Netflix has said their problems with Android have been with security and DRM. They said they cannot guarantee proper DRM support which is required by their contracts with the studios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Of those that can't (Netflix, Tegra only, etc) It's not because the other hardware can't run it. Take Netflix. It apparently "Can't run" on my Galaxy tab, but if I pull the file from my Incredible and install it on my tab (without touching the coding AT ALL) it works flawlessly. Whatever it is "checking" for it obviously finds in my Tab, so it plays. Yet Netflix decided not to offer it in the market.
The next thing for Google to do.... abandon Android cold, naturally. Just like their every other so called 'inventions' (read COPY).
Except, Google is dragging this $12.5/$3.5 Billion Boat Anchor...
Alas, what to do, what to do...
... Just a thought, Google could, say, spend $500,000 or so, lobbying the FTC/Justice to disallow the Google/MMI acquisition... and save themselves $3+ Billion.
Edit: It is possible that Google has been executing a Plan B -- building, from scratch, a Mobile OS that doesn't violate others' IP -- and yet provides a compatibility path for Android Apps... this would certainly give Google some options vis-a-vis Android...
"that crowd of sheeple who will need to spend a night in the queue to get the iPhone X the very first day it is released, otherwise their life is ruined forever."
iPhone sales are clearly beyond people who are fans of Apple products. It is a popular product among the general consumer market.
There is fragmentation, but it's not game breaking. The real problem is that some companies are using the fragmentation politically (IE tegrazone, Netflix, Hulu support) These are INTENTIONAL cases of fragmentation that would not exist otherwise.
And Gameloft can DIAF over their billing practices.
Funny, but the developer of Angry Birds doesn't agree with you that it isn't a big deal:
""With our latest update, we worked hard to bring Angry Birds to even more Android devices. Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance,"
"it's going to create a second version of its flagship game for lower-end Android devices after finding "severe performance issues."
"despite having "hesitated to create multiple versions of Angry Birds" for Android, that's exactly what they're being forced to do in order to meet their goal of having it available on as many Android phones as possible."
And that was before some of the latest big forks.
Anyone who says that fragmentation isn't a problem for Android is dreaming.
The Baidu fork will probably have hooks so that the Chinese Communist Party can keep tabs on what people are saying and clamp down on any sedition and thoughtcrimes. It'll also have phone tracking software so the government can track the whereabouts of all citizens AT ALL TIMES.
OS X did NOT start as UNIX. OS X BECAME UNIX around OSX 10.5...You have a fundamental misgiving of what UNIX is, or how OS X was created. Apple did not fork off any codebase to create OS X (although they did include Open source components, on which they based their code, but it wasn't a fork).
And you are right that MotoBlur can succeed even if devs can't develop the same apps for HTC Sense, or Baidu's OS, like OS X succeeded, based solely on its own install base.
But at that point it makes no sense to class all those together. Unlike Android (which is an OS in itself) UNIX is a specification (like Bluetooth, for example). HP, Solaris, IBM, Apple, all have versions of UNIX whose codebases have little to nothing to do with each other, but meet the same specifications, so they are all certified as UNIX. In this case, Baidu and Amazon are using the ACTUAL Android code for their SW but once they fork it off, there need not be anything similar about the original Android OS and the Baidu fork, for example...
OS X has always been UNIX. NeXTStep is BSD 4.3 Unix. Openstep is BSD 4.3 Unix.
Well, I actually think some apps developed for Froyo will run on Gingerbread and I know for a fact that vast majority of apps I use on Gingerbread run perfectly on Ice Cream Sandwich. Plus Nexus One runs Gingerbread etc. So not as fragmented as you and DED make it out to be.
The problem isn't running old existing apps on new releases. The problem is that Google releases new versions of Android with API improvements that developers can't use because the vast majority is running Froyo or earlier. That limits what Google can do to fix anything.
The ball is out of Google's court in large part because the "openness" of Android means that new devices can ship with an old version and never get updated. Even popular mass-market phones like the Droid Incredible still haven't received an update to last December's Gingerbread 2.3.
So Google can release 4.0 ICS this fall alongside iOS 5.0, but while modern iOS devices will be able to upgrade immediately, Android users will have to wait around for 3 to 6 to 9 months to see if their phone maker will bother to issue a release. There's lots of examples of phones that were never updated.
No tablets were upgraded to 3.0 that I know of, and new tablet variants are continuing to ship with a core version of Android from last summer.
And yet the press refers to "Android" as if it means something. It increasingly doesn't. It's like referring to Windows Mobile/Phone 7 as being the same thing as Windows XP/7. THey are only similar in branding, not technology.
And all those figures saying that the Android smartphone platform is bigger than the iPhone neglect to point out that those phones are fragmented into sub platforms of different API levels and hardware differences that prevent popular apps from running across Android devices.
Netflix for Android runs on like a minor handful of phones. Yet people talk like you can watch Netflix on Android. Well sure, if you have a brand new phone of a very short list of devices. iOS means something.
You can talk about iPhones from 2008 not running the latest OS, but Droid Incredible is the phone Verizon was selling to users when iPhone 4 was launched this spring. It still can't run the Android OS from nearly a year ago.
On of Apple's focuses is the prevent or limit fragmentation, or in other words, limits the number of OS X versions and hardware versions it supports.
Apple is pretty relentless about this. The customer does not have nearly as much freedom of choice when buying into Apple, as those buying into Windows, or the new breed to hardware supporting Android and clones.
There is many pros and cons to seemingly unlimited choices. There are also pros and cons to limiting choice. Apple's products at this point set the standard and so they can control the (their) market well.
Standards are necessary to develop and maintain quality, limiting innovation in some cases. We'll just have to see how these differing cultures play out.
OS X has always been UNIX. NeXTStep is BSD 4.3 Unix. Openstep is BSD 4.3 Unix.
I think where you two are not seeing eye-to-eye is the fact that OS X wasn't "officially" registered as Unix until Leopard (10.5). Prior to that, it was more accurate to say it was Unix-based. I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of what it means to be a registered Unix but OS X only achieved that designation with 10.5.
Truly splitting hairs, I know, but hopefully that clarifies the point you're arguing.
I think where you two are not seeing eye-to-eye is the fact that OS X wasn't "officially" registered as Unix until Leopard (10.5). Prior to that, it was more accurate to say it was Unix-based. I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of what it means to be a registered Unix but OS X only achieved that designation with 10.5.
Truly splitting hairs, I know, but hopefully that clarifies the point you're arguing.
Neither has Linux ever been registered, but they are a UNIX like Operating System.
By the way, UNIX Registration was a lot different back in the day.
They didn't start it up until 1993 this certification process, when SCO owned the certification process and only SCO certified itself along with some unknown LLC corporation.
System V, BSD and variations of both were up and running long before then, including NeXTStep.
Baidu won't call their fork android, Grid (FusionGarage) doesn't call THEIR fork android, Neither does Barnes and Noble (Nook) and I doubt amazon will either.
Most "Fragmentation" issues are completely avoided with a fork because these products are not billed as the same thing. They don't share a common app store, they're not called the same thing, in Baidu's case it's in a completely different market.
The average user doesn't buy a nook and then complain that she can't get all the apps on it she has on her phone because there is NO expectation that she would.
These devices won't have the android market, they won't have Google applications, they cannot (legally) have Google anywhere on the device, the advertisement, or the box, nor would baidu put Google there since it's a direct competitor.
This isn't a "Fragmentation" issue in any way that matters to the consumer.
On of Apple's focuses is the prevent or limit fragmentation, or in other words, limits the number of OS X versions and hardware versions it supports.
Apple is pretty relentless about this. The customer does not have nearly as much freedom of choice when buying into Apple, as those buying into Windows, or the new breed to hardware supporting Android and clones.
There is many pros and cons to seemingly unlimited choices. There are also pros and cons to limiting choice. Apple's products at this point set the standard and so they can control the (their) market well.
Standards are necessary to develop and maintain quality, limiting innovation in some cases. We'll just have to see how these differing cultures play out.
I think the right answer is the apple answer. Limited choices is the way to go here. No two ways about it. Unlimited choices offers up too much and isn't even a great business strategy. You want limited choices without being too limited. Limiting choices shouldn't affect the overall user experience negatively and nor should the openness affect the user experience negatively. Its not going to play out because time and time again it's been shown that a balance of limited choice will always rule the day. Being completely open is not in most end users best interests nor is it a good business strategy so far.
China mobile are not doing anything wrong. In fact it's what I was hoping Amazon would do with the Kindle. Make it's own fork of Android with its own unique application store and not to be compatible with existing ones. Then they could push their own fully curated store for their customers.
You can talk about iPhones from 2008 not running the latest OS, but Droid Incredible is the phone Verizon was selling to users when iPhone 4 was launched this spring. It still can't run the Android OS from nearly a year ago.
The problem with some Android manufacturers is that they have to make a version of Android for each particular model.
Some phones run one skin... some run another. That's why it takes months before an Android phone can be upgraded to the latest version.
But really.... they would rather not take the time to do that. They are busy pumping out new phones every month.
If you're a company with over a dozen models coming out every year... you focus on new sales... not supporting old models.
If I buy an Android phone tomorrow... what are the chances it will run Ice Cream Sandwich someday?
Comments
Of those that can't (Netflix, Tegra only, etc) It's not because the other hardware can't run it. Take Netflix. It apparently "Can't run" on my Galaxy tab, but if I pull the file from my Incredible and install it on my tab (without touching the coding AT ALL) it works flawlessly. Whatever it is "checking" for it obviously finds in my Tab, so it plays. Yet Netflix decided not to offer it in the market.
The next thing for Google to do.... abandon Android cold, naturally. Just like their every other so called 'inventions' (read COPY).
Except, Google is dragging this $12.5/$3.5 Billion Boat Anchor...
Alas, what to do, what to do...
... Just a thought, Google could, say, spend $500,000 or so, lobbying the FTC/Justice to disallow the Google/MMI acquisition... and save themselves $3+ Billion.
Edit: It is possible that Google has been executing a Plan B -- building, from scratch, a Mobile OS that doesn't violate others' IP -- and yet provides a compatibility path for Android Apps... this would certainly give Google some options vis-a-vis Android...
iPhone sales are clearly beyond people who are fans of Apple products. It is a popular product among the general consumer market.
Which part of it is name calling ?
Actually, there are countless posts by developers who say that while yes, Android has fragmentation, it's not the huge deal everyone says it is.
Just a few examples:
Mika Mobile (Battle Heart): http://mikamobile.blogspot.com/2011/06/android.html
Angry Birds: http://www.phonearena.com/news/Angry...tation_id15593
Meridian Apps: http://nfarina.com/post/8239634061/ios-to-android (Great overview of differences, positive and negative)
There is fragmentation, but it's not game breaking. The real problem is that some companies are using the fragmentation politically (IE tegrazone, Netflix, Hulu support) These are INTENTIONAL cases of fragmentation that would not exist otherwise.
And Gameloft can DIAF over their billing practices.
Funny, but the developer of Angry Birds doesn't agree with you that it isn't a big deal:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20023199-264.html
""With our latest update, we worked hard to bring Angry Birds to even more Android devices. Despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in delivering optimal performance,"
"it's going to create a second version of its flagship game for lower-end Android devices after finding "severe performance issues."
Or maybe:
http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means
"despite having "hesitated to create multiple versions of Angry Birds" for Android, that's exactly what they're being forced to do in order to meet their goal of having it available on as many Android phones as possible."
And that was before some of the latest big forks.
Anyone who says that fragmentation isn't a problem for Android is dreaming.
The next thing for Google to do.... abandon Android cold, naturally. Just like their every other so called 'inventions' (read COPY).
Or close it, make hardware and try to invent (copy) Apple's business model.
OS X did NOT start as UNIX. OS X BECAME UNIX around OSX 10.5...You have a fundamental misgiving of what UNIX is, or how OS X was created. Apple did not fork off any codebase to create OS X (although they did include Open source components, on which they based their code, but it wasn't a fork).
And you are right that MotoBlur can succeed even if devs can't develop the same apps for HTC Sense, or Baidu's OS, like OS X succeeded, based solely on its own install base.
But at that point it makes no sense to class all those together. Unlike Android (which is an OS in itself) UNIX is a specification (like Bluetooth, for example). HP, Solaris, IBM, Apple, all have versions of UNIX whose codebases have little to nothing to do with each other, but meet the same specifications, so they are all certified as UNIX. In this case, Baidu and Amazon are using the ACTUAL Android code for their SW but once they fork it off, there need not be anything similar about the original Android OS and the Baidu fork, for example...
OS X has always been UNIX. NeXTStep is BSD 4.3 Unix. Openstep is BSD 4.3 Unix.
Should extend BB Code to include TIMG tag.
OS X has always been UNIX. NeXTStep is BSD 4.3 Unix. Openstep is BSD 4.3 Unix.
... really big image...
Should extend BB Code to include TIMG tag.
Nice... Where is QNX?
Cough cough... lawsuit... cough cough...
I'd be concerned that the application icons for contacts, phone and folders are almost a pixel reproduction of the iOS ones.
Nice... Where is QNX?
Very good question.
Well, I actually think some apps developed for Froyo will run on Gingerbread and I know for a fact that vast majority of apps I use on Gingerbread run perfectly on Ice Cream Sandwich. Plus Nexus One runs Gingerbread etc. So not as fragmented as you and DED make it out to be.
The problem isn't running old existing apps on new releases. The problem is that Google releases new versions of Android with API improvements that developers can't use because the vast majority is running Froyo or earlier. That limits what Google can do to fix anything.
The ball is out of Google's court in large part because the "openness" of Android means that new devices can ship with an old version and never get updated. Even popular mass-market phones like the Droid Incredible still haven't received an update to last December's Gingerbread 2.3.
So Google can release 4.0 ICS this fall alongside iOS 5.0, but while modern iOS devices will be able to upgrade immediately, Android users will have to wait around for 3 to 6 to 9 months to see if their phone maker will bother to issue a release. There's lots of examples of phones that were never updated.
No tablets were upgraded to 3.0 that I know of, and new tablet variants are continuing to ship with a core version of Android from last summer.
And yet the press refers to "Android" as if it means something. It increasingly doesn't. It's like referring to Windows Mobile/Phone 7 as being the same thing as Windows XP/7. THey are only similar in branding, not technology.
And all those figures saying that the Android smartphone platform is bigger than the iPhone neglect to point out that those phones are fragmented into sub platforms of different API levels and hardware differences that prevent popular apps from running across Android devices.
Netflix for Android runs on like a minor handful of phones. Yet people talk like you can watch Netflix on Android. Well sure, if you have a brand new phone of a very short list of devices. iOS means something.
You can talk about iPhones from 2008 not running the latest OS, but Droid Incredible is the phone Verizon was selling to users when iPhone 4 was launched this spring. It still can't run the Android OS from nearly a year ago.
Apple is pretty relentless about this. The customer does not have nearly as much freedom of choice when buying into Apple, as those buying into Windows, or the new breed to hardware supporting Android and clones.
There is many pros and cons to seemingly unlimited choices. There are also pros and cons to limiting choice. Apple's products at this point set the standard and so they can control the (their) market well.
Standards are necessary to develop and maintain quality, limiting innovation in some cases. We'll just have to see how these differing cultures play out.
OS X has always been UNIX. NeXTStep is BSD 4.3 Unix. Openstep is BSD 4.3 Unix.
I think where you two are not seeing eye-to-eye is the fact that OS X wasn't "officially" registered as Unix until Leopard (10.5). Prior to that, it was more accurate to say it was Unix-based. I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of what it means to be a registered Unix but OS X only achieved that designation with 10.5.
Truly splitting hairs, I know, but hopefully that clarifies the point you're arguing.
I think where you two are not seeing eye-to-eye is the fact that OS X wasn't "officially" registered as Unix until Leopard (10.5). Prior to that, it was more accurate to say it was Unix-based. I honestly don't know the ins-and-outs of what it means to be a registered Unix but OS X only achieved that designation with 10.5.
Truly splitting hairs, I know, but hopefully that clarifies the point you're arguing.
Neither has Linux ever been registered, but they are a UNIX like Operating System.
By the way, UNIX Registration was a lot different back in the day.
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
They didn't start it up until 1993 this certification process, when SCO owned the certification process and only SCO certified itself along with some unknown LLC corporation.
System V, BSD and variations of both were up and running long before then, including NeXTStep.
Baidu won't call their fork android, Grid (FusionGarage) doesn't call THEIR fork android, Neither does Barnes and Noble (Nook) and I doubt amazon will either.
Most "Fragmentation" issues are completely avoided with a fork because these products are not billed as the same thing. They don't share a common app store, they're not called the same thing, in Baidu's case it's in a completely different market.
The average user doesn't buy a nook and then complain that she can't get all the apps on it she has on her phone because there is NO expectation that she would.
These devices won't have the android market, they won't have Google applications, they cannot (legally) have Google anywhere on the device, the advertisement, or the box, nor would baidu put Google there since it's a direct competitor.
This isn't a "Fragmentation" issue in any way that matters to the consumer.
That sounds about right to me.
On of Apple's focuses is the prevent or limit fragmentation, or in other words, limits the number of OS X versions and hardware versions it supports.
Apple is pretty relentless about this. The customer does not have nearly as much freedom of choice when buying into Apple, as those buying into Windows, or the new breed to hardware supporting Android and clones.
There is many pros and cons to seemingly unlimited choices. There are also pros and cons to limiting choice. Apple's products at this point set the standard and so they can control the (their) market well.
Standards are necessary to develop and maintain quality, limiting innovation in some cases. We'll just have to see how these differing cultures play out.
I think the right answer is the apple answer. Limited choices is the way to go here. No two ways about it. Unlimited choices offers up too much and isn't even a great business strategy. You want limited choices without being too limited. Limiting choices shouldn't affect the overall user experience negatively and nor should the openness affect the user experience negatively. Its not going to play out because time and time again it's been shown that a balance of limited choice will always rule the day. Being completely open is not in most end users best interests nor is it a good business strategy so far.
Hell they were using tablets on Star Trek. So no its not a new idea.
[...]
It is: Star Trek hasn't yet 'started', as of 2011
It is: Star Trek hasn't yet 'started', as of 2011
That's true, aha, Star Trek copied Apple. In the future!!
You can talk about iPhones from 2008 not running the latest OS, but Droid Incredible is the phone Verizon was selling to users when iPhone 4 was launched this spring. It still can't run the Android OS from nearly a year ago.
The problem with some Android manufacturers is that they have to make a version of Android for each particular model.
Some phones run one skin... some run another. That's why it takes months before an Android phone can be upgraded to the latest version.
But really.... they would rather not take the time to do that. They are busy pumping out new phones every month.
If you're a company with over a dozen models coming out every year... you focus on new sales... not supporting old models.
If I buy an Android phone tomorrow... what are the chances it will run Ice Cream Sandwich someday?