Yikes, I wonder how having an OS running on top of another OS will affect battery life, and data usage for that matter? I do a WHOLE lot of other things with my phone besides check facebook, i suspect many others do as well.
Yikes, I wonder how having an OS running on top of another OS will affect battery life, and data usage for that matter? I do a WHOLE lot of other things with my phone besides check facebook, i suspect many others do as well.
Based on the videos I've seen there is more going on with the effects which could negatively affect battery life but I wouldn't call it an OS atop another OS. There is no virtualization like you get with a VM. Since Android is open source, it's merely a new UI layer just as countless other vendors have done with Android. The benefit goes to Facebook as they can make a single UI that will be used across a lot more devices than say what is available from just HTC or Samsung. I'm sure we'll know exactly how much it affects the battery life soon enough.
Since Android is open source, it's merely a new UI layer just as countless other vendors have done with Android.
This has nothing to do with open source. It's about the OS having public APIs to do things that some other OSes (e.g. iOS - (*)) reserve for themselves.
This is simply a replacement launcher, which is basically the app that runs when you click the Home button. With Android, any user can replace the stock launcher(s) with one of their own choice.
There are many such replacements available for Android. They might display big icons / SMS / email for seniors, or can be an iOS lookalike, or have fancy 3D animations, or the ability to download other people's created looks.
There's a HTML based launcher that's quite beautiful on tablets, using the extra screen space well, that started on Kickstarter. Supposedly you can write your own HTML widgets for it.
There are also kid oriented launchers, for devices that children are using. Those launchers let the parent lock down the icons so they can't be accidentally moved or removed, prevent displaying notifications, and only show the apps that you allow.
You can even set things up so that you pick which launcher to use each time you click Home, although that's better just for testing.
Heck, the second Android app I ever wrote was a simple replacement launcher for my wife, so she couldn't mess up her icons. (The first app was a live wallpaper that changed photos per homepage.) It was a lot more interesting than writing user apps for iOS or Android or RIM or WM.
(*) If you jailbreak your iPhone, then you can use a replacement launcher.
iOS still has hands down better old device support than Android of any flavour, and an iPhone of any number is still more likely to run new software than any other phone.
(I think that there should be a rule that this is appended to any comments of the "my old iPhone doesn't do this or that" variety).
Also worth noting that the reason your old iPhone won't do this or that always has a hardware related reason that makes it impossible. It's not an arbitrary limiting of the device or even just because they don't have the time or the inclination to support it.
It kills me how many people complain about this stuff as if they had a valid complaint when they clearly do not. Apple promises that if you buy a device from them that you will get two full number versions of software that run on it and all the point upgrades as well. Often even though it isn't promised, you get three (and all the updates). Again, more than any Android phone ever.
This is exactly the problem.
Android devices are not being updated to the latest version... even when the hardware is capable. The Android vendors would rather you shell out for a new phone every year than update the old one. All the Android devices out there running 1.6 could just as easily run 4.x if their hardware manufacturer and wireless carrier would do it. But no instead it's "not fiscially prudent" ... yes it's not financially viable to support Android, there's your answer.
Meanwhile Apple updates all the iPhones with the latest iOS until the hardware is not capable of running it. Sure it may be disappointing when the hardware changes substantially and Apple chooses to no longer support those devices (see first generation iPhone, PPC Macs, CoreDuo macs, and all models running intel graphics parts prior to sandy bridge) but this is after several years... not months like the Android devices.
One of the reasons that I haven't even considered an Android device to date is that none of the hardware vendors seem to care to support their devices for more than one year. Consider that all phones are on 3 year contracts here, why would I want to beholden to the carrier for a device that becomes a piece of junk after the first year?
Comments
Those on Android who can't run it are the lucky ones in my opinion.
Based on the videos I've seen there is more going on with the effects which could negatively affect battery life but I wouldn't call it an OS atop another OS. There is no virtualization like you get with a VM. Since Android is open source, it's merely a new UI layer just as countless other vendors have done with Android. The benefit goes to Facebook as they can make a single UI that will be used across a lot more devices than say what is available from just HTC or Samsung. I'm sure we'll know exactly how much it affects the battery life soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Since Android is open source, it's merely a new UI layer just as countless other vendors have done with Android.
This has nothing to do with open source. It's about the OS having public APIs to do things that some other OSes (e.g. iOS - (*)) reserve for themselves.
This is simply a replacement launcher, which is basically the app that runs when you click the Home button. With Android, any user can replace the stock launcher(s) with one of their own choice.
There are many such replacements available for Android. They might display big icons / SMS / email for seniors, or can be an iOS lookalike, or have fancy 3D animations, or the ability to download other people's created looks.
There's a HTML based launcher that's quite beautiful on tablets, using the extra screen space well, that started on Kickstarter. Supposedly you can write your own HTML widgets for it.
There are also kid oriented launchers, for devices that children are using. Those launchers let the parent lock down the icons so they can't be accidentally moved or removed, prevent displaying notifications, and only show the apps that you allow.
You can even set things up so that you pick which launcher to use each time you click Home, although that's better just for testing.
Heck, the second Android app I ever wrote was a simple replacement launcher for my wife, so she couldn't mess up her icons. (The first app was a live wallpaper that changed photos per homepage.) It was a lot more interesting than writing user apps for iOS or Android or RIM or WM.
(*) If you jailbreak your iPhone, then you can use a replacement launcher.
So Android isn't open source. Got it!
So iOS doesn't have APIs for 3rd-party developers. Got it!
Just a launcher with absolutely no other changes to the system. Got it!
Keep up the good work¡
Just wondering: how many Android users have iOS?
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Just wondering: how many Android users have iOS?
All of them.
Hey, bastardized is bastardized.
"Does that mean iOS has malware and viruses and is insecure?"
No.
"YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOT—"
Yes, we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So Android isn't open source. Got it!
So iOS doesn't have APIs for 3rd-party developers. Got it!
Just a launcher with absolutely no other changes to the system. Got it!
Judging from those unrelated comments, you obviously do not "get it" at all.
Writing replacement Android launchers does not require any access to OS source code.
iOS does not provide public APIs for writing replacement launchers. Android does.
Yes, it's just a launcher with no other changes to the system.
Android launchers are apps like any other app, and can be written and distributed and downloaded and installed or changed by anyone.
Instead of being sarcastic, why not just ask and learn?
This is exactly the problem.
Android devices are not being updated to the latest version... even when the hardware is capable. The Android vendors would rather you shell out for a new phone every year than update the old one. All the Android devices out there running 1.6 could just as easily run 4.x if their hardware manufacturer and wireless carrier would do it. But no instead it's "not fiscially prudent" ... yes it's not financially viable to support Android, there's your answer.
Meanwhile Apple updates all the iPhones with the latest iOS until the hardware is not capable of running it. Sure it may be disappointing when the hardware changes substantially and Apple chooses to no longer support those devices (see first generation iPhone, PPC Macs, CoreDuo macs, and all models running intel graphics parts prior to sandy bridge) but this is after several years... not months like the Android devices.
One of the reasons that I haven't even considered an Android device to date is that none of the hardware vendors seem to care to support their devices for more than one year. Consider that all phones are on 3 year contracts here, why would I want to beholden to the carrier for a device that becomes a piece of junk after the first year?