1) where you find the time to read all this, and post back here baffles me.
2) I think the best multithread OS is from Oooh Solipsism as you seem to be in every thread, posting valuable info for us all. Solipsistically sophisticated.
I wonder how often people upgrade their Android phones to newer Android phones in general compared to iPhone users upgrading to newer iPhones. I would guess that Android users on the whole take far longer to upgrade as iPhones are the first choice amongst most people that have the financial means to upgrade earlier and because so many Android users are at the cheap/free end of the spectrum. I reckon this problem will become worse and worse for Google. Then again, I haven't bought an iPhone5 yet, purely as I don't want an iPhone bigger than my 4S so it's not all rosy for Apple.
I expect this year will see a big disparity between Apple & Google, with Apple introducing major software revisions (at least from a UI perspective) for iOS with Google left trailing behind.
Hill60, you've often showed a lack of understanding about the Android OS, and probably for good reason. There's Android, and then there's "Google Android" and Google hasn't done a great job of making the distinction clear. Danny Sullivan at Marketing Land wrote one of the best explanations, and added some darn good suggestions too, in a piece from this past September. Have a read at your leisure. I think it might clear up some of your obvious confusion and perhaps help make your future comments about the "openness" of Android more informative.
the fact that there are another X million devices out there that never access google play is irrelevant to the developers as they will never be a potential customer for the app in the first place...
ah, you see this is the "techie" thinking that always gets in the way of success.
As a developer I would prefer to know, that there are also X amount of people in Y demographic who are also available to target using offline means, in the hope of a certain percentage of them thinking that my new App was something they need and will sign up to the Store to buy it. If that X is big enough, then I know its worth trying to convert 1-5%, but if its unknown, then...
thats the marketing/sales thinking..
All the 'new' figures from Google do is help put the blinkers on the Devs.
You didn't really read the linked article did you?
Of course I did. Things like:
"Google doesn’t use the terms “real” and “fake” to describe the two major branches of Android. Instead, Google talks about Android interchangeably to mean either of them or both of them combined. That needs to stop. At the same time, the whole idea that Android is “open” for anyone to use should also go away."
and
"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."
Clearly, there are a variety of versions of Android and not all are compatible. That's fragmentation. And Google's restrictions on who can use the Android logo indicates that it's not as open as they claim.
Your own article confirms that I said. Android's openness is a scam and fragmentation is a real problem.
"Google doesn’t use the terms “real” and “fake” to describe the two major branches of Android. Instead, Google talks about Android interchangeably to mean either of them or both of them combined. That needs to stop. At the same time, the whole idea that Android is “open” for anyone to use should also go away."
and
"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."
Clearly, there are a variety of versions of Android and not all are compatible. That's fragmentation. And Google's restrictions on who can use the Android logo indicates that it's not as open as they claim.
Your own article confirms that I said. Android's openness is a scam and fragmentation is a real problem.
Now those are valid comments based on actually reading the article and paying attention. I agree that Google likes to mix comments about the open Android with their more closely controlled "Google Android". I also agree that fragmentation can possibly create some issues for some number of users and/or /developers.
You and I just might disagree on whether core Android is open source. It plainly and factually is. If not then explain how Amazon branched off their own custom version? How about B&N for the Nook? Did both slip into Google headquarters in the middle of the night and escape with the code on a flash-drive? Surely you have some explanation how that happens if you claim that core Android isn't open-sourced as you continually do.
"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."
It doesn't necessarily need to be forked. The SGS 2 didn't include a number of Google's apps, and at the time there was no way for the user to install them because those apps were built in the OS. Google got smart and put all their apps on Google Play and now even if a manufacturer decides to exclude them the user can still get them plus the apps are easily updated.
Now those are valid comments based on actually reading the article and paying attention. I agree that Google likes to mix comments about the open Android with their more closely controlled "Google Android". I also agree that fragmentation can possibly create some issues for some number of users and/or /developers.
You and I just might disagree on whether core Android is open source. It plainly and factually is. If not then explain how Amazon branched off their own custom version? How about B&N for the Nook? Did both slip into Google headquarters in the middle of the night and escape with the code on a flash-drive? Surely you have some explanation how that happens if you claim that core Android isn't open-sourced as you continually do.
I'll watch for your answer. I'm truly curious.
Because Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't members of the Open Handset Alliance, and aren't subjected to the same rules. What they've done is Google's worst nightmare, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Because Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't members of the Open Handset Alliance, and aren't subjected to the same rules. What they've done is Google's worst nightmare, and there's nothing they can do about it.
I think you misunderstood the question.
Of course those two don't belong to the OHA. Yet they still were able to use "Android" as the basis for their device OS. If core Android isn't open-source how did they do that?
Of course those two don't belong to the OHA. Yet they still were able to use "Android" as the basis for their device OS. If core Android isn't open-source how did they do that?
I understand that, but it does seem hypocritical that while Android is open to some it's not as open to others.
However with a mobile device like a phone you cannot depend on:
A large PDS (Virtual Memory) *
Reliable Power
Large RAM
Large processing power
The time to manage sophisticated multitasking
* Flash Storage is not the best solution for a PDS
So from, a practical standpoint, I do think that it is reasonable for a mobile OS to force close programs while giving them the opportunity to save state.
Let me be clear - I'm not bashing iOS and Android saying they are inferior in terms of multitasking. Being mobile devices there have to be some trade-offs and I think Apple's method of providing "services" is better for a mobile device.
My whole point is Android fanboys seem to think Android is exactly like a full-blown desktop OS when in actuality it has far more in common with iOS (especially how it handles multitasking). When an Android users makes fun of iOS multitasking it's a clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Android, like iOS, does not have virtual memory or a swap file and will force close Apps when resources run low. No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". Apps can be suspended or swapped out to virtual memory, but they shouldn't be closed outright. Android does this. So does iOS. They both remember the "state" the App was in so it can be "restarted" in such a way to make the user think the App was always running when in fact it wasn't.
There are several things wrong with that statement.
Android does have virtual memory. It does not have swap. The two are not the same. Virtual memory means that each process has an independent, isolated memory space. Android implements this. It's part of its security and fault-tolerance models.
Android only kills apps when it's low on memory. By the say, regular desktop Linux does the same thing (using a different strategy), even on systems with swap space. It's called the Out-of-Memory killer. It's been in the kernel since the 2.6 days. See this LWN article for a decent discussion of it, and how it differs from Android's implementation.
You can literally go and download Android right now and create your own Android OS.
It doesn't mean it is open and free, which is what jragosta wrote. I assume he means "free" as in "freedom," not free as in beer.
You can fork Android, but you can't call it "Android" if you don't play by Google's rules (which involves licensing some closed software from Google) and pay them a fee. There are also clauses that prevents members of the ironically named "Open" Handset Alliance, from doing the very thing that you proclaim as the reason why Android is open and free: putting forked Androids on phones. There are other reasons Android isn't considered "free", see Richard Stallman's thoughts on Android.
It doesn't mean it is open and free, which is what jragosta wrote. I assume he means "free" as in "freedom," not free as in beer.
You can fork Android, but you can't call it "Android" if you don't play by Google's rules (which involves licensing some closed software from Google) and pay them a fee. There are also clauses that prevents members of the ironically named "Open" Handset Alliance, from doing the very thing that you proclaim as the reason why Android is open and free: putting forked Androids on phones. There are other reasons Android isn't considered "free", see Richard Stallman's thoughts on Android.
Not calling it Android is a trademark issue, not a code issue. You can still use the Android code without Google's approval or even knowledge of the project you're using it for. If you want to use your device with Google Play, Google services or use the trademarked Android name, then you need Google's OK. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Seems pretty clear.
EDIT: The final paragraph from your linked article:
"Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Hackers are working on Replicant, but it's a big job to support a new phone model, and there remains the problem of the firmware. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom."
I'm surprised you linked it, but it's an interesting article so thanks
I understand that, but it does seem hypocritical that while Android is open to some it's not as open to others.
Is OHA membership required to use certain parts of the android source code (distinct from google services, which have always been closed)? If not, it seems that your beef is with the terms of the OHA contract, rather than with android itself.
Is OHA membership required to use certain parts of the android source code (distinct from google services, which have always been closed)? If not, it seems that your beef is with the terms of the OHA contract, rather than with android itself.
I'm not clear on that nor what the 'rules' are. I'd also like to know if a phone manufacturer is required to join to the join the OHA, which I think not because Apple isn't a member, so what are the benefits?
Not calling it Android is a trademark issue, not a code issue. You can still use the Android code without Google's approval or even knowledge of the project you're using it for. If you want to use your device with Google Play, Google services or use the trademarked Android name, then you need Google's OK. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Seems pretty clear.
EDIT: The final paragraph from your linked article:
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;">"Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Hackers are working on Replicant</span>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;">, but it's a big job to support a new phone model, and there remains the problem of the firmware.</span>
[SIZE=16px]<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones,</span>
[/SIZE]<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;"> </span>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;"> they cannot be said to respect your freedom."</span>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;">I'm surprised you linked it, but it's an interesting article so thanks </span>
Strange you should cherry pick that statement (what you emphasized), because then you missed the point of Stallman's comments, which was about Android, not other "less bad" operating systems that don't claim to be free. He wrote that article to combat the popular perception that "Android is free" because Google has gotten away with cloaking the closed parts by wrapping it in mostly free or open source.
Comments
1) where you find the time to read all this, and post back here baffles me.
2) I think the best multithread OS is from Oooh Solipsism as you seem to be in every thread, posting valuable info for us all. Solipsistically sophisticated.
it's hard to understand the IQ of each person in this forum that a member has answered as these people contribute ideas to build on growing forum
I expect this year will see a big disparity between Apple & Google, with Apple introducing major software revisions (at least from a UI perspective) for iOS with Google left trailing behind.
Right. So the claims that Android is open and free are false. And the problem of fragmentation is real - and growing worse.
Thanks for clarifying that.
You can literally go and download Android right now and create your own Android OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Right. So the claims that Android is open and free are false. And the problem of fragmentation is real - and growing worse.
Thanks for clarifying that.
You didn't really read the linked article did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76
the fact that there are another X million devices out there that never access google play is irrelevant to the developers as they will never be a potential customer for the app in the first place...
ah, you see this is the "techie" thinking that always gets in the way of success.
As a developer I would prefer to know, that there are also X amount of people in Y demographic who are also available to target using offline means, in the hope of a certain percentage of them thinking that my new App was something they need and will sign up to the Store to buy it. If that X is big enough, then I know its worth trying to convert 1-5%, but if its unknown, then...
thats the marketing/sales thinking..
All the 'new' figures from Google do is help put the blinkers on the Devs.
Of course I did. Things like:
"Google doesn’t use the terms “real” and “fake” to describe the two major branches of Android. Instead, Google talks about Android interchangeably to mean either of them or both of them combined. That needs to stop. At the same time, the whole idea that Android is “open” for anyone to use should also go away."
and
"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."
Clearly, there are a variety of versions of Android and not all are compatible. That's fragmentation. And Google's restrictions on who can use the Android logo indicates that it's not as open as they claim.
Your own article confirms that I said. Android's openness is a scam and fragmentation is a real problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course I did. Things like:
"Google doesn’t use the terms “real” and “fake” to describe the two major branches of Android. Instead, Google talks about Android interchangeably to mean either of them or both of them combined. That needs to stop. At the same time, the whole idea that Android is “open” for anyone to use should also go away."
and
"Google has been more than happy to consider anything using AOSP code to be Android, when it has suited the company, even if that code has been “forked” or changed to make Android-based devices that don’t include Google applications or services."
Clearly, there are a variety of versions of Android and not all are compatible. That's fragmentation. And Google's restrictions on who can use the Android logo indicates that it's not as open as they claim.
Your own article confirms that I said. Android's openness is a scam and fragmentation is a real problem.
Now those are valid comments based on actually reading the article and paying attention. I agree that Google likes to mix comments about the open Android with their more closely controlled "Google Android". I also agree that fragmentation can possibly create some issues for some number of users and/or /developers.
You and I just might disagree on whether core Android is open source. It plainly and factually is. If not then explain how Amazon branched off their own custom version? How about B&N for the Nook? Did both slip into Google headquarters in the middle of the night and escape with the code on a flash-drive? Surely you have some explanation how that happens if you claim that core Android isn't open-sourced as you continually do.
I'll watch for your answer. I'm truly curious.
It doesn't necessarily need to be forked. The SGS 2 didn't include a number of Google's apps, and at the time there was no way for the user to install them because those apps were built in the OS. Google got smart and put all their apps on Google Play and now even if a manufacturer decides to exclude them the user can still get them plus the apps are easily updated.
Because Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't members of the Open Handset Alliance, and aren't subjected to the same rules. What they've done is Google's worst nightmare, and there's nothing they can do about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Because Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't members of the Open Handset Alliance, and aren't subjected to the same rules. What they've done is Google's worst nightmare, and there's nothing they can do about it.
I think you misunderstood the question.
Of course those two don't belong to the OHA. Yet they still were able to use "Android" as the basis for their device OS. If core Android isn't open-source how did they do that?
I understand that, but it does seem hypocritical that while Android is open to some it's not as open to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Idealistically, I agree with you.
However with a mobile device like a phone you cannot depend on:
A large PDS (Virtual Memory) *
Reliable Power
Large RAM
Large processing power
The time to manage sophisticated multitasking
* Flash Storage is not the best solution for a PDS
So from, a practical standpoint, I do think that it is reasonable for a mobile OS to force close programs while giving them the opportunity to save state.
Let me be clear - I'm not bashing iOS and Android saying they are inferior in terms of multitasking. Being mobile devices there have to be some trade-offs and I think Apple's method of providing "services" is better for a mobile device.
My whole point is Android fanboys seem to think Android is exactly like a full-blown desktop OS when in actuality it has far more in common with iOS (especially how it handles multitasking). When an Android users makes fun of iOS multitasking it's a clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Android, like iOS, does not have virtual memory or a swap file and will force close Apps when resources run low. No OS that can force close an App arbitrarily can be considered to offer "true multitasking". Apps can be suspended or swapped out to virtual memory, but they shouldn't be closed outright. Android does this. So does iOS. They both remember the "state" the App was in so it can be "restarted" in such a way to make the user think the App was always running when in fact it wasn't.
There are several things wrong with that statement.
Android does have virtual memory. It does not have swap. The two are not the same. Virtual memory means that each process has an independent, isolated memory space. Android implements this. It's part of its security and fault-tolerance models.
Android only kills apps when it's low on memory. By the say, regular desktop Linux does the same thing (using a different strategy), even on systems with swap space. It's called the Out-of-Memory killer. It's been in the kernel since the 2.6 days. See this LWN article for a decent discussion of it, and how it differs from Android's implementation.
It doesn't mean it is open and free, which is what jragosta wrote. I assume he means "free" as in "freedom," not free as in beer.
You can fork Android, but you can't call it "Android" if you don't play by Google's rules (which involves licensing some closed software from Google) and pay them a fee. There are also clauses that prevents members of the ironically named "Open" Handset Alliance, from doing the very thing that you proclaim as the reason why Android is open and free: putting forked Androids on phones. There are other reasons Android isn't considered "free", see Richard Stallman's thoughts on Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
It doesn't mean it is open and free, which is what jragosta wrote. I assume he means "free" as in "freedom," not free as in beer.
You can fork Android, but you can't call it "Android" if you don't play by Google's rules (which involves licensing some closed software from Google) and pay them a fee. There are also clauses that prevents members of the ironically named "Open" Handset Alliance, from doing the very thing that you proclaim as the reason why Android is open and free: putting forked Androids on phones. There are other reasons Android isn't considered "free", see Richard Stallman's thoughts on Android.
Not calling it Android is a trademark issue, not a code issue. You can still use the Android code without Google's approval or even knowledge of the project you're using it for. If you want to use your device with Google Play, Google services or use the trademarked Android name, then you need Google's OK. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Seems pretty clear.
EDIT: The final paragraph from your linked article:
"Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. Hackers are working on Replicant, but it's a big job to support a new phone model, and there remains the problem of the firmware. Even though the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones, they cannot be said to respect your freedom."
I'm surprised you linked it, but it's an interesting article so thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I understand that, but it does seem hypocritical that while Android is open to some it's not as open to others.
Is OHA membership required to use certain parts of the android source code (distinct from google services, which have always been closed)? If not, it seems that your beef is with the terms of the OHA contract, rather than with android itself.
I'm not clear on that nor what the 'rules' are. I'd also like to know if a phone manufacturer is required to join to the join the OHA, which I think not because Apple isn't a member, so what are the benefits?
Strange you should cherry pick that statement (what you emphasized), because then you missed the point of Stallman's comments, which was about Android, not other "less bad" operating systems that don't claim to be free. He wrote that article to combat the popular perception that "Android is free" because Google has gotten away with cloaking the closed parts by wrapping it in mostly free or open source.