I would have to agree that Android's use of Webkit is a good thing for Apple, as it would force more websites (banking and the like) to support Safari. Since Safari is on Macs, iPhones, and now iPods (touch), this is great news for potential switchers.
I also would agree that Steve and the rest have tons more tricks up their sleeves. Apple is all about innovative interface design on top of solid foundations; what many forget is that those solid foundations were created with the help of the Open Source community. That is Apple's big trick: they innovate on the back of open source development, which allows them to always stay one step ahead of that same community. Ultimately this makes closed, proprietary development (read "Microsoft") increasingly more expensive while maintaining a steady income from people willing to pay a premium for a smooth, advanced UI.
I think the real winners are consumers: we will soon have cheap phones with real OS's, and apps for cellphones will finally work based on minimum hardware requirements (screen size, available memory) regardless of model or brand. Cellphones will finally displace the Palm market as Jobs predicted.
you think this is Apple's way to get an "iPhone" like devices for other companies?
But I like how you can look in the city using like camera I guess...I dunno how they do it. But I am getting one of these phones when they come to Sprint.
I think this could end up being the iPhone for he masses. People who would like an open iPhone that supports any carrier and a SIM card for international use. As long as Apple choses to stick with one carrier and not allow users t switch carriers then they are creating a market for people to look at other devices. I would LOVE to have a iPhone, the cost of the device is not the issue, but the fact that I wouls be tied to once carrier and when I travel abroad I can not replace the SIM card with a local for for my destination.
So an Android powered phone may very well be the solution for me... Shame...
I guess it will take only a few moments for enthusiastic software developers and hackers to try this version of Android on the iPhone. Then we can compare Android and OSX Mobile side by side on the same hardware. Judging by the demo videos Android seems pretty slow, but perhaps that's what iPhone felt like too 1 year prior to launch.
I like the Android initiative. The world needs an open phone platform. Good that someone finally defies the commercial world. Good initiative.
Lol poor Sergey ..."someone get me a Fu@#$in t-shirt...im not being the PC guy!!"
He still looks like he just got out of bed though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2
Google can demo this interface all they want without attracting legal trouble. Trouble might only arise if they proceed to sell it. But Google isn't going to sell handsets or the software. Any risk will be undertaken by handset manufacturers.
Yeah that's really what they are demoing, a concept of what people can do with the platform.
The implementation wasn't as nice as the iphone - slow response, non-fluid interface - but if it's competitively priced, it may bring this level of functionality to a greater number of mobile devices.
It's not popularizing OS X but with some clear common ground, greater compatibility is welcome. Apple just can't reach the lower-end markets properly so what better way to do it than for google to make an open Mac/iphone compatible system and let the phone makers do what they want.
It could seriously affect Microsoft's presence in the mobile market and a greater number of websites will have to be webkit compatible which helps all of us.
The only problem might be is if they make the SDK so open that people manage to find ways to make them incompatible with other devices.
I think this could end up being the iPhone for he masses.
I was thinking more for the geek niche than the masses. It's Open Source so I could hack it how I wanted it, which I can't do with the iPhone, WinMo, Symbian, Palm... The only exception being OpenMoko.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
I guess it will take only a few moments for enthusiastic software developers and hackers to try this version of Android on the iPhone.
Android is Java based. There's no Java on the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
Then we can compare Android and OSX Mobile side by side on the same hardware. Judging by the demo videos Android seems pretty slow, but perhaps that's what iPhone felt like too 1 year prior to launch.
...and it's Java and the hardware requirements are much lower than the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
I like the Android initiative. The world needs an open phone platform. Good that someone finally defies the commercial world. Good initiative.
It certainly does although it's not the first. Google's backing and $10M bounty for 3rd party developer's applications helps a lot. I'd like to see Apple be as proactive with 3rd parties come February's release of their SDK.
Well, I just did a preliminary pass through some of the developer's documentation. Seems like it should *eventually* be possible to run Java-based Android apps on the iPhone. You'd just need to port the virtual machine with the APIs over. Not necessarily a trivial task, and it'd depend on what Apple provides in their SDK, but I can see it happening.
Well, I just did a preliminary pass through some of the developer's documentation. Seems like it should *eventually* be possible to run Java-based Android apps on the iPhone. You'd just need to port the virtual machine with the APIs over. Not necessarily a trivial task, and it'd depend on what Apple provides in their SDK, but I can see it happening.
Well, you may not need a virtual machine per se, since the vanilla version of the CPU used in the iPhone is supposed to be able to directly interpret Java byte code. You *would* however need a way to encapsulate the CPU's Java interpreter to reside within inside an ARM-native OSX process (much like the THUMB and ARM instruction sets can currently be interchanged in other hybrid ARM-based operating systems), and you would need a set of class libraries (APIs) capable of communicating with the outside world through that encapsulation.
But that would probably require specific extensions to OSX on Apple's part, whereas a completely software-based virtual machine would likely be doable by a 3rd party using only a full-featured SDK.
Android is Java based. There's no Java on the iPhone.
.... Google's backing and $10M bounty for 3rd party developer's applications helps a lot. I'd like to see Apple be as proactive with 3rd parties come February's release of their SDK.
Oh man.. I totally got this wrong. I don't understand this. It will only run on hardware that take Java instructions? Or does it run under a software java engine? I thought you could just compile it for any hardware. I don't know so much about java compatible hardware.. but it doesn't sound good...
Would be really cool if Apple announced something similar when they release their SDK. Agreed. But don't they do this already, kind of? But not as actively. They have this award once a year don't they?
Oh man.. I totally got this wrong. I don't understand this. It will only run on hardware that take Java instructions? Or does it run under a software java engine? I thought you could just compile it for any hardware. I don't know so much about java compatible hardware.. but it doesn't sound good...
Would be really cool if Apple announced something similar when they release their SDK. Agreed. But don't they do this already, kind of? But not as actively. They have this award once a year don't they?
There are two broad implementations of Java - a software-based virtual machine which is what we have on most PCs, and a hardware-based solution.
In principle, the exact same Java bytecode will execute under either implementation as long as class libraries exist exposing all the APIs that are expected by the application.
Typically, a hardware-based interpreter has the potential to offer better performance than a software-based virtual machine, all other things being equal.
This initial version already taps into most of the features handset makers and third-party developers will need, Google says. Besides access to Google's own search tools, Android provides hooks for 3G data access, hardware 3D acceleration, and music and video playback. Control can stem from either a traditional button layout or a touchscreen.
The code reaches deeply enough that programmers can rewrite the dialer if they choose, the Mountain View, California-based company adds.
However, the kit also includes code that, for some, may confirm Google's increasingly strong ties to Apple, manifested most often for observers by the presence of Google chief Eric Schmidt on Apple's Board of Directors. The most conspicuous link is the choice of the WebKit rendering platform for its web browser -- the same engine that acts as the foundation for Apple's Safari browser on computers and the iPhone. The choice comes despite Google's partial involvement in the development of Mozilla's Firefox browser.
Android's default operating system, found both in a bundled phone emulator and in a demonstration video (shown below), also bears a striking similarity in places to various components of Apple's operating systems. In touchscreen mode, Google's browser also renders pages at full desktop size and relies on taps and finger dragging to scroll through the page.
Other, smaller aspects also appear to draw from lessons learned from the iPhone or the Mac. A main menu for button-focused phones asks users to pick from an icon tray that behaves like the Mac OS X dock; users also flip through their recent web browser history with a Cover Flow-style interface and receive pop-up notices in a translucent window not unlike that seen on the iPhone or iPod touch.
So this must be one of those Steve Job's comments regarding the iPhone "and boy have we patented it" loopholes, huh?
Actually, I said the dock, dialer and web browser (specifically the visual history) had elements that seemed to rip off parts of both the mobile and desktop versions of OS X. I specifically didn't mention the maps application because it's obvious iPhone and Android look similar: they both use Google maps.
Please accurately represent my comments when attempting to satirize them. It gives you a lot more credibility.
That's the point. You picked on
1: web history, which is not even on the iPhone. Maybe you were confused by Tabbed browsing?
2: dialer, which every phone since the LCD screen has had one. Maybe you thought that the iPhone was the first phone in the history of cellular communications to offer a dialer?
3: browser, as if Apple is the inventor of the web browser, not UIUC with Mosaic.
Maybe you should have picked on Google Maps, since that was the only thing that makes sense to compare original features between the iPhone and the android platform.
Whatever the case, your statement "It's an amazingly obvious rip-off. I felt like I was watching an iPhone ad" is ridiculously out of proportion and unfounded.
Whatever the case, your statement "It's an amazingly obvious rip-off. I felt like I was watching an iPhone ad" is ridiculously out of proportion and unfounded.
Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but unfounded?
So you don't think the app launcher bears a little resemblance to the dock?
The contacts app doesn't look almost identical to the address book app in osx?
The biggest feature in Android that mimics Apple is making functions easily accessible. They're not buried in sub menus. Certainly something that Apple didn't and couldn't patent but I think you're ignoring the obvious if you deny that's not the case.
There are two broad implementations of Java - a software-based virtual machine which is what we have on most PCs, and a hardware-based solution.
In principle, the exact same Java bytecode will execute under either implementation as long as class libraries exist exposing all the APIs that are expected by the application.
Typically, a hardware-based interpreter has the potential to offer better performance than a software-based virtual machine, all other things being equal.
From what I understood of the Android intro video, the Android OS includes a Java Virtual Machine to run the Java Apps. So it isn't tied to any hardware requirement that the iPhone doesn't have. If you can get drivers for the iPhone hardware to run Linux, then you could run Android and use all it's apps.
Android is good thing(tm).
It is better for Apple to be competing/cooperating with Google than for the cellphone world to be dominated by disparate/incompatible technologies, especially Windows Mobile.
Android is Open Source, so Apple could jump on at any time and include a Java VM on the iPhone that runs Android apps(doubt it).
Android based phones won't be available till the end of 2008. By then the iPhone will have evolved and diversified. The OS X is a FAST moving target. In the last 7 years we have seen 5 major releases of Mac OS X.
By the end of 2008 we will have a slew of 3rd party iPhone apps already shipping. Developers love programming for OS X...XCode, Cocoa, CoreImage, CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation. Java is frumpy and so not sexy.
WebKit on Android is a big boost for Safari and Web Standards. More web developers will make the effort of testing and designing for Safari. Apple should be able to offer the best mobile web experience on any cell phone.
I think the reasons for choosing WebKit have less to do with Apple and more do with reasons of practicality:
Webkit was orginally based on on the open source web rendering engine KHTML. Apple provided many improvements and also made a small architecture that made it easier to port to different operating systems and hardware. This change, and the fact it is open source, has made the work of porting it to different environments much easier. Added to this the fact that many different entities, whether it be companies or individuals, are contributing to Webkit and its efficient design, further help in making it a number one choice for anyone wanting a general purpose web rendering engine.
Sure there are other rendering engines around, but they fail for a number of reasons:
- IE: Intel & Windows centric and fails to follow W3C guidelines, , controlled by one company
- Gecko (basis of Firefox): Increasingly bloated.
- Opera: Closed source, controlled by one company
For non-Windows based mobile platforms Webkit is the obvious first choice.
The support for a JVM is one thing I feel is missing from the iPhone and iPod touch. There may have been reasons for this, but if they could at least provide J2ME based JVM that would be sweet.
As for the rest of what Android has to offer, it is quite possible that Apple might want to include the best features, just to keep ahead of the game.
1: web history, which is not even on the iPhone. Maybe you were confused by Tabbed browsing?
2: dialer, which every phone since the LCD screen has had one. Maybe you thought that the iPhone was the first phone in the history of cellular communications to offer a dialer?
3: browser, as if Apple is the inventor of the web browser, not UIUC with Mosaic.
Ugh, really? The web history resembles both coverflow and the iPhone's interface for selecting between multiple open pages. The dialer has a very similar UI and icons, and the browser features many of the same conventions as Safari on the iPhone. Enough with this strawman crap, please.
1: web history, which is not even on the iPhone. Maybe you were confused by Tabbed browsing?
2: dialer, which every phone since the LCD screen has had one. Maybe you thought that the iPhone was the first phone in the history of cellular communications to offer a dialer?
3: browser, as if Apple is the inventor of the web browser, not UIUC with Mosaic.
Maybe you should have picked on Google Maps, since that was the only thing that makes sense to compare original features between the iPhone and the android platform.
Whatever the case, your statement "It's an amazingly obvious rip-off. I felt like I was watching an iPhone ad" is ridiculously out of proportion and unfounded.
First off, it is a lot like the iPhone -- http://www.silverspider.com/wp-conte.../01/iphone.jpg see that chat for the iPhone? Now go and look at the Android, it all has similar aspects -- as in it's all in one page, verses different pages like a normal phone. And the dock is very similar to what OS X has, not really what the iPhone has.
With all of that said, we have no idea what Android actually looks like. This doesn't seem to be a very Google-ish design, and they have a very basic, simple, but stylish design. I mean, look at gmail. Look at Google's web site. It's simple. It's elegant. Look at the Android. It's simple, sure, but it is far from elegant and far from what I would call Google.
And in Google's defense to the chat reference like I mentioned, in case someone agrees it's "copying Apple", look at how Google Talk looks like. It's...just like Android!
A couple more things before I end my post. Someone said it was slow, well the requirements are 200mhz and up (CPU). I don't know about you, but thats a slow processor.... and what if he was living with the slow processor? WOuld make since, you have to make sure it works even for the cheap phones, right?
Anyway, I want to end my....really useless post with this: we don't know what Android is going to look like. This was to developers, to anyone who might want to download the SDK and make some software. It was not intended to be critiqued as the real thing. Am I saying Android will not look like this? No. I am just merely repeating other peoples statements that we don't know what it looks like.
If you can get drivers for the iPhone hardware to run Linux, then you could run Android and use all it's apps.
This is just technobabble. Do you know what drivers are? What Linux is? What a JVM is? Or are these just words you picked up and repeat?
Android was an acquisition by Google a long time ago. The company was doing this stuff long before Apple was doing the iPhone. Allegations of "copying" iPhone are unsubstantiated (at best). Oh, and porting a JVM to the iPhone won't get you Android. The ability to run Java is nothing: it's the class libraries that provide the Android application environment, and they impose certain hardware and native software requirements on the platform.
Quote:
By the end of 2008 we will have a slew of 3rd party iPhone apps already shipping.
Again, an assumption that you will get an SDK on time, and that the legal and commercial requirements for app signing don't deter 3rd parties.
Quote:
Developers love programming for OS X...XCode, Cocoa, CoreImage, CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation. Java is frumpy and so not sexy.
Since you know jack sh1t about Java, I'll let your comment pass.
Quote:
WebKit on Android is a big boost for Safari and Web Standards. More web developers will make the effort of testing and designing for Safari. Apple should be able to offer the best mobile web experience on any cell phone.
Well, you may not need a virtual machine per se, since the vanilla version of the CPU used in the iPhone is supposed to be able to directly interpret Java byte code. You *would* however need a way to encapsulate the CPU's Java interpreter to reside within inside an ARM-native OSX process (much like the THUMB and ARM instruction sets can currently be interchanged in other hybrid ARM-based operating systems), and you would need a set of class libraries (APIs) capable of communicating with the outside world through that encapsulation.
But that would probably require specific extensions to OSX on Apple's part, whereas a completely software-based virtual machine would likely be doable by a 3rd party using only a full-featured SDK.
Right, I was just pointing out that it appears doable. Abstractly, I would still call either of those approaches a "virtual machine", as even if you execute the code bytecode in hardware, you still would likely have to encapsulate that action within a virtual machine-type block (to OS X). Android requires each application to run in a separate virtual machine.
Comments
I also would agree that Steve and the rest have tons more tricks up their sleeves. Apple is all about innovative interface design on top of solid foundations; what many forget is that those solid foundations were created with the help of the Open Source community. That is Apple's big trick: they innovate on the back of open source development, which allows them to always stay one step ahead of that same community. Ultimately this makes closed, proprietary development (read "Microsoft") increasingly more expensive while maintaining a steady income from people willing to pay a premium for a smooth, advanced UI.
I think the real winners are consumers: we will soon have cheap phones with real OS's, and apps for cellphones will finally work based on minimum hardware requirements (screen size, available memory) regardless of model or brand. Cellphones will finally displace the Palm market as Jobs predicted.
But I like how you can look in the city using like camera I guess...I dunno how they do it. But I am getting one of these phones when they come to Sprint.
So an Android powered phone may very well be the solution for me... Shame...
I like the Android initiative. The world needs an open phone platform. Good that someone finally defies the commercial world. Good initiative.
Lol poor Sergey ..."someone get me a Fu@#$in t-shirt...im not being the PC guy!!"
Google can demo this interface all they want without attracting legal trouble. Trouble might only arise if they proceed to sell it. But Google isn't going to sell handsets or the software. Any risk will be undertaken by handset manufacturers.
Yeah that's really what they are demoing, a concept of what people can do with the platform.
The implementation wasn't as nice as the iphone - slow response, non-fluid interface - but if it's competitively priced, it may bring this level of functionality to a greater number of mobile devices.
It's not popularizing OS X but with some clear common ground, greater compatibility is welcome. Apple just can't reach the lower-end markets properly so what better way to do it than for google to make an open Mac/iphone compatible system and let the phone makers do what they want.
It could seriously affect Microsoft's presence in the mobile market and a greater number of websites will have to be webkit compatible which helps all of us.
The only problem might be is if they make the SDK so open that people manage to find ways to make them incompatible with other devices.
I think this could end up being the iPhone for he masses.
I was thinking more for the geek niche than the masses. It's Open Source so I could hack it how I wanted it, which I can't do with the iPhone, WinMo, Symbian, Palm... The only exception being OpenMoko.
I guess it will take only a few moments for enthusiastic software developers and hackers to try this version of Android on the iPhone.
Android is Java based. There's no Java on the iPhone.
Then we can compare Android and OSX Mobile side by side on the same hardware. Judging by the demo videos Android seems pretty slow, but perhaps that's what iPhone felt like too 1 year prior to launch.
...and it's Java and the hardware requirements are much lower than the iPhone.
I like the Android initiative. The world needs an open phone platform. Good that someone finally defies the commercial world. Good initiative.
It certainly does although it's not the first. Google's backing and $10M bounty for 3rd party developer's applications helps a lot. I'd like to see Apple be as proactive with 3rd parties come February's release of their SDK.
Well, I just did a preliminary pass through some of the developer's documentation. Seems like it should *eventually* be possible to run Java-based Android apps on the iPhone. You'd just need to port the virtual machine with the APIs over. Not necessarily a trivial task, and it'd depend on what Apple provides in their SDK, but I can see it happening.
Well, you may not need a virtual machine per se, since the vanilla version of the CPU used in the iPhone is supposed to be able to directly interpret Java byte code. You *would* however need a way to encapsulate the CPU's Java interpreter to reside within inside an ARM-native OSX process (much like the THUMB and ARM instruction sets can currently be interchanged in other hybrid ARM-based operating systems), and you would need a set of class libraries (APIs) capable of communicating with the outside world through that encapsulation.
But that would probably require specific extensions to OSX on Apple's part, whereas a completely software-based virtual machine would likely be doable by a 3rd party using only a full-featured SDK.
Android is Java based. There's no Java on the iPhone.
.... Google's backing and $10M bounty for 3rd party developer's applications helps a lot. I'd like to see Apple be as proactive with 3rd parties come February's release of their SDK.
Oh man.. I totally got this wrong. I don't understand this. It will only run on hardware that take Java instructions? Or does it run under a software java engine? I thought you could just compile it for any hardware. I don't know so much about java compatible hardware.. but it doesn't sound good...
Would be really cool if Apple announced something similar when they release their SDK. Agreed. But don't they do this already, kind of? But not as actively. They have this award once a year don't they?
Oh man.. I totally got this wrong. I don't understand this. It will only run on hardware that take Java instructions? Or does it run under a software java engine? I thought you could just compile it for any hardware. I don't know so much about java compatible hardware.. but it doesn't sound good...
Would be really cool if Apple announced something similar when they release their SDK. Agreed. But don't they do this already, kind of? But not as actively. They have this award once a year don't they?
There are two broad implementations of Java - a software-based virtual machine which is what we have on most PCs, and a hardware-based solution.
In principle, the exact same Java bytecode will execute under either implementation as long as class libraries exist exposing all the APIs that are expected by the application.
Typically, a hardware-based interpreter has the potential to offer better performance than a software-based virtual machine, all other things being equal.
This initial version already taps into most of the features handset makers and third-party developers will need, Google says. Besides access to Google's own search tools, Android provides hooks for 3G data access, hardware 3D acceleration, and music and video playback. Control can stem from either a traditional button layout or a touchscreen.
The code reaches deeply enough that programmers can rewrite the dialer if they choose, the Mountain View, California-based company adds.
However, the kit also includes code that, for some, may confirm Google's increasingly strong ties to Apple, manifested most often for observers by the presence of Google chief Eric Schmidt on Apple's Board of Directors. The most conspicuous link is the choice of the WebKit rendering platform for its web browser -- the same engine that acts as the foundation for Apple's Safari browser on computers and the iPhone. The choice comes despite Google's partial involvement in the development of Mozilla's Firefox browser.
Android's default operating system, found both in a bundled phone emulator and in a demonstration video (shown below), also bears a striking similarity in places to various components of Apple's operating systems. In touchscreen mode, Google's browser also renders pages at full desktop size and relies on taps and finger dragging to scroll through the page.
Other, smaller aspects also appear to draw from lessons learned from the iPhone or the Mac. A main menu for button-focused phones asks users to pick from an icon tray that behaves like the Mac OS X dock; users also flip through their recent web browser history with a Cover Flow-style interface and receive pop-up notices in a translucent window not unlike that seen on the iPhone or iPod touch.
So this must be one of those Steve Job's comments regarding the iPhone "and boy have we patented it" loopholes, huh?
"Et tu Steve", and for what, Google maps??
So this must be one of those Steve Job's comments regarding the iPhone "and boy have we patented it" loopholes, huh?
"Et tu Steve", and for what, Google maps??
I'm sure Steve asked for CoverFlow
Actually, I said the dock, dialer and web browser (specifically the visual history) had elements that seemed to rip off parts of both the mobile and desktop versions of OS X. I specifically didn't mention the maps application because it's obvious iPhone and Android look similar: they both use Google maps.
Please accurately represent my comments when attempting to satirize them. It gives you a lot more credibility.
That's the point. You picked on
1: web history, which is not even on the iPhone. Maybe you were confused by Tabbed browsing?
2: dialer, which every phone since the LCD screen has had one. Maybe you thought that the iPhone was the first phone in the history of cellular communications to offer a dialer?
3: browser, as if Apple is the inventor of the web browser, not UIUC with Mosaic.
Maybe you should have picked on Google Maps, since that was the only thing that makes sense to compare original features between the iPhone and the android platform.
Whatever the case, your statement "It's an amazingly obvious rip-off. I felt like I was watching an iPhone ad" is ridiculously out of proportion and unfounded.
Whatever the case, your statement "It's an amazingly obvious rip-off. I felt like I was watching an iPhone ad" is ridiculously out of proportion and unfounded.
Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but unfounded?
So you don't think the app launcher bears a little resemblance to the dock?
The contacts app doesn't look almost identical to the address book app in osx?
The biggest feature in Android that mimics Apple is making functions easily accessible. They're not buried in sub menus. Certainly something that Apple didn't and couldn't patent but I think you're ignoring the obvious if you deny that's not the case.
There are two broad implementations of Java - a software-based virtual machine which is what we have on most PCs, and a hardware-based solution.
In principle, the exact same Java bytecode will execute under either implementation as long as class libraries exist exposing all the APIs that are expected by the application.
Typically, a hardware-based interpreter has the potential to offer better performance than a software-based virtual machine, all other things being equal.
From what I understood of the Android intro video, the Android OS includes a Java Virtual Machine to run the Java Apps. So it isn't tied to any hardware requirement that the iPhone doesn't have. If you can get drivers for the iPhone hardware to run Linux, then you could run Android and use all it's apps.
Android is good thing(tm).
It is better for Apple to be competing/cooperating with Google than for the cellphone world to be dominated by disparate/incompatible technologies, especially Windows Mobile.
Android is Open Source, so Apple could jump on at any time and include a Java VM on the iPhone that runs Android apps(doubt it).
Android based phones won't be available till the end of 2008. By then the iPhone will have evolved and diversified. The OS X is a FAST moving target. In the last 7 years we have seen 5 major releases of Mac OS X.
By the end of 2008 we will have a slew of 3rd party iPhone apps already shipping. Developers love programming for OS X...XCode, Cocoa, CoreImage, CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation. Java is frumpy and so not sexy.
WebKit on Android is a big boost for Safari and Web Standards. More web developers will make the effort of testing and designing for Safari. Apple should be able to offer the best mobile web experience on any cell phone.
Webkit was orginally based on on the open source web rendering engine KHTML. Apple provided many improvements and also made a small architecture that made it easier to port to different operating systems and hardware. This change, and the fact it is open source, has made the work of porting it to different environments much easier. Added to this the fact that many different entities, whether it be companies or individuals, are contributing to Webkit and its efficient design, further help in making it a number one choice for anyone wanting a general purpose web rendering engine.
Sure there are other rendering engines around, but they fail for a number of reasons:
- IE: Intel & Windows centric and fails to follow W3C guidelines, , controlled by one company
- Gecko (basis of Firefox): Increasingly bloated.
- Opera: Closed source, controlled by one company
For non-Windows based mobile platforms Webkit is the obvious first choice.
As for the rest of what Android has to offer, it is quite possible that Apple might want to include the best features, just to keep ahead of the game.
That's the point. You picked on
1: web history, which is not even on the iPhone. Maybe you were confused by Tabbed browsing?
2: dialer, which every phone since the LCD screen has had one. Maybe you thought that the iPhone was the first phone in the history of cellular communications to offer a dialer?
3: browser, as if Apple is the inventor of the web browser, not UIUC with Mosaic.
Ugh, really? The web history resembles both coverflow and the iPhone's interface for selecting between multiple open pages. The dialer has a very similar UI and icons, and the browser features many of the same conventions as Safari on the iPhone. Enough with this strawman crap, please.
I'm sure Steve asked for CoverFlow
That's the point. You picked on
1: web history, which is not even on the iPhone. Maybe you were confused by Tabbed browsing?
2: dialer, which every phone since the LCD screen has had one. Maybe you thought that the iPhone was the first phone in the history of cellular communications to offer a dialer?
3: browser, as if Apple is the inventor of the web browser, not UIUC with Mosaic.
Maybe you should have picked on Google Maps, since that was the only thing that makes sense to compare original features between the iPhone and the android platform.
Whatever the case, your statement "It's an amazingly obvious rip-off. I felt like I was watching an iPhone ad" is ridiculously out of proportion and unfounded.
First off, it is a lot like the iPhone -- http://www.silverspider.com/wp-conte.../01/iphone.jpg see that chat for the iPhone? Now go and look at the Android, it all has similar aspects -- as in it's all in one page, verses different pages like a normal phone. And the dock is very similar to what OS X has, not really what the iPhone has.
With all of that said, we have no idea what Android actually looks like. This doesn't seem to be a very Google-ish design, and they have a very basic, simple, but stylish design. I mean, look at gmail. Look at Google's web site. It's simple. It's elegant. Look at the Android. It's simple, sure, but it is far from elegant and far from what I would call Google.
And in Google's defense to the chat reference like I mentioned, in case someone agrees it's "copying Apple", look at how Google Talk looks like. It's...just like Android!
A couple more things before I end my post. Someone said it was slow, well the requirements are 200mhz and up (CPU). I don't know about you, but thats a slow processor.... and what if he was living with the slow processor? WOuld make since, you have to make sure it works even for the cheap phones, right?
Anyway, I want to end my....really useless post with this: we don't know what Android is going to look like. This was to developers, to anyone who might want to download the SDK and make some software. It was not intended to be critiqued as the real thing. Am I saying Android will not look like this? No. I am just merely repeating other peoples statements that we don't know what it looks like.
If you can get drivers for the iPhone hardware to run Linux, then you could run Android and use all it's apps.
This is just technobabble. Do you know what drivers are? What Linux is? What a JVM is? Or are these just words you picked up and repeat?
Android was an acquisition by Google a long time ago. The company was doing this stuff long before Apple was doing the iPhone. Allegations of "copying" iPhone are unsubstantiated (at best). Oh, and porting a JVM to the iPhone won't get you Android. The ability to run Java is nothing: it's the class libraries that provide the Android application environment, and they impose certain hardware and native software requirements on the platform.
By the end of 2008 we will have a slew of 3rd party iPhone apps already shipping.
Again, an assumption that you will get an SDK on time, and that the legal and commercial requirements for app signing don't deter 3rd parties.
Developers love programming for OS X...XCode, Cocoa, CoreImage, CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreAnimation. Java is frumpy and so not sexy.
Since you know jack sh1t about Java, I'll let your comment pass.
WebKit on Android is a big boost for Safari and Web Standards. More web developers will make the effort of testing and designing for Safari. Apple should be able to offer the best mobile web experience on any cell phone.
Yeah yeah, whatever.
Well, you may not need a virtual machine per se, since the vanilla version of the CPU used in the iPhone is supposed to be able to directly interpret Java byte code. You *would* however need a way to encapsulate the CPU's Java interpreter to reside within inside an ARM-native OSX process (much like the THUMB and ARM instruction sets can currently be interchanged in other hybrid ARM-based operating systems), and you would need a set of class libraries (APIs) capable of communicating with the outside world through that encapsulation.
But that would probably require specific extensions to OSX on Apple's part, whereas a completely software-based virtual machine would likely be doable by a 3rd party using only a full-featured SDK.
Right, I was just pointing out that it appears doable. Abstractly, I would still call either of those approaches a "virtual machine", as even if you execute the code bytecode in hardware, you still would likely have to encapsulate that action within a virtual machine-type block (to OS X). Android requires each application to run in a separate virtual machine.