So, not only do you have all the different versions of 'official' Android - 2.x, 3.x, etc), you also have the Amazon version of Android. And the Chinese versions of Android. And probably other third world versions of Android.
It's confusing as heck for consumers and developers.
You're right except that developers don't have to worry about the branches of Android such as the Amazon version and whatever Chinese knockoff versions there may be. Developers develop for the main line of Android, the official Android. If their apps don't work on the Kindle Fire or some hack job from China then so be it. They don't have to worry about those branches unless they want to. Note that I'm not a developer so I can't speak to the difficulty of making an app work on a branch of Android such as what is running on the Kindle Fire.
As for consumers, I think they should be savvy enough that they won't buy a tablet from no-name company. As for fragmentation among well-known brands, it's not bad enough to affect a consumer day to day; their tablet will run perfectly fine even if it's not fully updated. If they have enough knowledge of the tech world to know that their device isn't running the most recent version of Android then they probably bought that product with full knowledge of what they were getting themselves into.
My hope is that once Google starts manufacturing it's own hardware via Motorola, it will force other manufacturers to stay up to date or lose market share. That way consumers win.
Everytime someone mentions Android fragmentation, you and all the other Google shills are all over them and deny that it's an issue.
Shill . Still on that dishonesty kick Jr?
Anyway, I'll ask again. Simply quote where I've ever said that Android isn't fragmented so I can respond. Since I apparently have done so several times according to you it should be easy as can be... unless it isn't true. Surely you wouldn't lie and make believe I've said things I haven't to make yourself look better would you?
i, too, would appreciate a sincere and honest answer to this question.
People have answered regarding the relevance to Apple but the most important thing is why can't the two of you look at the title and go "Apple isn't mentioned, I think I'll skip this one" and quit with the idiotic whining?
Developers develop for the main line of Android, the official Android. If their apps don't work on the Kindle Fire or some hack job from China then so be it. They don't have to worry about those branches unless they want to. Note that I'm not a developer so I can't speak to the difficulty of making an app work on a branch of Android such as what is running on the Kindle Fire.
More like I'll code for the Fire that has sold millions first and maybe see if works on these other Android tablets (probably). Of course that means I'm stuck with a 2.3 baseline but that's okay given the almost non-existant 4.x footprint.
With 5M+ Kindle fires in the wild any new 7" tablet will have it's work cut out for it. Amazon Video > Google Play IMHO.
So, not only do you have all the different versions of 'official' Android - 2.x, 3.x, etc), you also have the Amazon version of Android. And the Chinese versions of Android. And probably other third world versions of Android.
It's confusing as heck for consumers and developers.
That is probably why none of the Android phones are popular. Its all so confusing, everybody just gets an iPhone.
Between my phone, iPad and computer I don't really need another device. 7-inch is an in-betweener like Jobs said. But still interested to see what Google comes up with.
ArsTechnica is reporting that the Google Nexus 7" tablet probably appeared on a bench-marking site recently. Tho not official the details seem to be in line with the rumored Asus-built slate.
"The telling benchmarks come from Basemark ES2.0 Taiji from Rightware, and show a device named "Nexus 7" manufactured by "asus." Presumably, the 7 points to the device's screen size, which showed a resolution of 1280x768. The benchmarks also indicated it sported a quad-core Cortex A9 NVIDIA Tegra 3 processor clocked at 1.3GHz alongside an NVIDIA ULA GeForce GPU. The device was running Android version 4.1 JRN51B; Android Police speculates that the J stands for "Jelly Bean," meaning that that iteration of the OS may not carry the 5.0 version number after all.
Sources speaking to TechnoBuffalo on May 24 indicated that the tablet would be made by Asus (correct, if the above benchmarks are real), would be priced at $200, and that it would be announced during the Google I/O conference taking place from June 27 to June 29"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yet it's still Android and advertised as such.
So, not only do you have all the different versions of 'official' Android - 2.x, 3.x, etc), you also have the Amazon version of Android. And the Chinese versions of Android. And probably other third world versions of Android.
It's confusing as heck for consumers and developers.
You're right except that developers don't have to worry about the branches of Android such as the Amazon version and whatever Chinese knockoff versions there may be. Developers develop for the main line of Android, the official Android. If their apps don't work on the Kindle Fire or some hack job from China then so be it. They don't have to worry about those branches unless they want to. Note that I'm not a developer so I can't speak to the difficulty of making an app work on a branch of Android such as what is running on the Kindle Fire.
As for consumers, I think they should be savvy enough that they won't buy a tablet from no-name company. As for fragmentation among well-known brands, it's not bad enough to affect a consumer day to day; their tablet will run perfectly fine even if it's not fully updated. If they have enough knowledge of the tech world to know that their device isn't running the most recent version of Android then they probably bought that product with full knowledge of what they were getting themselves into.
My hope is that once Google starts manufacturing it's own hardware via Motorola, it will force other manufacturers to stay up to date or lose market share. That way consumers win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Everytime someone mentions Android fragmentation, you and all the other Google shills are all over them and deny that it's an issue.
Shill
Anyway, I'll ask again. Simply quote where I've ever said that Android isn't fragmented so I can respond. Since I apparently have done so several times according to you it should be easy as can be... unless it isn't true. Surely you wouldn't lie and make believe I've said things I haven't to make yourself look better would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
i, too, would appreciate a sincere and honest answer to this question.
People have answered regarding the relevance to Apple but the most important thing is why can't the two of you look at the title and go "Apple isn't mentioned, I think I'll skip this one" and quit with the idiotic whining?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Developers develop for the main line of Android, the official Android. If their apps don't work on the Kindle Fire or some hack job from China then so be it. They don't have to worry about those branches unless they want to. Note that I'm not a developer so I can't speak to the difficulty of making an app work on a branch of Android such as what is running on the Kindle Fire.
More like I'll code for the Fire that has sold millions first and maybe see if works on these other Android tablets (probably). Of course that means I'm stuck with a 2.3 baseline but that's okay given the almost non-existant 4.x footprint.
With 5M+ Kindle fires in the wild any new 7" tablet will have it's work cut out for it. Amazon Video > Google Play IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So, not only do you have all the different versions of 'official' Android - 2.x, 3.x, etc), you also have the Amazon version of Android. And the Chinese versions of Android. And probably other third world versions of Android.
It's confusing as heck for consumers and developers.
That is probably why none of the Android phones are popular. Its all so confusing, everybody just gets an iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
People have answered regarding the relevance to Apple ....
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150261/rumor-google-asus-to-release-joint-7-inch-tablet-in-july#post_2115184
Between my phone, iPad and computer I don't really need another device. 7-inch is an in-betweener like Jobs said. But still interested to see what Google comes up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/150261/rumor-google-asus-to-release-joint-7-inch-tablet-in-july#post_2115184
In your opinion. In many others a 7" tablet competes with the iPod Touch and low end iPad 2.
And it still doesn't explain why you can't read the title and figure out that you probably don't need to click on the f'ing link.
ArsTechnica is reporting that the Google Nexus 7" tablet probably appeared on a bench-marking site recently. Tho not official the details seem to be in line with the rumored Asus-built slate.
"The telling benchmarks come from Basemark ES2.0 Taiji from Rightware, and show a device named "Nexus 7" manufactured by "asus." Presumably, the 7 points to the device's screen size, which showed a resolution of 1280x768. The benchmarks also indicated it sported a quad-core Cortex A9 NVIDIA Tegra 3 processor clocked at 1.3GHz alongside an NVIDIA ULA GeForce GPU. The device was running Android version 4.1 JRN51B; Android Police speculates that the J stands for "Jelly Bean," meaning that that iteration of the OS may not carry the 5.0 version number after all.
Sources speaking to TechnoBuffalo on May 24 indicated that the tablet would be made by Asus (correct, if the above benchmarks are real), would be priced at $200, and that it would be announced during the Google I/O conference taking place from June 27 to June 29"
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/google-nexus-tablet-pops-up-on-benchmark-site/