No. Android SHOULD be the number one mobile OS. That is because people buy it more than iOS. That is what determines what should be the number one mobile OS.
No and No. What determines the number one mobile OS is total units sold, yes. But I believe I used the word should in bold letter to indicate what should be the case, not might currently be the case.
Just because something sells the most doesn't mean it is the best. It simply could be the cheapest, etc. In the case of Android, sold on dozens of devices so that it floods the market. Currently one provider provides support for the iPhone (AT&T). Many people will turn away from the iPhone for that very reason. I dislike AT&T, but I vehemently hate Sprint and Tmobile (I have never used Verizon, but since they don't support our employers' discount plan we avoid them). So, we were prime candidates for the iPhone.
Back to my comment, I said should. Why? Because both Win 7 phone OS and iOS had more stringent requirements than Android does. All Win 7 phones must have the same front face buttons and the same camera button to support the OS, just like the iPhone has a specific design that is the same across the current models (I dont' know about the 1st and 2nd gen iPhones).
So, a good phone (and I have owned both the iPhone and Win 7 Phone) SHOULD outsell a mediocre phone such as the Android. Maybe it won't, but it should. Most folks aren't geeks or hackers. They want a phone that works simply with little problems and the Android is not that phone.
...The only meaningful fragmentation is between the iPad and iPhone/touch. That was deliberate. Sometimes fragmentation is a good thing. Although Apple still gives the option to create Universal apps if the developer chooses to target both.
Android's so called fragmentation is deliberate also. That giant list of Android devices does not mean fragmentation. It means choice. If I wanted to sell an Android application I would not worry about that giant list of great devices. I would target a version of the operating system. At this point it would 2.0 + for me. The UI is geared to be mostly resolution agnostic. I would test on the lowest resolutions and the highest. Sort of the same thing I would do on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.
When making a program that is highly dependent on the graphics performance of the device you need to decide on your minimum requirements. Just like if you wanted to make a high memory, high cpu game for the iPod Touch or iPhone, you wouldn't support 1st gen iPod's or iPhone's.
What the Angry Bird developers are saying is that they weren't able to pull off making a high end version of Angry Bird and having it run well on all versions of Android (and all devices within those versions).
Since Android is also being targeted to be used on "normal" handsets, not just smartphones it doesn't make sense to try to support them without taking in their specifications.
Here is the list of unsupported Android Devices:
* Droid Eris
* HTC Dream
* HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
* HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
* HTC Tattoo
* HTC Wildfire
* Huawei Ideos/U8150
* LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
* LG GW620/Eve
* Motorola Backflip/MB300
* Motorola Cliq/Dext
* Samsung Acclaim
* Samsung Moment/M900
* Samsung Spica/i5700
* Samsung Transform
* Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
* T-Mobile G1
Those are the devices I would expect to be on the list. It's pretty easy to say you only support Android v2.0 and above. If they want full coverage of Android then they need to make a version that supports smaller screen resolutions and slower cpu's. Oh that is what they are doing. This is not news.
Android's so called fragmentation is deliberate also. That giant list of Android devices does not mean fragmentation. It means choice. If I wanted to sell an Android application I would not worry about that giant list of great devices. I would target a version of the operating system. At this point it would 2.0 + for me. The UI is geared to be mostly resolution agnostic. I would test on the lowest resolutions and the highest. Sort of the same thing I would do on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.
When making a program that is highly dependent on the graphics performance of the device you need to decide on your minimum requirements. Just like if you wanted to make a high memory, high cpu game for the iPod Touch or iPhone, you wouldn't support 1st gen iPod's or iPhone's.
What the Angry Bird developers are saying is that they weren't able to pull off making a high end version of Angry Bird and having it run well on all versions of Android (and all devices within those versions).
Since Android is also being targeted to be used on "normal" handsets, not just smartphones it doesn't make sense to try to support them without taking in their specifications.
Here is the list of unsupported Android Devices:
* Droid Eris
* HTC Dream
* HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
* HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
* HTC Tattoo
* HTC Wildfire
* Huawei Ideos/U8150
* LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
* LG GW620/Eve
* Motorola Backflip/MB300
* Motorola Cliq/Dext
* Samsung Acclaim
* Samsung Moment/M900
* Samsung Spica/i5700
* Samsung Transform
* Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
* T-Mobile G1
Those are the devices I would expect to be on the list. It's pretty easy to say you only support Android v2.0 and above. If they want full coverage of Android then they need to make a version that supports smaller screen resolutions and slower cpu's. Oh that is what they are doing. This is not news.
Choice, huh? Yes you can choose, but it's still heavily fragmented because of that same choice you are bragging here.
Um, my Evo plays it just fine. I don't consider it junk any more than I consider my Ipod Touch junk. I guess I'm just a poor lost soul going to hell for not using an Iphone. I would like to give you the name of my employer so that you may call and tell them how worthless of a human being I am for having the temerity to purchase a non-Apple phone unit.
Android's so called fragmentation is deliberate also. That giant list of Android devices does not mean fragmentation. It means choice. If I wanted to sell an Android application I would not worry about that giant list of great devices. I would target a version of the operating system. At this point it would 2.0 + for me. The UI is geared to be mostly resolution agnostic. I would test on the lowest resolutions and the highest. Sort of the same thing I would do on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.
When making a program that is highly dependent on the graphics performance of the device you need to decide on your minimum requirements. Just like if you wanted to make a high memory, high cpu game for the iPod Touch or iPhone, you wouldn't support 1st gen iPod's or iPhone's.
What the Angry Bird developers are saying is that they weren't able to pull off making a high end version of Angry Bird and having it run well on all versions of Android (and all devices within those versions).
Since Android is also being targeted to be used on "normal" handsets, not just smartphones it doesn't make sense to try to support them without taking in their specifications.
Here is the list of unsupported Android Devices:
* Droid Eris
* HTC Dream
* HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
* HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
* HTC Tattoo
* HTC Wildfire
* Huawei Ideos/U8150
* LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
* LG GW620/Eve
* Motorola Backflip/MB300
* Motorola Cliq/Dext
* Samsung Acclaim
* Samsung Moment/M900
* Samsung Spica/i5700
* Samsung Transform
* Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
* T-Mobile G1
Those are the devices I would expect to be on the list. It's pretty easy to say you only support Android v2.0 and above. If they want full coverage of Android then they need to make a version that supports smaller screen resolutions and slower cpu's. Oh that is what they are doing. This is not news.
What you are missing, of course, is that all of these devices were released in the LAST YEAR. And people who own those devices probably thought they were getting the top of the line Android phone, same as their neighbour, as an iPhone equivalent. meanwhile, just popping over to itunes/app/angrybirds I see the minimum requirements on the iPhone are
iOS 3.0, and compatible with
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
So that will work on a 1st Gen. Thats 3.5 years old.
So it runs on all iPhones from 2007, and some Androids from 2010. Do the people with Android phones feel that they have been sold a pup?
This isnt going to go away either - the new version of Android ( 3.0) needs 1Ghz processor, and recommends 512MB minimum. Most cheap and nasty android manufacturers will not even bother, carriers wont carry updates, 1.6 will be on a lot of machines sold into cheaper markets, the google market is not even in most countries.
Developers, back to iOS.
( Was it worth while for Roxio to put up with this cr*p compared to the revenue they get from iOS? how many more man hours do they have to put in to make the game work on these extra machines?)
No. Most of what asdasd said is nonsense. You are free to dislike anything Apple here; however if you dislike Apple products and want to post about it, you have to make well-reasoned arguments backed up with evidence, otherwise it degenerates into nothing but trolling.
I do find the idea of being an "Apple fan" and simply unquestionably liking anything they come up with very odd.
let's review some dreadful/mediocre Apple products, shall we?
Hockey-puck mouse. Hang on. Any mouse with just one button for that matter.
iPod HiFi
The "fatty" iPod nano
iPod Shuffle with no buttons
AppleTV version 1
MacBook Air version 1
As a moderator, how you moderate is up to you. I dislike one mouse buttons, the fat iPod Nano, the Apple TV was rubbish, and the AIR was pretty but functionally useless.
However these are equivalent to the debates on who gets picked for the Liverpool squad in a Liverpool forum, or how the management is doing.
If someone is on the AppleInsider/iPhone forum getting defensive about a clear flaw in the Android platform, and keeps mentioning *my* Android phone, then I dont see the point. Its up to you, were I moderating I would suggest these guys find other fora. Apple hating is common.
What you are missing, of course, is that all of these devices were released in the LAST YEAR. And people who own those devices probably thought they were getting the top of the line Android phone, same as their neighbour, as an iPhone equivalent. meanwhile, just popping over to itunes/app/angrybirds I see the minimum requirements on the iPhone are
iOS 3.0, and compatible with
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
So that will work on a 1st Gen. Thats 3.5 years old.
So it runs on all iPhones from 2007, and some Androids from 2010. Do the people with Android phones feel that they have been sold a pup?
So you are saying it's a good thing to have a static market with little choice. In actuality app/game developers should see what the future will be with Apple. Even though Apple claims to not have framentation, their history is anything but that. As they introduce more models the possibilities will grow for Apple also (I won't get into motorola vs powerpc vs intel or nvidia vs ati vs intel on the desktop).
It doesn't really matter if a low end phone with an old version of Android is released tomorrow. It's still a low end phone with an old version of Android. You need to know what you are buying.
Smart developers will have their games/apps adjust themselves to the system specs they are running on, and understand when they are running on a system that can't support what they want to do. The bottom line is that the 1st Gen iPod and iPhone don't have the same specs as the later ones and can't deliver the same experience. For example, the game designer at 2XL gave me this advice when I was discussing with him his upcoming release of 2XL Supercross in April 2009:
"The iPod Touch 2.0 is the way to go. It's faster than any of the phones." and I'll add what was not said, the iPod Touch 1.0.
That was only slightly over a year ago and how many different models are there since then and what can't the iPod Touch 2.0 do in IOS 4?
I'm glad I waited and bought the iPod Touch 3.0 (but should I have waited for the 4g iPod Touch and it's camera [which is different then the iPhone 4g] and the higher resolution, so many options!!).
So you are saying it's a good thing to have a static market with little choice. In actuality app/game developers should see what the future will be with Apple. Even though Apple claims to not have framentation, their history is anything but that. As they introduce more models the possibilities will grow for Apple also (I won't get into motorola vs powerpc vs intel or nvidia vs ati vs intel on the desktop).
this response is a strawman. Clearly what I said was the all iPhone can handle Angry Birds on all models, and Android phones released in this year, cannot. I didn't mention choice.
Quote:
It doesn't really matter if a low end phone with an old version of Android is released tomorrow. It's still a low end phone with an old version of Android. You need to know what you are buying.
The people who cant run Angry Birds seem to think that they should be able to run this relatively simple game. It is not RAGE now, is it. Buyers are not going to be cognisant that old versions of an OS are sold in the same year on a brand new device new to the market. Too confusing.
Quote:
Smart developers will have their games/apps adjust themselves to the system specs they are running on, and understand when they are running on a system that can't support what they want to do. The bottom line is that the 1st Gen iPod and iPhone don't have the same specs as the later ones and can't deliver the same experience. For example, the game designer at 2XL gave me this advice when I was discussing with him his upcoming release of 2XL Supercross in April 2009:
"The iPod Touch 2.0 is the way to go. It's faster than any of the phones." and I'll add what was not said, the iPod Touch 1.0.
That was only slightly over a year ago and how many different models are there since then and what can't the iPod Touch 2.0 do in IOS 4?
I'm glad I waited and bought the iPod Touch 3.0 (but should I have waited for the 4g iPod Touch and it's camera [which is different then the iPhone 4g] and the higher resolution, so many options!!).
Ye, things move on. But let me repeat - the Android phones were bought this year. And if Angry Birds runs on iOS 3.0 it runs across the suite, no questions asked. Developers can target iOS 3.0, and even the device and then - thats it. Phones from 2007.
But Android devices bought and manufactured this year cant run what is a fairly simple game - in terms of it's processing power. Certainly John Carmack is moving ahead with amazing stuff for the iPhone. Meanwhile recently released Android phones cant handle a game where a few sprites moving in 2D.
Is this an issue for Roxio, of course it is. They now have to not just test all these devices, unknown to anybody a year ago, and future releases from manufacturers as yet unknown, wasting lots of developer time on a platform where profitability is yet to be determined. ( So undetermined they didnt want bother to do a paid version). Will they give up - no, probably not - however if this is an issue for them what about the iPhone app which is 10th on the game store, selling a few tens of thousands, is it worth their while porting?
What you are missing, of course, is that all of these devices were released in the LAST YEAR. And people who own those devices probably thought they were getting the top of the line Android phone, same as their neighbour, as an iPhone equivalent. meanwhile, just popping over to itunes/app/angrybirds I see the minimum requirements on the iPhone are
iOS 3.0, and compatible with
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
So that will work on a 1st Gen. Thats 3.5 years old.
So it runs on all iPhones from 2007, and some Androids from 2010. Do the people with Android phones feel that they have been sold a pup?
This isnt going to go away either - the new version of Android ( 3.0) needs 1Ghz processor, and recommends 512MB minimum. Most cheap and nasty android manufacturers will not even bother, carriers wont carry updates, 1.6 will be on a lot of machines sold into cheaper markets, the google market is not even in most countries.
Developers, back to iOS.
( Was it worth while for Roxio to put up with this cr*p compared to the revenue they get from iOS? how many more man hours do they have to put in to make the game work on these extra machines?)
Answer: no.
What you fail to mention about iOS running on first gen iPhones is that there are specific features that only the latest and greatest can run, much like we see here with Android. Heck, the iPhone 3GS is capable of running iMovie, so why doesn't Apple let people run that without having to jailbreak their phone? At least Android developers are inhibited only by hardware. Apple puts artificial limitations in place.
What about any of this makes no sense to you? Old phones of yesterday, and bottom of the line phones of today will not run processor intense applications.
My friend Pam has a samsung moment, and I don't ever hear her bitch about things like this. She loves her phone, in fact, and understands some things my fascinate does simply is a result of beefier hardware. It's not a hard concept to grasp...
But Android devices bought and manufactured this year cant run what is a fairly simple game - in terms of it's processing power.
You're pulling this RIGHT out of your ass! There's actually a fair amount of processing going on for the physics. The iPhone has always been very capable in this regard, but it's also been at a price that doesn't compare to the entry level Android phones you describe!
You're pulling this RIGHT out of your ass! There's actually a fair amount of processing going on for the physics. The iPhone has always been very capable in this regard, but it's also been at a price that doesn't compare to the entry level Android phones you describe!
Its a simple game. It runs on the original iPhone. The physics is 2D. nothing is happening in 3 dimensions.
"Duhhh. This one says it runs 1.6, this one says it runs 2.2. This one is free with 2 year contract, this one is $250. DUHH WHICH ONE ID BETTER?"
Look at all those LOLS!
Nevertheless the people who bought Android phones mostly dont know 1.6 from 2.2. All they know is they bought this year.
The vast uptake of Andoird phones is from people who assume that the latest phone is the greatest phone. All phones are subsidised so that hides the price ( it depends on your contract - in the UK you can get the iPhone 4 for free on a very long pricy contract).
So you know 1.6 from 2.2. Most people dont. Which is why they are complaining on the Rovio forum.
What you fail to mention about iOS running on first gen iPhones is that there are specific features that only the latest and greatest can run, much like we see here with Android. Heck, the iPhone 3GS is capable of running iMovie, so why doesn't Apple let people run that without having to jailbreak their phone? At least Android developers are inhibited only by hardware. Apple puts artificial limitations in place.
What about any of this makes no sense to you? Old phones of yesterday, and bottom of the line phones of today will not run processor intense applications.
My friend Pam has a samsung moment, and I don't ever hear her bitch about things like this. She loves her phone, in fact, and understands some things my fascinate does simply is a result of beefier hardware. It's not a hard concept to grasp...
Good for Pam. We are talking about people on the Rovio forums who are angry that Angry Birds doesnt run, and the costs to Rovio of making it run. Is it worth the extra development?
Its a simple game. It runs on the original iPhone. The physics is 2D. nothing is happening in 3 dimensions.
Did you ever write software capable of handling the physics in Angry Birds?
I think the issue in the lower end Android device is a combination of drawing the larger graphics and then scaling it to fit the smaller screen, the slower cpu doing that, and the fact that the user is free to customize their desktop and run widgets that consume some of that cpu.
I'm sure if Rovio provided appropriately sized graphics for the device it would play just fine. If not then I would think it is user customizations that are interfering with it.
Did you ever write software capable of handling the physics in Angry Birds?
Yes. Seriously what do you think the problem is. It is basically a platform game, the "physics" of a slingshot hitting something 2D and the thing being hit having a defined weight and centre of gravity and reacting to that is not a big deal in terms of computational power. It runs on the 1st gen iPhone.
Good for Pam. We are talking about people on the Rovio forums who are angry that Angry Birds doesnt run, and the costs to Rovio of making it run. Is it worth the extra development?
It sounds to me, as a developer, that Rovio did a quick port and did not do due diligence during the port to gracefully degrade their application to the capabilities of the device it is running on. A few minutes of research would have let them know they need to target a certain level of devices. They could have easily had required Android 2.0 or above to run and older devices wouldn't even see it in the marketplace.
They also could have delayed the release until they had tested on all Android devices if that is what they want to support.
It just isn't a big deal. They did it the wrong way. They'll work it out.
It plays just fine on my Droid X, and I like it much better then on my iPod Touch. That 4.3" screen makes all the difference for me.
Yes. Seriously what do you think the problem is. It is basically a platform game, the "physics" of a slingshot hitting something 2D and the thing being hit having a defined weight and centre of gravity and reacting to that is not a big deal in terms of computational power. It runs on the 1st gen iPhone.
You seem to be skipping over the issue with your repetition of “it runs on the 1st gen iPhone” with a generalized inferior v. superior ideology, without considering what kind of physics engine is available to these disparate devices or the complexities of the APIs the developer has to work. These can great affect how much processing these devices have to actually do to complete the same task. I don’t think the answer is as simple as older v. newer.
Yes. Seriously what do you think the problem is. It is basically a platform game, the "physics" of a slingshot hitting something 2D and the thing being hit having a defined weight and centre of gravity and reacting to that is not a big deal in terms of computational power. It runs on the 1st gen iPhone.
I just think it's a little more complicated then you make it sound. If you read my post that you quoted you would see what I think the problem is. I don't think the computation is the problem, but I do believe it contributes on the lower end devices..
The physics are really good in Angry Birds and is one of the things that makes the came as good as it is. The game requires a reserve in computational power when the number of objects being computed at the same time increases during the more complicated levels without impacting the frame rate.
Comments
I'm beginning to think I was singled out because you are not a fan of evil clowns?
You ain't got nothing on Captain Spaulding.
No. Android SHOULD be the number one mobile OS. That is because people buy it more than iOS. That is what determines what should be the number one mobile OS.
No and No. What determines the number one mobile OS is total units sold, yes. But I believe I used the word should in bold letter to indicate what should be the case, not might currently be the case.
Just because something sells the most doesn't mean it is the best. It simply could be the cheapest, etc. In the case of Android, sold on dozens of devices so that it floods the market. Currently one provider provides support for the iPhone (AT&T). Many people will turn away from the iPhone for that very reason. I dislike AT&T, but I vehemently hate Sprint and Tmobile (I have never used Verizon, but since they don't support our employers' discount plan we avoid them). So, we were prime candidates for the iPhone.
Back to my comment, I said should. Why? Because both Win 7 phone OS and iOS had more stringent requirements than Android does. All Win 7 phones must have the same front face buttons and the same camera button to support the OS, just like the iPhone has a specific design that is the same across the current models (I dont' know about the 1st and 2nd gen iPhones).
So, a good phone (and I have owned both the iPhone and Win 7 Phone) SHOULD outsell a mediocre phone such as the Android. Maybe it won't, but it should. Most folks aren't geeks or hackers. They want a phone that works simply with little problems and the Android is not that phone.
...The only meaningful fragmentation is between the iPad and iPhone/touch. That was deliberate. Sometimes fragmentation is a good thing. Although Apple still gives the option to create Universal apps if the developer chooses to target both.
Android's so called fragmentation is deliberate also. That giant list of Android devices does not mean fragmentation. It means choice. If I wanted to sell an Android application I would not worry about that giant list of great devices. I would target a version of the operating system. At this point it would 2.0 + for me. The UI is geared to be mostly resolution agnostic. I would test on the lowest resolutions and the highest. Sort of the same thing I would do on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.
When making a program that is highly dependent on the graphics performance of the device you need to decide on your minimum requirements. Just like if you wanted to make a high memory, high cpu game for the iPod Touch or iPhone, you wouldn't support 1st gen iPod's or iPhone's.
What the Angry Bird developers are saying is that they weren't able to pull off making a high end version of Angry Bird and having it run well on all versions of Android (and all devices within those versions).
Since Android is also being targeted to be used on "normal" handsets, not just smartphones it doesn't make sense to try to support them without taking in their specifications.
Here is the list of unsupported Android Devices:
* Droid Eris
* HTC Dream
* HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
* HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
* HTC Tattoo
* HTC Wildfire
* Huawei Ideos/U8150
* LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
* LG GW620/Eve
* Motorola Backflip/MB300
* Motorola Cliq/Dext
* Samsung Acclaim
* Samsung Moment/M900
* Samsung Spica/i5700
* Samsung Transform
* Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
* T-Mobile G1
Those are the devices I would expect to be on the list. It's pretty easy to say you only support Android v2.0 and above. If they want full coverage of Android then they need to make a version that supports smaller screen resolutions and slower cpu's. Oh that is what they are doing. This is not news.
Android's so called fragmentation is deliberate also. That giant list of Android devices does not mean fragmentation. It means choice. If I wanted to sell an Android application I would not worry about that giant list of great devices. I would target a version of the operating system. At this point it would 2.0 + for me. The UI is geared to be mostly resolution agnostic. I would test on the lowest resolutions and the highest. Sort of the same thing I would do on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.
When making a program that is highly dependent on the graphics performance of the device you need to decide on your minimum requirements. Just like if you wanted to make a high memory, high cpu game for the iPod Touch or iPhone, you wouldn't support 1st gen iPod's or iPhone's.
What the Angry Bird developers are saying is that they weren't able to pull off making a high end version of Angry Bird and having it run well on all versions of Android (and all devices within those versions).
Since Android is also being targeted to be used on "normal" handsets, not just smartphones it doesn't make sense to try to support them without taking in their specifications.
Here is the list of unsupported Android Devices:
* Droid Eris
* HTC Dream
* HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
* HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
* HTC Tattoo
* HTC Wildfire
* Huawei Ideos/U8150
* LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
* LG GW620/Eve
* Motorola Backflip/MB300
* Motorola Cliq/Dext
* Samsung Acclaim
* Samsung Moment/M900
* Samsung Spica/i5700
* Samsung Transform
* Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
* T-Mobile G1
Those are the devices I would expect to be on the list. It's pretty easy to say you only support Android v2.0 and above. If they want full coverage of Android then they need to make a version that supports smaller screen resolutions and slower cpu's. Oh that is what they are doing. This is not news.
Choice, huh? Yes you can choose, but it's still heavily fragmented because of that same choice you are bragging here.
Um, my Evo plays it just fine. I don't consider it junk any more than I consider my Ipod Touch junk. I guess I'm just a poor lost soul going to hell for not using an Iphone. I would like to give you the name of my employer so that you may call and tell them how worthless of a human being I am for having the temerity to purchase a non-Apple phone unit.
Are you in the wrong forum?
Android's so called fragmentation is deliberate also. That giant list of Android devices does not mean fragmentation. It means choice. If I wanted to sell an Android application I would not worry about that giant list of great devices. I would target a version of the operating system. At this point it would 2.0 + for me. The UI is geared to be mostly resolution agnostic. I would test on the lowest resolutions and the highest. Sort of the same thing I would do on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.
When making a program that is highly dependent on the graphics performance of the device you need to decide on your minimum requirements. Just like if you wanted to make a high memory, high cpu game for the iPod Touch or iPhone, you wouldn't support 1st gen iPod's or iPhone's.
What the Angry Bird developers are saying is that they weren't able to pull off making a high end version of Angry Bird and having it run well on all versions of Android (and all devices within those versions).
Since Android is also being targeted to be used on "normal" handsets, not just smartphones it doesn't make sense to try to support them without taking in their specifications.
Here is the list of unsupported Android Devices:
* Droid Eris
* HTC Dream
* HTC Hero/T-Mobile G2 Touch
* HTC Magic/Sapphire/Mytouch 3G
* HTC Tattoo
* HTC Wildfire
* Huawei Ideos/U8150
* LG Ally/Aloha/VS740
* LG GW620/Eve
* Motorola Backflip/MB300
* Motorola Cliq/Dext
* Samsung Acclaim
* Samsung Moment/M900
* Samsung Spica/i5700
* Samsung Transform
* Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 mini
* T-Mobile G1
Those are the devices I would expect to be on the list. It's pretty easy to say you only support Android v2.0 and above. If they want full coverage of Android then they need to make a version that supports smaller screen resolutions and slower cpu's. Oh that is what they are doing. This is not news.
What you are missing, of course, is that all of these devices were released in the LAST YEAR. And people who own those devices probably thought they were getting the top of the line Android phone, same as their neighbour, as an iPhone equivalent. meanwhile, just popping over to itunes/app/angrybirds I see the minimum requirements on the iPhone are
iOS 3.0, and compatible with
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
So that will work on a 1st Gen. Thats 3.5 years old.
So it runs on all iPhones from 2007, and some Androids from 2010. Do the people with Android phones feel that they have been sold a pup?
This isnt going to go away either - the new version of Android ( 3.0) needs 1Ghz processor, and recommends 512MB minimum. Most cheap and nasty android manufacturers will not even bother, carriers wont carry updates, 1.6 will be on a lot of machines sold into cheaper markets, the google market is not even in most countries.
Developers, back to iOS.
( Was it worth while for Roxio to put up with this cr*p compared to the revenue they get from iOS? how many more man hours do they have to put in to make the game work on these extra machines?)
Answer: no.
No. Most of what asdasd said is nonsense. You are free to dislike anything Apple here; however if you dislike Apple products and want to post about it, you have to make well-reasoned arguments backed up with evidence, otherwise it degenerates into nothing but trolling.
I do find the idea of being an "Apple fan" and simply unquestionably liking anything they come up with very odd.
let's review some dreadful/mediocre Apple products, shall we?
Hockey-puck mouse. Hang on. Any mouse with just one button for that matter.
iPod HiFi
The "fatty" iPod nano
iPod Shuffle with no buttons
AppleTV version 1
MacBook Air version 1
As a moderator, how you moderate is up to you. I dislike one mouse buttons, the fat iPod Nano, the Apple TV was rubbish, and the AIR was pretty but functionally useless.
However these are equivalent to the debates on who gets picked for the Liverpool squad in a Liverpool forum, or how the management is doing.
If someone is on the AppleInsider/iPhone forum getting defensive about a clear flaw in the Android platform, and keeps mentioning *my* Android phone, then I dont see the point. Its up to you, were I moderating I would suggest these guys find other fora. Apple hating is common.
What you are missing, of course, is that all of these devices were released in the LAST YEAR. And people who own those devices probably thought they were getting the top of the line Android phone, same as their neighbour, as an iPhone equivalent. meanwhile, just popping over to itunes/app/angrybirds I see the minimum requirements on the iPhone are
iOS 3.0, and compatible with
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
So that will work on a 1st Gen. Thats 3.5 years old.
So it runs on all iPhones from 2007, and some Androids from 2010. Do the people with Android phones feel that they have been sold a pup?
So you are saying it's a good thing to have a static market with little choice. In actuality app/game developers should see what the future will be with Apple. Even though Apple claims to not have framentation, their history is anything but that. As they introduce more models the possibilities will grow for Apple also (I won't get into motorola vs powerpc vs intel or nvidia vs ati vs intel on the desktop).
It doesn't really matter if a low end phone with an old version of Android is released tomorrow. It's still a low end phone with an old version of Android. You need to know what you are buying.
Smart developers will have their games/apps adjust themselves to the system specs they are running on, and understand when they are running on a system that can't support what they want to do. The bottom line is that the 1st Gen iPod and iPhone don't have the same specs as the later ones and can't deliver the same experience. For example, the game designer at 2XL gave me this advice when I was discussing with him his upcoming release of 2XL Supercross in April 2009:
"The iPod Touch 2.0 is the way to go. It's faster than any of the phones." and I'll add what was not said, the iPod Touch 1.0.
That was only slightly over a year ago and how many different models are there since then and what can't the iPod Touch 2.0 do in IOS 4?
I'm glad I waited and bought the iPod Touch 3.0 (but should I have waited for the 4g iPod Touch and it's camera [which is different then the iPhone 4g] and the higher resolution, so many options!!).
So you are saying it's a good thing to have a static market with little choice. In actuality app/game developers should see what the future will be with Apple. Even though Apple claims to not have framentation, their history is anything but that. As they introduce more models the possibilities will grow for Apple also (I won't get into motorola vs powerpc vs intel or nvidia vs ati vs intel on the desktop).
this response is a strawman. Clearly what I said was the all iPhone can handle Angry Birds on all models, and Android phones released in this year, cannot. I didn't mention choice.
It doesn't really matter if a low end phone with an old version of Android is released tomorrow. It's still a low end phone with an old version of Android. You need to know what you are buying.
The people who cant run Angry Birds seem to think that they should be able to run this relatively simple game. It is not RAGE now, is it. Buyers are not going to be cognisant that old versions of an OS are sold in the same year on a brand new device new to the market. Too confusing.
Smart developers will have their games/apps adjust themselves to the system specs they are running on, and understand when they are running on a system that can't support what they want to do. The bottom line is that the 1st Gen iPod and iPhone don't have the same specs as the later ones and can't deliver the same experience. For example, the game designer at 2XL gave me this advice when I was discussing with him his upcoming release of 2XL Supercross in April 2009:
"The iPod Touch 2.0 is the way to go. It's faster than any of the phones." and I'll add what was not said, the iPod Touch 1.0.
That was only slightly over a year ago and how many different models are there since then and what can't the iPod Touch 2.0 do in IOS 4?
I'm glad I waited and bought the iPod Touch 3.0 (but should I have waited for the 4g iPod Touch and it's camera [which is different then the iPhone 4g] and the higher resolution, so many options!!).
Ye, things move on. But let me repeat - the Android phones were bought this year. And if Angry Birds runs on iOS 3.0 it runs across the suite, no questions asked. Developers can target iOS 3.0, and even the device and then - thats it. Phones from 2007.
But Android devices bought and manufactured this year cant run what is a fairly simple game - in terms of it's processing power. Certainly John Carmack is moving ahead with amazing stuff for the iPhone. Meanwhile recently released Android phones cant handle a game where a few sprites moving in 2D.
Is this an issue for Roxio, of course it is. They now have to not just test all these devices, unknown to anybody a year ago, and future releases from manufacturers as yet unknown, wasting lots of developer time on a platform where profitability is yet to be determined. ( So undetermined they didnt want bother to do a paid version). Will they give up - no, probably not - however if this is an issue for them what about the iPhone app which is 10th on the game store, selling a few tens of thousands, is it worth their while porting?
What you are missing, of course, is that all of these devices were released in the LAST YEAR. And people who own those devices probably thought they were getting the top of the line Android phone, same as their neighbour, as an iPhone equivalent. meanwhile, just popping over to itunes/app/angrybirds I see the minimum requirements on the iPhone are
iOS 3.0, and compatible with
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.
So that will work on a 1st Gen. Thats 3.5 years old.
So it runs on all iPhones from 2007, and some Androids from 2010. Do the people with Android phones feel that they have been sold a pup?
This isnt going to go away either - the new version of Android ( 3.0) needs 1Ghz processor, and recommends 512MB minimum. Most cheap and nasty android manufacturers will not even bother, carriers wont carry updates, 1.6 will be on a lot of machines sold into cheaper markets, the google market is not even in most countries.
Developers, back to iOS.
( Was it worth while for Roxio to put up with this cr*p compared to the revenue they get from iOS? how many more man hours do they have to put in to make the game work on these extra machines?)
Answer: no.
What you fail to mention about iOS running on first gen iPhones is that there are specific features that only the latest and greatest can run, much like we see here with Android. Heck, the iPhone 3GS is capable of running iMovie, so why doesn't Apple let people run that without having to jailbreak their phone? At least Android developers are inhibited only by hardware. Apple puts artificial limitations in place.
What about any of this makes no sense to you? Old phones of yesterday, and bottom of the line phones of today will not run processor intense applications.
My friend Pam has a samsung moment, and I don't ever hear her bitch about things like this. She loves her phone, in fact, and understands some things my fascinate does simply is a result of beefier hardware. It's not a hard concept to grasp...
But Android devices bought and manufactured this year cant run what is a fairly simple game - in terms of it's processing power.
You're pulling this RIGHT out of your ass! There's actually a fair amount of processing going on for the physics. The iPhone has always been very capable in this regard, but it's also been at a price that doesn't compare to the entry level Android phones you describe!
Buyers are not going to be cognisant that old versions of an OS are sold in the same year on a brand new device new to the market. Too confusing.
"Duhhh. This one says it runs 1.6, this one says it runs 2.2. This one is free with 2 year contract, this one is $250. DUHH WHICH ONE ID BETTER?"
You're pulling this RIGHT out of your ass! There's actually a fair amount of processing going on for the physics. The iPhone has always been very capable in this regard, but it's also been at a price that doesn't compare to the entry level Android phones you describe!
Its a simple game. It runs on the original iPhone. The physics is 2D. nothing is happening in 3 dimensions.
"Duhhh. This one says it runs 1.6, this one says it runs 2.2. This one is free with 2 year contract, this one is $250. DUHH WHICH ONE ID BETTER?"
Look at all those LOLS!
Nevertheless the people who bought Android phones mostly dont know 1.6 from 2.2. All they know is they bought this year.
The vast uptake of Andoird phones is from people who assume that the latest phone is the greatest phone. All phones are subsidised so that hides the price ( it depends on your contract - in the UK you can get the iPhone 4 for free on a very long pricy contract).
So you know 1.6 from 2.2. Most people dont. Which is why they are complaining on the Rovio forum.
What you fail to mention about iOS running on first gen iPhones is that there are specific features that only the latest and greatest can run, much like we see here with Android. Heck, the iPhone 3GS is capable of running iMovie, so why doesn't Apple let people run that without having to jailbreak their phone? At least Android developers are inhibited only by hardware. Apple puts artificial limitations in place.
What about any of this makes no sense to you? Old phones of yesterday, and bottom of the line phones of today will not run processor intense applications.
My friend Pam has a samsung moment, and I don't ever hear her bitch about things like this. She loves her phone, in fact, and understands some things my fascinate does simply is a result of beefier hardware. It's not a hard concept to grasp...
Good for Pam. We are talking about people on the Rovio forums who are angry that Angry Birds doesnt run, and the costs to Rovio of making it run. Is it worth the extra development?
Its a simple game. It runs on the original iPhone. The physics is 2D. nothing is happening in 3 dimensions.
Did you ever write software capable of handling the physics in Angry Birds?
I think the issue in the lower end Android device is a combination of drawing the larger graphics and then scaling it to fit the smaller screen, the slower cpu doing that, and the fact that the user is free to customize their desktop and run widgets that consume some of that cpu.
I'm sure if Rovio provided appropriately sized graphics for the device it would play just fine. If not then I would think it is user customizations that are interfering with it.
Did you ever write software capable of handling the physics in Angry Birds?
Yes. Seriously what do you think the problem is. It is basically a platform game, the "physics" of a slingshot hitting something 2D and the thing being hit having a defined weight and centre of gravity and reacting to that is not a big deal in terms of computational power. It runs on the 1st gen iPhone.
Good for Pam. We are talking about people on the Rovio forums who are angry that Angry Birds doesnt run, and the costs to Rovio of making it run. Is it worth the extra development?
It sounds to me, as a developer, that Rovio did a quick port and did not do due diligence during the port to gracefully degrade their application to the capabilities of the device it is running on. A few minutes of research would have let them know they need to target a certain level of devices. They could have easily had required Android 2.0 or above to run and older devices wouldn't even see it in the marketplace.
They also could have delayed the release until they had tested on all Android devices if that is what they want to support.
It just isn't a big deal. They did it the wrong way. They'll work it out.
It plays just fine on my Droid X, and I like it much better then on my iPod Touch. That 4.3" screen makes all the difference for me.
Yes. Seriously what do you think the problem is. It is basically a platform game, the "physics" of a slingshot hitting something 2D and the thing being hit having a defined weight and centre of gravity and reacting to that is not a big deal in terms of computational power. It runs on the 1st gen iPhone.
You seem to be skipping over the issue with your repetition of “it runs on the 1st gen iPhone” with a generalized inferior v. superior ideology, without considering what kind of physics engine is available to these disparate devices or the complexities of the APIs the developer has to work. These can great affect how much processing these devices have to actually do to complete the same task. I don’t think the answer is as simple as older v. newer.
Yes. Seriously what do you think the problem is. It is basically a platform game, the "physics" of a slingshot hitting something 2D and the thing being hit having a defined weight and centre of gravity and reacting to that is not a big deal in terms of computational power. It runs on the 1st gen iPhone.
I just think it's a little more complicated then you make it sound. If you read my post that you quoted you would see what I think the problem is. I don't think the computation is the problem, but I do believe it contributes on the lower end devices..
The physics are really good in Angry Birds and is one of the things that makes the came as good as it is. The game requires a reserve in computational power when the number of objects being computed at the same time increases during the more complicated levels without impacting the frame rate.