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:
The developer of "Angry Birds," a top-selling iPhone game, reported that bringing the title to Android devices ended up more difficult than anticipated due to fragmentation within the open platform.
You know, some people don't give a shit about fragmentation, just as no one gives a shit about the poor external antenna of the iphone 4.
See how this works? It's only an issue if you think it is.
Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.
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! Literally, in airplane mode, the game is as smooth as silk. Turn 3g on, get ads, and watch the game's framerates drop immensely.
he's talking about the launchers and phone apps, all of which can easily be replaced, and don't come anywhere CLOSE to the impact he describes.
Articles like this are here to only reassure people made the "correct" decision in going with an iPhone. There is no CORRECT decision! It's all about what you like!
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
... 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 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....
It's mistaken to think that Google doesn't want control. However, they are essentially different in how they seek control. Google gains control through destruction, and only through destruction. (They like to call it "disruption", but their entire philosophy is one of destruction.) Apple is essentially a creative company. Microsoft got it's success by consuming. Very different models, the main difference is that in Google's model, if they win, everyone else, including consumers, loses.
If you're here long enough you'd think, from some people posts, Android is so perfect, has no flaws, and beat iOS in every aspect. But in the real world that I had played with, there's nothing to write home about but for voice control and navigation.
But by the nature, it's never user-friendly. You have to research what phone to buy, what manufacturer record in supporting their phones. Then after you actually PAY for it you still have to work for it like rooting it, making custom ROM, finding a way to upgrade when there is one, and now even have to research on how to play app, or if my phone support it???
I'm sure it's a geek heaven but damn, just writing it shows how lousy the experience can be for people.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
Rovio removed the US T-Mobile G2, they were mistaking it for the UK T-Mobile G2 aka the Hero aka Droid Eris on Verizon. It runs fine on the new G2, but it'd be nice if they just changed the damn name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexkhan2000
Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.
Its easy for Samsung to focus on Windows, they all run the same exact insides. Change the plastics/screen and you have a new phone model. On the Android front they'll have to actually be on the bleeding edge and play in the bargain bin. Costs wise it makes sense to deploy more WP7 devices (im sure they are including Windows Mobile Classic in that as well.)
FYI all the companies you listed rejected Android because they want control over their platform. Nokia wants more control over its platform, considering they built it from the ground up, Android is not the answer for them. RIM is completely proprietary, Android i guarantee was never in the cards. As for HP, they learned their lesson from their Windows Mobile days just like Sony Ericsson is right now, showing up and saying your running Android doesnt guarantee sales. HP is differentiating itself, and thus they bought Palm.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
Wrong. The "G2" listed there refers to what we know as the Hero, it does NOT refer to the T-Mobile G2 aka HTC Desire.
Your being a bit disingenuous here yourself to say the least.
In the first place, your talking about the actual developers statements. The Angry Birds people took the time to port their game to Android and did as best as they could to make it work but the fragmentation got them. I don't know how you can spin that as "people who favour the iphone" or people who don't know what they are talking about.
Secondly, they published a list of at least a dozen Android phones that the game simply won't work on at all, and a simple visit to the comments thread or the store selling it will give you many reports of people who have 'approved' phones that the game doesn't run on either. All this after much development work on the part of the games creators. Do you really think they spent all that time on it, but somehow purposely screwed it up, just so they could cry foul? (they aren't even crying foul btw they are trying to fix it).
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?
If we are going to be totally honest here, Angry Birds needs a good amount of memory and a good processor to run "smoothly" and it doesn't even run "smoothly" on an iPhone 4 if you have less than a gig or two of storage left. It's the only game I've ever played on the iPhone that I've had to crash out of or reboot the phone to get it to run again. Given that almost all Android phones on the market right now have much lesser processing power and much less storage than iPhone 4, it's pretty much a given that they are going to see some choppy-ness and glitches.
Making out like it "runs smooth as silk" (for you) just makes you look foolish. It's not believable.
You said it yourself: The game needs a certain amount of processing power. Not all Android phones come with an amazing gpu. Some just get by. Why TRY and port the game to these? This isn't Android fragmentation, but rather limited hardware
I say they favor the iphone because clearly this is their platform of choice. They are bitching about being able to port their game to all phones? Why is it then every game I've ever bought runs fine? I guess it's just because I have the latest and greatest? With PC gaming, it's understood a certain amount of processing power is needed, so why is it suddenly different with Android? Not all Android phones are the same.
Finally, I DO have the game running smooth as silk when the ads aren't loaded, and the fact that the ads have such an impact on performance says more about the shitty ad system and why they should offer a paid version, which I would happily buy.
So what does it say about these developers that even on a controlled "non-fragmented" OS, they still can't get it right and by your own admission, has choppiness and glitches!?
BTW "Making out like it "runs smooth as silk" (for you) just makes you look foolish. It's not believable." SERIOUSLY? You know what makes YOU look foolish? Talking about shit you clearly don't have a clue about. You have an iPhone, how could you KNOW what MY phone is capable of? Jeesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
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?
Android users don't actually buy apps!? What are all those PAID APPS doing in the market place then? And seeing as how I've bought PLENTY of apps in the few months I've had this phone, I can't take that statement seriously. Buying apps is so easy and they're so cheap, it seems like an even bigger hassle to try and pirate them! KIDS might pirate them, but people with jobs have no reason to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo
when you need to root your device to gain access to "system's innards".. it's called LOCKED DOWN.
Nobody NEEDS to do this though, so what are you talking about?
You're clearly not very intelligent, and even after I've explained why they call it an open OS, you continue to post this abortion of thought.
At some point, the truth will catch up with all the Android folks (and their fans): Nobody, except for service providers (i.e., not Google, not the handset manufacturers, not the developers, not retailers), is making a whole heck of a lot of money off this platform.
When they finally realize it, the platform will end up in the dustbin (or at best, with the lower-end users).
Note: I am not saying that 'Apple Is It,' as much as Android Isn't It.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
Honestly, I really don't understand what it is they could be doing wrong to have such variable performance on phones with capable processing power. I haven't come across a single game that has given me issues. I guess I lucked out with the Fascinate and now it's left me with a false impression of Android.
BUT, someone did mention it's choppy on the iPhone as well, and that OS clearly isn't fragmented. What does that say?
edit:
Just saw a comment above mine saying it's a Hero that can't run this? Makes more sense. Actually, which one of those phones in the list is the best/most powerful? I haven't kept up with each Android phone, but I don't recognize any "powerhouse contenders" there lol
Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.
Because everyone thinks the sky will fall on Android because older versions of the OS fail to support newer games. Big deal. As quoted already older versions of the iphone won't support newer games either. So what? Fragmentation? Oh no!
Why would Nokia with their Linux/Meego/Qt platform and RIM with RIMOS, HP with webOS? I hope they succeed because as Daniel points out, rightfully in this case, Apple vs. Google is getting old and stupid.
LG just sold a million Optimus phones, yet you make it sound like Android has no value to them. Sure it is a low end phone, but it just shows there are those who want a low cost basic smart phone.
Personally I think Android phones are developed so quickly that the state of the art is gone in less than 6 months. That's annoying.
Then there is apple who says "You can have any phone you like, as long as it is tied to Att and is black and costs $200."
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.
May be you don't know how smart the iOS SDK. Upgrading old program into retina display can be done without changing the code, just provide resources for retina display. Android doesn't support tablet, but many force themselves to use Android on their tablet, resulting "big Android Touch". iPad is not big iPod Touch, because iOS SDK is designed specifically for both, but we can make application Universal that can run on both iPad & iPhone.
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! Literally, in airplane mode, the game is as smooth as silk. Turn 3g on, get ads, and watch the game's framerates drop immensely.
And how do you think the average user will be able able to figure that out? Some will, yeah, but how about a product that works as it should out of the box?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same people who not long said in response to something that Steve Jobs said that it's not difficult to develop for the Android platform, and that the fragmentation that Jobs was referring to is just rubbish?
Comments
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:
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."
You know, some people don't give a shit about fragmentation, just as no one gives a shit about the poor external antenna of the iphone 4.
See how this works? It's only an issue if you think it is.
The developer of "Angry Birds," a top-selling iPhone game, reported that bringing the title to Android devices ended up more difficult than anticipated due to fragmentation within the open platform.
You know, some people don't give a shit about fragmentation, just as no one gives a shit about the poor external antenna of the iphone 4.
See how this works? It's only an issue if you think it is.
Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.
ANDROID = What's the point in being OPEN when your phone is JUNK?
I know why android is open. so you can replace junk with junk.
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! Literally, in airplane mode, the game is as smooth as silk. Turn 3g on, get ads, and watch the game's framerates drop immensely.
he's talking about the launchers and phone apps, all of which can easily be replaced, and don't come anywhere CLOSE to the impact he describes.
Articles like this are here to only reassure people made the "correct" decision in going with an iPhone. There is no CORRECT decision! It's all about what you like!
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
... 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 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....
It's mistaken to think that Google doesn't want control. However, they are essentially different in how they seek control. Google gains control through destruction, and only through destruction. (They like to call it "disruption", but their entire philosophy is one of destruction.) Apple is essentially a creative company. Microsoft got it's success by consuming. Very different models, the main difference is that in Google's model, if they win, everyone else, including consumers, loses.
But by the nature, it's never user-friendly. You have to research what phone to buy, what manufacturer record in supporting their phones. Then after you actually PAY for it you still have to work for it like rooting it, making custom ROM, finding a way to upgrade when there is one, and now even have to research on how to play app, or if my phone support it???
I'm sure it's a geek heaven but damn, just writing it shows how lousy the experience can be for people.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
Rovio removed the US T-Mobile G2, they were mistaking it for the UK T-Mobile G2 aka the Hero aka Droid Eris on Verizon. It runs fine on the new G2, but it'd be nice if they just changed the damn name.
Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.
Its easy for Samsung to focus on Windows, they all run the same exact insides. Change the plastics/screen and you have a new phone model. On the Android front they'll have to actually be on the bleeding edge and play in the bargain bin. Costs wise it makes sense to deploy more WP7 devices (im sure they are including Windows Mobile Classic in that as well.)
FYI all the companies you listed rejected Android because they want control over their platform. Nokia wants more control over its platform, considering they built it from the ground up, Android is not the answer for them. RIM is completely proprietary, Android i guarantee was never in the cards. As for HP, they learned their lesson from their Windows Mobile days just like Sony Ericsson is right now, showing up and saying your running Android doesnt guarantee sales. HP is differentiating itself, and thus they bought Palm.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
Wrong. The "G2" listed there refers to what we know as the Hero, it does NOT refer to the T-Mobile G2 aka HTC Desire.
Your being a bit disingenuous here yourself to say the least.
In the first place, your talking about the actual developers statements. The Angry Birds people took the time to port their game to Android and did as best as they could to make it work but the fragmentation got them. I don't know how you can spin that as "people who favour the iphone" or people who don't know what they are talking about.
Secondly, they published a list of at least a dozen Android phones that the game simply won't work on at all, and a simple visit to the comments thread or the store selling it will give you many reports of people who have 'approved' phones that the game doesn't run on either. All this after much development work on the part of the games creators. Do you really think they spent all that time on it, but somehow purposely screwed it up, just so they could cry foul? (they aren't even crying foul btw they are trying to fix it).
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?
If we are going to be totally honest here, Angry Birds needs a good amount of memory and a good processor to run "smoothly" and it doesn't even run "smoothly" on an iPhone 4 if you have less than a gig or two of storage left. It's the only game I've ever played on the iPhone that I've had to crash out of or reboot the phone to get it to run again. Given that almost all Android phones on the market right now have much lesser processing power and much less storage than iPhone 4, it's pretty much a given that they are going to see some choppy-ness and glitches.
Making out like it "runs smooth as silk" (for you) just makes you look foolish. It's not believable.
You said it yourself: The game needs a certain amount of processing power. Not all Android phones come with an amazing gpu. Some just get by. Why TRY and port the game to these? This isn't Android fragmentation, but rather limited hardware
I say they favor the iphone because clearly this is their platform of choice. They are bitching about being able to port their game to all phones? Why is it then every game I've ever bought runs fine? I guess it's just because I have the latest and greatest? With PC gaming, it's understood a certain amount of processing power is needed, so why is it suddenly different with Android? Not all Android phones are the same.
Finally, I DO have the game running smooth as silk when the ads aren't loaded, and the fact that the ads have such an impact on performance says more about the shitty ad system and why they should offer a paid version, which I would happily buy.
So what does it say about these developers that even on a controlled "non-fragmented" OS, they still can't get it right and by your own admission, has choppiness and glitches!?
BTW "Making out like it "runs smooth as silk" (for you) just makes you look foolish. It's not believable." SERIOUSLY? You know what makes YOU look foolish? Talking about shit you clearly don't have a clue about. You have an iPhone, how could you KNOW what MY phone is capable of? Jeesh.
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?
Android users don't actually buy apps!? What are all those PAID APPS doing in the market place then? And seeing as how I've bought PLENTY of apps in the few months I've had this phone, I can't take that statement seriously. Buying apps is so easy and they're so cheap, it seems like an even bigger hassle to try and pirate them! KIDS might pirate them, but people with jobs have no reason to.
when you need to root your device to gain access to "system's innards".. it's called LOCKED DOWN.
Nobody NEEDS to do this though, so what are you talking about?
You're clearly not very intelligent, and even after I've explained why they call it an open OS, you continue to post this abortion of thought.
Wrong. The "G2" listed there refers to what we know as the Hero, it does NOT refer to the T-Mobile G2 aka HTC Desire.
You mean they even have fragmented device naming? It rarely happens, but you really out-dilgered the original poster here :-)
When they finally realize it, the platform will end up in the dustbin (or at best, with the lower-end users).
Note: I am not saying that 'Apple Is It,' as much as Android Isn't It.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).
http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means
The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.
Honestly, I really don't understand what it is they could be doing wrong to have such variable performance on phones with capable processing power. I haven't come across a single game that has given me issues. I guess I lucked out with the Fascinate and now it's left me with a false impression of Android.
BUT, someone did mention it's choppy on the iPhone as well, and that OS clearly isn't fragmented. What does that say?
edit:
Just saw a comment above mine saying it's a Hero that can't run this? Makes more sense. Actually, which one of those phones in the list is the best/most powerful? I haven't kept up with each Android phone, but I don't recognize any "powerhouse contenders" there lol
Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.
Because everyone thinks the sky will fall on Android because older versions of the OS fail to support newer games. Big deal. As quoted already older versions of the iphone won't support newer games either. So what? Fragmentation? Oh no!
Why would Nokia with their Linux/Meego/Qt platform and RIM with RIMOS, HP with webOS? I hope they succeed because as Daniel points out, rightfully in this case, Apple vs. Google is getting old and stupid.
LG just sold a million Optimus phones, yet you make it sound like Android has no value to them. Sure it is a low end phone, but it just shows there are those who want a low cost basic smart phone.
Personally I think Android phones are developed so quickly that the state of the art is gone in less than 6 months. That's annoying.
Then there is apple who says "You can have any phone you like, as long as it is tied to Att and is black and costs $200."
You mean they even have fragmented device naming? It rarely happens, but you really out-dilgered the original poster here :-)
OK, but I think the whole "Droid" naming scheme is a better example of what is wrong with not so much Android but Verizon.
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.
May be you don't know how smart the iOS SDK. Upgrading old program into retina display can be done without changing the code, just provide resources for retina display. Android doesn't support tablet, but many force themselves to use Android on their tablet, resulting "big Android Touch". iPad is not big iPod Touch, because iOS SDK is designed specifically for both, but we can make application Universal that can run on both iPad & iPhone.
Each phone has it's own subforum!! with different set of issues, problems, etc!!!
IT'S RIDICULOUS!! --- Android Developers have to make sure their app runs on ALL OF THESE PHONES!!!!!
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! Literally, in airplane mode, the game is as smooth as silk. Turn 3g on, get ads, and watch the game's framerates drop immensely.
And how do you think the average user will be able able to figure that out? Some will, yeah, but how about a product that works as it should out of the box?