially the same exact issue Rovio is dealing with, and is opting to go for the entire market instead of the newer device segment.
Alas, these low powered devices are just that...low powered. One cant expect a phone running weaker hardware to flex gaming muscles where its clearly deficient in it. Similar to a computer, you get what you pay for.
As a side note, im pretty sure the best selling headsets happen to be the most powerful ones, devices like the Galaxy S line, Droid X, Evo, Incredible (and other HTC variants). Atleast, here in the US that is.
I've posted on other boards as well about this subject and will post here as well. There was an article on Asymco about the lack of any common DRM framework on Android. The article also brought up the prospect of the Android fragmentation not only being impossible to rein in but that it may actually be by design.
From Netflix blog:
The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices.
Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy. Although we don?t have a common platform security mechanism and DRM, we are able to work with individual handset manufacturers to add content protection to their devices.
Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others won?t.
Also from Asymco:
Recently Google TV was blocked from all major US TV content and Google faced litigation from copyright holders in print publications and before that for YouTube infringements and before that from newspaper publishers for Google News? unlicensed reuse of their content.
I agree that Google seems to have no intent to control the very ecosystem/platform they've unleashed. It's as though Google wants a chaotic free-for-all on the Internet space. What they don't want is a large sliver of that space being controlled by the likes of Apple, Microsoft or anyone else for that matter. Google doesn't want control. Google only wants the "free" space on which they can sell ads and the more "open" and "freer" it is, the more advantageous their position. Google's very goal is to break down the proprietary control of "competing" ecosystems and content owners.
Google's business model and its strategy to execute on that model is indeed a major threat to all traditional tech and media content companies that own IP and copyrighted material - from software companies to TV/movie studios, etc. Google is leveraging the very power of the Internet, which is owned by no one. It is actually a very well thought-out strategy of profiting from the chaos and fragmentation that they hope will overwhelm the efforts of "closed" or integrated ecosystem players like Apple, Microsoft, Nokia or anyone else - even the likes of major backend players like IBM, HP, Oracle, SAP, etc.
Meanwhile, Google's hardware partners (the Android phone/tablet/TV vendors) who don't have the means to take on the integrated players with their own software ecosystem/platform offerings are getting more and more deeply entangled in Google's sticky and ever expanding web as mere commodity providers from which they have no means to escape. They're essentially pawns who do the dirty work of undercutting Google's chief platform adversaries and then getting virtually nothing in return. Ditto for the software developers on the Google platform...
Google's aim is to commoditize the entire Internet infrastructure on which they can profit from through their search monopoly. Taking a page or two from Microsoft's playbook which Gates used so effectively during the 80's and the 90's to dominate the PC industry, Google is using its search monopoly position to render all other proprietary players irrelevant through their use of "open" source software and the marketing of "free" services as search, YouTube, Picasa, Gmail, Google Docs, Maps, etc. How can consumers argue against "free" stuff?
Another interesting article from the Harvard Business Review about why Google is losing this battle with this strategy:
Comments
ANDROID = What's the point in being OPEN when your phone is JUNK?
the definition of open: ?mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make? ? Andy Rubin
Android is so open that people are rooting their android devices....
source
Yeah, Mac OS is done already, what you call Mac OS nowadays really is NeXTSTEP (Apple edition).
Your being a bit disingenuous here yourself to say the least.
Lastly, you are arguing that there is no problem, but then advising people to play it with all network connectivity turned off so it will work right? Seriously? And you don't see the problem with that statement or how it basically proves the opposite of what you are arguing?
This is a nonissue. Just don't play it that way.
Well, first off, I'm not sure if you're saying Apple is bad or not, but I think you are because your title says Android Open, Android ONE. I apologize if I misunderstood you (I'm not the best reader)
If you are being negative about Apple's decision to be "closed" and don't allow freedom, well, think about this. The article proves that too much openness is bad, but also, it's actually good that Apple is closed and not so much open. Here's an example story.
Apple cares about their iOS so that the customers can have a much better experience.
...you obviously missed my "irony-off" mark at the bottom of my post.
More to the point we are talking about business decisions, decisions about how best to support an ecosystem, what the key business drivers are for each corporate entity and so on. The answers are fairly easy to understand - Apple provides "complete solutions" hardware+software,as their core business model, instead of the Microsoft model (for example) which is licensing software to hardware makers. Google is an ad-revenue model - everything Google does supports the core business of ad revenue. Google saw Android as the means to establish itself in the mobile device market in order to drive their core business. Every piece of free software, every deal with the handset makers is tied to their core business. Android may have even been a necessary stopgap measure as ChromeOS wasn't quite ready for primetime.
Indicators / Proof:
- Still no way to charge for apps in most countries
- Not even a hint at a date for a tablet ready SDK, no standard for additional GUI elements
- Development of Chrome OS (an app-free environment) continuing despite zero demand
Google only supports apps for the sake of being competitive, they do not want them to be great. As soon as the next generation of Android devices, sporting dual core CPUs and more memory, will be widely available (around mid/end 2011), you will see support of the SDK drop even further. Once Flash is a viable alternative for the crappy apps they have now, the browser will be the main focus, and users will be in the environment that Google rules (the web); AdMob ads in mobile apps only capture a much smaller fraction of the market, as there is ample competition. In the end we will have quality apps on iOS, web apps plus Flash/AIR on Android and RIM, pseudo apps on WebOS and Silverlight apps on WP7. Knowing how well web apps resonated with iPhone users and developers... this is good news for Apple.
I guarantee you that 95% (or more) of users will NOT find replacing the GUI trivial.
Again, devices built on the Android frameworks (let's stop calling it an OS please) appeal to chronic fiddlers and their unfortunate relatives who they talk into buying them.
You're right! They're so hard to figure out
BTW, "replacing the GUI" is a stretch. The differences Jobs talk about can be changed by opening up market place, searching for "Launcher" and installing one of your choosing, then hitting the home button once it's isntalled and selecting the new launcher as the default launcher. Couldn't be easier.
It REALLY isn't hard! The reason companies are trying to be different is because they are trying to have the best launcher. Imagine that! Competition DRIVING innovation and progress. WEIRD
Android is so open that people are rooting their android devices....
Talking about public API vs private. Android isn't entirely open since there's private API that can't be accessed from the SDK, but you can access a buttload, which is why it's considered "open."
Rooting your phone gives you access to the system's innards if you will. It's a way to do things like change themes and uninstall bloatware installed into system sub folders.
See why some people would find your comment so stupid it's funny?
Completely overblown statements made by people who obviously favor the iPhone.
There isn't even a paid version of the game for Android, and the only thing that affects performance is the stupid ads!
Ever wondered why there is no paid version on Android....
[crickets] [crickets]
Might be because nearly everything on the Marketplace is pirated anyways, and Android users don't actually buy apps?
While there is a lot of truth in Daniel's article, I guess he misses the main point here. Google has almost zero interest in high quality apps, they want users to use search (where they are king) and watch ads. After all, these were the only reasons to create the platform.
Indicators / Proof:
- Still no way to charge for apps in most countries
- Not even a hint at a date for a tablet ready SDK, no standard for additional GUI elements
- Development of Chrome OS (an app-free environment) continuing despite zero demand
Google only supports apps for the sake of being competitive, they do not want them to be great. As soon as the next generation of Android devices, sporting dual core CPUs and more memory, will be widely available (around mid/end 2011), you will see support of the SDK drop even further. Once Flash is a viable alternative for the crappy apps they have now, the browser will be the main focus, and users will be in the environment that Google rules (the web); AdMob ads in mobile apps only capture a much smaller fraction of the market, as there is ample competition. In the end we will have quality apps on iOS, web apps plus Flash/AIR on Android and RIM, pseudo apps on WebOS and Silverlight apps on WP7. Knowing how well web apps resonated with iPhone users and developers... this is good news for Apple.
Well, the ads have become a defining aspect of the platform, since it's the only way for developers to make money, so, even if it is the ads, it's still entirely relevant. And, Rovio did say fragmentation caused them problems, as did many commenters on their blog. The sooner people come out of denial about the problems inherent in Android, the happier they will be.
LOLWAT?
If there was a paid version im sure it would sell immensely, but Rovio seems to have been extremely smart and gone the Ad route, which loads an ad on every new stage as you proceed and i believe every other retry. I dont care for Angry Birds because i dont find it to be that great a game but if your average person plays 10-20 minutes a day with a few retries, and there are im sure well over 2+ million players on Android they can easily make much more money than they ever did on iOS.
Also this isnt a fragmentation issue, its a performance one. People reporting issues are those running low tier phones and those listed by Rovio are:
Droid Eris
HTC Dream
HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
HTC Tattoo
HTC Wildfire
Huawei Ideos/U8150
LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
LG GW620/Eve
Motorola Backflip/MB300
Motorola Cliq/Dext
Samsung Acclaim
Samsung Moment/M900
Samsung Spica/i5700
Samsung Transform
Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
T-Mobile G1
If anyone hasnt noticed, these are all old budget phones that have incredibly weak hardware (all of these listed are ARM11 phones with poor GPUs) and as such the games dont run exactly spectacular on them.
Now im sure some astute people will notice that these phones are roughly on par spec wise with the iPhone 3G. Unfortunately Rovio decided for the Android version of Angry Birds to code in OpenGL ES 2.0 while the iOS version runs on OpenGL ES 1.1 (obviously to grab the entire iOS userbase since the 2G/3G don't support it) and thus isnt as intense on the hardware.
This is not the same fragmentation that Android haters love to throw around, it simply doesnt run good on slow hardware. Its like expecting a netbook to perform like a Mac Pro would, lets just be real here, its not gonna happen. This is a side effect of being able to chose what you want.
Talking about public API vs private. Android isn't entirely open since there's private API that can't be accessed from the SDK, but you can access a buttload, which is why it's considered "open."
Rooting your phone gives you access to the system's innards if you will. It's a way to do things like change themes and uninstall bloatware installed into system sub folders.
See why some people would find your comment so stupid it's funny?
when you need to root your device to gain access to "system's innards".. it's called LOCKED DOWN.
iOS also has some fragmentation, just not as bad as Android. 3 screen resolutions, 4 generations of processing power on the iPhone, a few on iPod Touches and of course 1 generation of iPads. Different memory sizes.
Again, not nearly as bad, but there is something.
You're wrong. For one the first 3 generations of the iPhone and iPod touch had the same screen resolution. Second, they've officially stopped supporting the 1st generation products. The iPhone 2G and the 1G iPod touch are unable to run iOS 4. Another point is the iPhone 2G and iPhone 3G had the same exact memory and processor and so did the iPod touch 1G and 2G (same processor and ram as the iPhone just a higher clock speed for processor). The iPhone 4, iPod touch 4, and iPad all have the same a4 processor clocked at 1GHZ (iPad and iPod touch 4 have the same amount of ram). The only difference is the iPhone 3GS and iPod touch 3G which both have the same ram and clock speed.They really don't support the 3G anymore hence the stripping of features but than again if an app works on iOS 2.0 it works on the newer versions and every current model of iDevice runs the same OS. There are a few apps that require the new devices because of their hardware such as iMovie, RAGE HD and others. Those apps are well documented and you can easily determine whether it works on your previous generation device, which is not the case with Android. iDevices have more of a problem of obsolescence than fragmentation
LOLWAT?
If there was a paid version im sure it would sell immensely, but Rovio seems to have been extremely smart and gone the Ad route, which loads an ad on every new stage as you proceed and i believe every other retry. I dont care for Angry Birds because i dont find it to be that great a game but if your average person plays 10-20 minutes a day with a few retries, and there are im sure well over 2+ million players on Android they can easily make much more money than they ever did on iOS.
Also this isnt a fragmentation issue, its a performance one. People reporting issues are those running low tier phones and those listed by Rovio are:
Droid Eris
HTC Dream
HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
HTC Tattoo
HTC Wildfire
Huawei Ideos/U8150
LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
LG GW620/Eve
Motorola Backflip/MB300
Motorola Cliq/Dext
Samsung Acclaim
Samsung Moment/M900
Samsung Spica/i5700
Samsung Transform
Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
T-Mobile G1
If anyone hasnt noticed, these are all old budget phones that have incredibly weak hardware (all of these listed are ARM11 phones with poor GPUs) and as such the games dont run exactly spectacular on them.
Now im sure some astute people will notice that these phones are roughly on par spec wise with the iPhone 3G. Unfortunately Rovio decided for the Android version of Angry Birds to code in OpenGL ES 2.0 while the iOS version runs on OpenGL ES 1.1 (obviously to grab the entire iOS userbase since the 2G/3G don't support it) and thus isnt as intense on the hardware.
This is not the same fragmentation that Android haters love to throw around, it simply doesnt run good on slow hardware. Its like expecting a netbook to perform like a Mac Pro would, lets just be real here, its not gonna happen. This is a side effect of being able to chose what you want.
i think your just explained why there is such a fragmentation issue with all these low powered phones it hard to keep track of how your game will run, keep in mind that a lot of android users buy the cheap phones hence androids success
If I were an android fan, I would be pretty pissed about the fragmentation, and how some developers have no choice but to develop for the lowest common denominator
Google needs to reboot Android. And why can't Google do this:
1. Have the source open to keep the geeks happy.
2. Maintain ONE version of Android that the box-builders license from Google. If you want to use the Android name, you use Google's OS (just like MS's Windows model).
Then again what do I know. I've been calling for MS to throw out Windows and start completely over since Windows 95, and that hasn't happened either...
Fragmentation is the biggest strategic problem that Android (Linux) will face --- a divided house will fall.
Those deep within the Linux community think that fragmentation is a feature. Those outside the Linux community, and looking at Linux as a possible solution, see fragmentation as a deal-breaker.
If I were Microsoft or Apple, I'd start a grass roots effort to extol the virtues of multiple versions and flavors of Android (Linux). The best way to defeat an enemy is to make it internally divisive.
i think your just explained why there is such a fragmentation issue with all these low powered phones it hard to keep track of how your game will run, keep in mind that a lot of android users buy the cheap phones hence androids success
Rovio didnt exactly shoot for the lowest common denominator here, they opted for OpenGL 2.0 instead of 1.1, and its clear that these older phones do a terrible job with 2.0 while newer Cortex A8 phones run it without a hitch. We wouldnt even be talking about this if they had gone with 1.1 as these older phones, similar to the 3G would be able to run it no issue. Coding for high powered devices and expecting it to run on low tier devices is incredibly stupid.
This same issue DOES EXIST on the iPhone platform, but its handled in a different way. Example, Epic Citadel. This game runs only on OpenGL 2.0 and attempting to download said game on a device that doesnt support it greets you with a lovely "OpenGL 2.0 is required for this game". It doesnt let you even download it. On the Android side of things, the app could be download (some apps are blocked due to device or carrier, so it might not even show up in the marketplace), but it wouldnt run very well.
Developers have to choose what games they want to run on said iOS devices. Take the entire iOS market and code for 1.1, or cater to the newer device market and code in 2.0? This is the essentially the same exact issue Rovio is dealing with, and is opting to go for the entire market instead of the newer device segment.
Alas, these low powered devices are just that...low powered. One cant expect a phone running weaker hardware to flex gaming muscles where its clearly deficient in it. Similar to a computer, you get what you pay for.
As a side note, im pretty sure the best selling headsets happen to be the most powerful ones, devices like the Galaxy S line, Droid X, Evo, Incredible (and other HTC variants). Atleast, here in the US that is.
From Netflix blog:
The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices.
Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy. Although we don?t have a common platform security mechanism and DRM, we are able to work with individual handset manufacturers to add content protection to their devices.
Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others won?t.
Also from Asymco:
Recently Google TV was blocked from all major US TV content and Google faced litigation from copyright holders in print publications and before that for YouTube infringements and before that from newspaper publishers for Google News? unlicensed reuse of their content.
I agree that Google seems to have no intent to control the very ecosystem/platform they've unleashed. It's as though Google wants a chaotic free-for-all on the Internet space. What they don't want is a large sliver of that space being controlled by the likes of Apple, Microsoft or anyone else for that matter. Google doesn't want control. Google only wants the "free" space on which they can sell ads and the more "open" and "freer" it is, the more advantageous their position. Google's very goal is to break down the proprietary control of "competing" ecosystems and content owners.
Google's business model and its strategy to execute on that model is indeed a major threat to all traditional tech and media content companies that own IP and copyrighted material - from software companies to TV/movie studios, etc. Google is leveraging the very power of the Internet, which is owned by no one. It is actually a very well thought-out strategy of profiting from the chaos and fragmentation that they hope will overwhelm the efforts of "closed" or integrated ecosystem players like Apple, Microsoft, Nokia or anyone else - even the likes of major backend players like IBM, HP, Oracle, SAP, etc.
Meanwhile, Google's hardware partners (the Android phone/tablet/TV vendors) who don't have the means to take on the integrated players with their own software ecosystem/platform offerings are getting more and more deeply entangled in Google's sticky and ever expanding web as mere commodity providers from which they have no means to escape. They're essentially pawns who do the dirty work of undercutting Google's chief platform adversaries and then getting virtually nothing in return. Ditto for the software developers on the Google platform...
Google's aim is to commoditize the entire Internet infrastructure on which they can profit from through their search monopoly. Taking a page or two from Microsoft's playbook which Gates used so effectively during the 80's and the 90's to dominate the PC industry, Google is using its search monopoly position to render all other proprietary players irrelevant through their use of "open" source software and the marketing of "free" services as search, YouTube, Picasa, Gmail, Google Docs, Maps, etc. How can consumers argue against "free" stuff?
Another interesting article from the Harvard Business Review about why Google is losing this battle with this strategy:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/11/did_...own_enemi.html
Aysmco's Horace Dediu summarized it well:
"Android is powerful, but as Google is finding out, power can be very dangerous without control."