Hey all, Just bought the g-tab as my first android device. I liked playing with the Xoom and iPads in the store, but wanted the same experience for cheap and knew that I would have to root this g-tab thing to unleash that awesome hardware value. So far I've easily put TNT Lite 4.2 and it really is much faster and more usable then the Tap N Crap that viewsonic shipped. Thanks a bunch devs for fixing what should have never been modded in such a crappy way.
My question is will there every be Android 3.0 available for the gtab? I just read an article about how google is trying to ensure oems don't mess up the UI like viewsonic did to protect their reputation. Since the gtab wasn't even an official android device, I'm wondering if Honeycomb will even be available to viewsonic or devs here to put on the gtab.
I totally agree with this article. Google shouldn't be as totalitarian as Apple, but this lack of quality control is making Android look bad in the public sphere (not to hackers of course) So did I just buy a dead end device?
As a new user - I still can't post links, so here's the pasted article from pc world:
Why Google's Tighter Control Over Android Is a Good Thing
Limiting availability of Android 3.0 code and apparent tightening of Android smartphone standards means that Google finally gets it about the platform.
By Galen Gruman, Infoworld Apr 6, 2011 11:30 am
Last week, Google said it would not release the source for its Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" tablet to developers and would limit the OS to select hardware makers, at least initially. Now there are rumors reported by Bloomberg Businessweek that Google is requiring Android device makers to get UI changes approved by Google .
As my colleague Savio Rodrigues has written, limiting the Honeycomb code is not going to hurt the Android market . I believe reining in the custom UIs imposed on Android is a good thing. Let's be honest: They exist only so companies like Motorola, HTC, and Samsung can pretend to have any technology involvement in the Android products they sell and claim they have some differentiating feature that should make customers want their model of an Android smartphone versus the umpteenth otherwise-identical Android smartphones out there.
[ Compare mobile devices using your own criteria with InfoWorld's smartphone calculator and tablet calculator. | Keep up on key mobile developments and insights via Twitter and with theMobile Edge blog and Mobilize newsletter. ]
The reality of Android is that it is the new Windows : an operating system used by multiple hardware vendors to create essentially identical products, save for the company name printed on it. That of course is what the device makers fear -- both those like Acer that already live in the race-to-the-bottom PC market and those like Motorola and HTC that don't want to.
But these cosmetic UI differences cause confusion among users, sending the message that Android is a collection of devices, not a platform like Apple's iOS. As Android's image becomes fragmented, so does the excitement that powers adoption. Anyone who's followed the cell phone industry has seen how that plays out: There are 1 billion Java-based cell phones out there, but no one knows it, and no one cares, as each works so differently that the Java underpinnings offer no value to anyone but Oracle, which licenses the technology.
Google initially seemed to want to play the same game as Oracle (and before it Sun), providing an under-the-hood platform for manufacturers to use as they saw fit. But a couple curious things happened:
Vendors such as Best Buy started selling the Android brand, to help create a sense of a unified alternative to BlackBerry and iOS, as well as to help prevent customers from feeling overwhelmed by all the "different" phones available. Too much choice confuses people, and salespeople know that.
Several mobile device makers shipped terrible tablets based on the Android 2.2 smartphone OS -- despite Google's warnings not to -- because they were impatient with Google's slow progress in releasing Honeycomb. These tablets, such as the Galaxy Tab , were terrible products and clear hack jobs that only demonstrated the iPad's superiority . I believe they also finally got the kids at Google to understand that most device makers have no respect for the Android OS and will create the same banal products for it as they do for Windows. The kids at Google have a mission, and enabling white-box smartphones isn't it.
I've argued before that Android's fragmentation, encouraged by its open source model, was a mistake . Google should drive the platform forward and ride herd on those who use it in their devices. If it wants to make the OS available free to stmulate adoption, fine. But don't let that approach devolve into the kind of crappy results that many device makers are so clueless (or eager -- take your pick) to deliver.
So far, Google's been lucky in that the fragmentation has been largely in cosmetic UI areas, which doesn't affect most Android apps and only annoys customers when they switch to a new device. The fragmentation of Android OS versions across devices is driving many Android developers away , as are fears over a fractured set of app stores. Along these lines, Google has to break the carriers' update monopoly, as Apple did, so all Android devices can be on the same OS page.
It is true that HTC's Eris brought some useful additions to the stock Android UI, serving as a model for future improvements. But the HTC example is the exception, and Google's apparent new policy would allow such enhancements if Google judges them to be so.
More to the point is what the tablet makers such as ViewSonic, Dell, and Samsung did with their first Android tablets. Their half-baked products showed how comfortable they are soiling the Android platform. For them, Android is just another OS to throw on hardware designed for something else in a cynical attempt to capture a market wave. The consistently low sales should provide a clue that users aren't buying the junk. But do they blame the hardware makers or Google? When so many Android devices are junk, it'll be Google whose reputation suffers.
Let's not forget Google's competition, and why Google can't patiently teach these companies about user experience: Apple, a company that knows how to nurture, defend, and evangelize a platform. Let's also not forget the fate of Microsoft and Nokia , who let their Windows Mobile and Symbian OSes fragment into oblivion. And let's remember that the one company that knows how the vanilla-PC game is played, Hewlett-Packard, has decided to move away from the plain-vanilla Windows OS and stake its future on its own platform, WebOS , for both PCs and mobile devices. In that world, a fragmented, confused, soiled Android platform would have no market at all.
If Google finally understands that Android is a platform to be nurtured and defended, it has a chance of remaining a strong presence in the mobile market for more than a few faddish years. If not, it's just throwing its baby into the woods, where it will find cruel exploitation, not nurturing or defense.
I didn't read your 1000 word post, but I read your topic. HC on GTAB has NOTHING to do with Google. It has everything to do with Nvidia abandoning GTAB.
The media has an idea in their head but they are shooting the messenger. Google has no choice when Nvidia stops producing source for the proprietary elements of the system.
Nvidia simply does not care about Harmony which is the hardware reference legacy devices are built on.
So this device is going to be left behind when it comes to the new android stuff?
It is interesting that you ask. With 318 posts here you have to have followed some of the threads discussing this before. At this point in time I don't think anyone knows. Lots of speculation, lots of pent up desire and the best Devs ever so I am sure there will be improvements, Will it ever make full HC who knows?? If you read your article carefully, even the stuff out there ( Zoom and Transformer) does not have complete Honeycomb.
I wonder what Honeycomb will bring to the picture that we don't have already. I have my gtablet rooted and running TnT 4.4 and it's sufficient for almost all my tablet needs. Yesterday I was reading Kindle books to the kids, streaming movies/music from my media center PC, watching youtube and browsing the net, all with nary a hiccup. I even got a cheapo keyboard leathercase to use for editing documents. If it's the UI, the current Launcher Pro Premium and GO Launcher EX are pretty nice alternatives.
I have played with the XOOM tablet at Best Buy and thought other than some pretty UI and a nicer screen, functionally I wasn't getting much for double the price.
samaruf said:
I wonder what Honeycomb will bring to the picture that we don't have already. I have my gtablet rooted and running TnT 4.4 and it's sufficient for almost all my tablet needs. Yesterday I was reading Kindle books to the kids, streaming movies/music from my media center PC, watching youtube and browsing the net, all with nary a hiccup. I even got a cheapo keyboard leathercase to use for editing documents. If it's the UI, the current Launcher Pro Premium and GO Launcher EX are pretty nice alternatives.
I have played with the XOOM tablet at Best Buy and thought other than some pretty UI and a nicer screen, functionally I wasn't getting much for double the price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats interesting. What ROM are you running? Most of my video is choppy, and I read in the dev forum this has to do with no video acceleration yet for the Gingerbread versions.
Good point - if it does what you want it to do then so what if it's not the newest... I'm a little embarrassed, but still rockin out to my first gen iPod nano a the gym
Guess I still wanted whatever tablet specific ui improvements that honeycomb was expected to bring.
nitefallz said:
Thats interesting. What ROM are you running? Most of my video is choppy, and I read in the dev forum this has to do with no video acceleration yet for the Gingerbread versions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I mentioned in my post, my ROM is TnT Lite 4.4 with Clemsyn's kernel (v9). I can stream 700 MB avi files with no stuttering or choppiness. I use GMote app on the tablet and the GMote server in the media PC. My video player is Rockplayer, which is free from the market.
I too was just at Best Buy bout a week ago and messed around with the Xoom for a little bit. Quickly I realized why its been a couple years since I've been to this store (prices?!?!), not to mention the help asking me if I had any questions and if I was looking to buy the Xoom (they left me alone after proclaiming I was completely satisfied with my gtab).
The only real difference I could notice (which in my eyes was a big one) was the interface. Its definitely more "flashy" in looks and prettier for eye-candy, but no real difference outside of that, actually seemed to lag a bit; almost comparable to the gtab out of box.
Me personally, I'm in no hurry to see any kind of honeycreams equivalent make its way to the gtab. I'm more anxious to see gojimi release their vegan ginger Beta more than anything right now. Been counting the days (sometimes hours) since reading their update about him coming back from vacation, lets do this!
Closing thread - see this
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1026411
Related
I noticed an article in the NY Times tonight about the discrepency of the number and quality of Apps for google zoom.
There are what? Over 10,000 Apps specifically designed for the Ipad. Now certainly you dont need that many...i would settle for 1,000 QUALITY apps over 10,000 "so so" apps ANY DAY...but....
I couldn't really find an app count for Honeycomb. There were 16 at launch and the article could at most come up with 170 (of which the vast majority were games). Interestingly enough..the aurthor was using Phandroid as its source.
170..and mostly games. I cant really describe the furstration that causes me. Knowing how much more open and how many more options the Gtab has over the ipad (screen quality and build not withstanding) that the ipad may well do to Droid tablets what the ipod did to other mp3 players over poor app support.
I have so many interests and things i could use apps for...most exsist for ipad. Very few exsist for Honeycomb. (and games aren't one of my major interests by the way).
Your thoughts?
Opinions?
Part of the problem is googles way of managing apps. Not all apps show up for devices. You have to mod the hell out of the build.prop file to get more apps showing. The ipad on the other hand have access to all iphone apps.
Again, corporate incompetence.
Realistically, there is also a delay in the release of the iPad vs. Android's Honeycomb. Ipad was release in April 2010, while the first Honeycomb tablet wasn't released nearly until 11 months later. That's almost a 1 year headstart on development of applications specific to an OS version.
Considering that we're only5 months into Honeycomb, and it's been proving to be less user friendly than anticipated, I'd say that it's lack of HC specific apps is acceptable.
I, personally, would anticipate that when Ice Cream Sandwich arrives, being more polished and complete than HC, that the app selection will be vastly improved, when developers start making apps for it that will be portable between phones and tablets, or specific to tablets alone.
The fact that some apps are being rewritten for the Android os is optimistic enough. Games that were only available on iPad are showing up for Android. Apps that only they had, we now have too.
Meh. Honeycomb isn't ubiquitous enough yet.
One of the reasons I went with Android as a tablet was to use the same apps I have on my 2.2 phone. I don't really need nor want "designed for tablet" apps.
To me this is the same old argument folks had in the 1990s and the last decade where apps for Macs "just worked" and apps for Windows worked depending on what type of hardware and operating system version ran on that pc.
So now it's phones and tablets with the same story. Apple products have a very small set of hardware specs to target for developers but with the openess of android it's hard for companies or developers to create something that "just works" on all android devices. So most companies or developers will only target certain devices or o.s. versions for android.
iPhones and iPads have one hardware manufacturer (Apple) and one O.S. (if you're not jailbroken) and developers don't have to spend a lot of time trying to develop and test against that. Android has dozens of hardware manufacturers and dozens of official and un-official ROMs to deal with so I am willing to cut them some slack for not having 10,000 apps I will never use but do thank them for the few dozen I do use on a day to day basis.
This topic has been discussed to death. I find it really boring now.
if you build it, they will come
My understanding is that android smartphone sales (not just tablets) is currently outselling iPhone/IOS. This means that app developers are/will develop new apps for android. Sure, there is the usual blah-blah-blah about issues related to HW differences between android platforms and issues related to different android releases themselves but in the big picture, things are trending towards improvement.
Before we start this discussion, i'd just like to say that the devs are doing a brilliant job of bringing android flavours to the Touchpad and this discussion should in no way be a deterrent to them doing their work.
Is it just me or is the touchpad a neglected device in terms of development compared to other tablets? i.e. asus, samsung, htc.
There are a huge number of devs and a wide variety of custom ROMS, themed ROMS, ported ROMS, Mods the list goes on and on.
As far as I'm aware of the problems (feel free to correct me) the source for half the hardware hasn't been released (such as the webcam) etc etc. so it kind of makes it very very difficult if not impossible to experiment with different ROMS.
Yes some out there can say to me "buy a tablet that was meant to run android next time" fair enough. But is it alot to expect the same level of development as usual android tablets?
webOS is very lovely but it doesn't cut it for me in terms of customisation (even with some of the childish looking themes on preware). CM9 has its issues still with regards to not everything working yet, but even when it's complete i still miss simple conveniences like VPN and connect WiFi using WPS automatically to name a few.
So can we expect that kind of development? or is it too much to ask.
I doubt we'll have Samsung level development, but that's true of any non-Samsung device. Have no idea why they're so popular, but usually the size of their dev communities put others to shame.
As you've pointed out, we don't have all our hardware working right now. Between that and the fact that CM9 itself (as a whole, not just the TP Version) is incomplete, its no wonder there's only two or three roms. Many people make their roms using another as a base, be it a stock firmware (of which the TP obviously does not have) or CM. Since CM9 is in a constant state of flux, there's no solid base for the TP yet.
As it is, we have the CM9 alpha, CM9 weeklies, AOPK, Unofficial Cornerstone kangs, MIUI, Classicnerd, Cherrykang... and that's just ICS based stuff. Add in Gingerbread roms and non-Android OSs like Ubuntu and you'll find we have a quite a good selection already.
my gripe with gingerbread ROMS is not as some people say "phone rom on a tablet" its just the fact that the apps recognize it as a phone and ruins the whole thing.
apart from MIUI, alot of the other ROMS look and feel pretty similar to me and there isn't much that sets them apart. granted cm9 is in its infancy (EVERYWHERE including my evo 3D, google definitely not redeeming itself over this update fiasco). I haven't really sampled Ubuntu to make a judgement on it.
I suppose if one was to put together something original a) it would be so hard people wouldn't bother attempting it cuz it's just too time consuming b) it'd be like making a lovely dish from leftovers....kernel's modified and compiled from things like htc jetstream (and rumor has it the GS2 on AT&T), ROMS put together from 7" android tablets most of which have the same resolution as the touchpad so it'll make life easier with respect to resizing.... again too much effort and time consuming to be worthwhile
I feel the TouchPad has great development. Especially when you consider a vast majority of the devices were sold before android was put on the device. When the fire sales happened the people that bought them didn't know android was going to be put on it. So anyone that wanted to play with android or build ROMs probably got an android tablet.
There will never be a full stock optimized android build. With the Samsung devices they have a solid start point, and a manufacturer that is devoted to the success of the device. HP has washed its hands of the TouchPad more or less. Everything done to get android on the TouchPad had been done by volunteers, without the resources really needed.
Samsung just generally makes things easiest for people to hack it. HTC and Asus ship their devices with locked bootloaders. Samsung doesn't, so they have one less hurdle right from the get go. The other side of that is Samsung makes great hardware, and decent software. This is easier to show in the phones. HTC makes good phones, but there is two or three extra hurdles that don't exist on Samsung phones. LG phones also don't have those hurdles, but their hardware isn't as good, and they are notoriously bad at getting android updates out.
Another thing to consider is the quality of android overall on a tablet. There is minimal tablet apps, and little motivation. Apple bet their company on the success of the iPad, Microsoft is doing the same with Windows 8. If either of them fail at their tablet product their entire company is in jeopardy. But Google wouldn't notice if android tablets fail, and flop. The entire thing to them is like a hobby. I think if android tablets were more popular in general we would see a lot more going on here. The fact that the TouchPad has sold more units than any other android tablet (combined I think) is really sad. Android just isn't taking hold in the tablet market, and won't without a lot of work by Google. But, what's their incentive? 98% of their revenue is from advertising. They still make money when an iPad pulls up an ad served by Google. They don't really have a lot of skin in the game, and it shows. I think the only reason Samsung, HTC, Motorola etc sell android tablets at all is because they don't really have a choice. They can't sell iOS tablets. The real test will be Windows 8 on ARM. If these companies can license W8 from Microsoft, its familiar to them. Its like building a Laptop or Ultrabook, they rely on Microsoft's ability to make compelling software, and enterprise friendly systems. That's really what HP was trying to do with the TouchPad. HP said the TouchPad wasn't their last tablet, but I would bet their next one runs W8. I think the tablet race us destined to be a two pony race, and that android isn't going to be the second pony much longer at the rate things are going. </rant>
Sent from my Galaxy S II (i777)
ace9988 said:
Before we start this discussion, i'd just like to say that the devs are doing a brilliant job of bringing android flavours to the Touchpad and this discussion should in no way be a deterrent to them doing their work.
Is it just me or is the touchpad a neglected device in terms of development compared to other tablets? i.e. asus, samsung, htc. niggles (or problems; you decide) with cm9 has started to
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get so tired of people complaining they don't get the same things from a $200 device as others get from their $600 ones. The reason the TPs are selling at the price they are is that the manufacturer stopped development. But, IMNSHO, the TP users are actually benefiting from that. If HP were still in charge, the TP would not have ICS, Ubuntu or Arch running.
this is my first tablet after all.....and when we're used to the development we see on our (assumed) android phones you can't help but compare, but like i said its only a discussion. and whats Arch?
Doesn't the fact that HP released the android kernel help development? How much does it help
Hey Guys, just came across this article and thought it was a good read. Do you think Android will partner with Asus to make their own brand of tablets...will it be better for us as Android buyers in the future if Android had more control by being the hardware as well as software maker. or do you feel like this is turning them into Apple-lite
http://www.androidauthority.com/will-google-abandon-android-71483/
Seems like Android Authority is a bit desperate for clicks. That is all I got from it.
detta123 said:
Seems like Android Authority is a bit desperate for clicks. That is all I got from it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah basically..lol.
they taking the whole Asus Manufacturing Google Nexus tablet and spinning it into some crazy apocalyptic Android dying story. Android will be fine. Android growth has really actually just begun. we haven't seen nothing yet. Google needs a nexus tablet to instill confidence and optimism in Androids future. It can almost be guareenteed to attract more developers to android ecosystem. If android was dying, I'd seriously doubt they'd be making a tablet with Asus, restructured Google Play Store, and Making Google store purchases possible to be made online by anyone. All these recent moves Google has made is pointing to something big coming up.
Android for LIFE!
All of my current and future devices will continue to be android.
It is just way too much fun, IOS sucks.
If android goes away, I will go back to laptops.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk
I dont even want to read that article Android brings profit and is a huge thing worldwide. Why would you abandon something like this? Of course its not Google's biggest income generator but it has so much potential and it serves as competition to Apple.
Google deciding to do some hardware manufacturing? I really like that. They probably learn from it and be able to improve the software/hardware.
There is one thing though they could do to android imho. I like some of the 3rd party GUI's that come with android devices. For example HTC Sense. They add alot of nice widgets and great looking uniform base apps.
BUT. At the price of getting important updates like ICS half a year later? No... No.
For me there are 2 ways those companies could handle the situation. Make custom UI's optional. Let people use vanilla Android if they want fast upgrades and let them switch to custom UI's once their done. Or just open all the bootloaders and release all kernel source and stuff to XDA so people can make their own roms and updates (which usually are better anyway...).
Apart from that Android is just totally great.
clouds5 said:
For me there are 2 ways those companies could handle the situation. Make custom UI's optional. Let people use vanilla Android if they want fast upgrades and let them switch to custom UI's once their done. Or just open all the bootloaders and release all kernel source and stuff to XDA so people can make their own roms and updates (which usually are better anyway...).
Apart from that Android is just totally great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually Google is already consdidering this. read several articles on it. it's a great idea bit one catch, Phone carriers would hate it. those companies add those GUI to devices to differentiate themselves from other similar devices. I'd rather have vanilla android experience and not have bloat ui on top of it. A GUI on top of vanilla android will never be faster out the box than a plain vanilla experience. one suggestion was to make the various companies GUI removable if the user chooses. they could use that companies GUI or go vanilla route or use one of the many launchers available on android. Usually a company GUI will be more integrated and stable than one from marketplace.
Yeah i've read about that too. i dont think custom UIs need to go away. Sometimes they're great. And with tegra3 phones coming out i guess the performance wont be such an issue anymore.
But i'd love to see some change in that situation. I think updates shouldnt be delayed more than 1 month. Not like half a year.
The article is the usual blog filler; title is admittedly clickbait. Then again, most news & blog sites have SEO'ed titles to varying degree. Yellow journalism used to be on the fringe. Now, it's the way to get clicks. That's the cost of "free" content.
Idle gossip aside, Google's strategy for tablet adoption has not worked. It will need to do something, and soon. We should know by Google I/O in June, if not earlier.
IMO, the rumors presently circulating--direct-sale of cheapo tablet & online store--aren't enough. The problems are more fundamental, and are myriad. To me, what's discouraging aren't the obstacles, but that I haven't seen any signal from Google leadership that they recognize the scope of the obstacles.
At any rate, Android won't suffer the fate of WebOS. It's entrenched on phones, and its open-source distribution will allow it to live on as a "hobbyist" OS, if nothing else.
Things move pretty fast in this mobile market, so we won't have long to wait, one way or the other.
Trolling done wrong.
A terrible excuse for either op-ed or journalism. sigh.
Seems this kid who wrote the article didn't get the point of android....
It amplifies all the Google services. It gives Google a extremely huge platform to present their products... it generates Google accounts which can be used for the almost infinite range of Google products. It helps to spread G+ and not to mention Google ad-words..
There is no essential need for a strong Google Phone brand... When you use it the normal way you pretty soon notice that Android is a Google product... you are asked to create a Google account, you have a ton of Google services pre-installed etc. .
Android could be a losing deal and it would still be worth the effort. Just because it spreads Google stuff. The power you have when 50% of the smart-phones world wide run with your is is enormous... Google does not have to worry too much about branding as long as the providers don't remove the Google-Products from it...
I see it like a commenter in the article, Google Tablet to fight the Kindle Fire... because it breaks the Google-branding... not so funny for Google...
>[Android] amplifies all the Google services. It gives Google a extremely huge platform to present their products...There is no essential need for a strong Google Phone brand...Android could be a losing deal and it would still be worth the effort.
These are all true. But IMO it misses the forest for the trees, the forest in this case being the next computing form factor, ie the tablet being a successor rather than adjunct of laptops. That should be the goal, not just an extension to sell more wares.
To be the next "computer," the OS has to do more, akin to the range of functions on desktop OS'es. Android, like iOS, lacks basic underpinnings--things like built-in networking, printing, support for peripheral devices, apps interoperability, etc etc.
The shortcoming doesn't affect Apple, because iOS has achieved critical mass on phones and tablets. Its success engenders 3rd-party support to address any deficit faced.
The other aspect not oft mentioned is that a bona fide OS needs support. One takeaway from a quick scan through these and other (official) Android forums is that OS support is grossly inadequate. As much complaints as there are in this forum, Asus is actually one of the better vendors for support. Users of Acer, Toshiba, and others, have given up on support. And these are enthusiasts. Think of how worse it would be for normal users.
The writing is on the wall: HW vendors don't have the expertise to support the OS. Google needs to do it. But with its current distribution philosophy, ie making AOSP code public and let HW vendors do what they will, Google can't do that. For it to support its OS, Google will need to follow the Microsoft path.
Getting its hands dirty with its own hardware may be a start, assuming Google better supports its product. But customer support has never been in Google's DNA, so I have my doubt that things would improve soon.
Google bought Motorolla, why would they need to partner with ASUS?
Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk
>Google bought Motorolla, why would they need to partner with ASUS?
Because Asus can make cheap tablets, eg the rumored $199 tab, and Moto can't. Secondly, because Google still needs to maintain some degree of impartiality. With declining vendor support (on tablets), it can ill afford to piss off the few remaining.
e.mote said:
>Google bought Motorolla, why would they need to partner with ASUS?
Because Asus can make cheap tablets, eg the rumored $199 tab, and Moto can't. Secondly, because Google still needs to maintain some degree of impartiality. With declining vendor support (on tablets), it can ill afford to piss off the few remaining.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, the Motorola Xoom, great as it was(I owned one), was simply overpriced.
I do believe that in order to be widely accepted as being better than Apple, Google needs to seriously focus on getting better developer support. You can release the best tablet in the world, but if you do not have developer support, people will continue to flock to IOS. Lower the price of tablets while maintaining good quality standards, and gain developer support=win for Android
e.mote said:
>[Android] amplifies all the Google services. It gives Google a extremely huge platform to present their products...There is no essential need for a strong Google Phone brand...Android could be a losing deal and it would still be worth the effort.
These are all true. But IMO it misses the forest for the trees, the forest in this case being the next computing form factor, ie the tablet being a successor rather than adjunct of laptops. That should be the goal, not just an extension to sell more wares.
To be the next "computer," the OS has to do more, akin to the range of functions on desktop OS'es. Android, like iOS, lacks basic underpinnings--things like built-in networking, printing, support for peripheral devices, apps interoperability, etc etc.
The shortcoming doesn't affect Apple, because iOS has achieved critical mass on phones and tablets. Its success engenders 3rd-party support to address any deficit faced.
The other aspect not oft mentioned is that a bona fide OS needs support. One takeaway from a quick scan through these and other (official) Android forums is that OS support is grossly inadequate. As much complaints as there are in this forum, Asus is actually one of the better vendors for support. Users of Acer, Toshiba, and others, have given up on support. And these are enthusiasts. Think of how worse it would be for normal users.
The writing is on the wall: HW vendors don't have the expertise to support the OS. Google needs to do it. But with its current distribution philosophy, ie making AOSP code public and let HW vendors do what they will, Google can't do that. For it to support its OS, Google will need to follow the Microsoft path.
Getting its hands dirty with its own hardware may be a start, assuming Google better supports its product. But customer support has never been in Google's DNA, so I have my doubt that things would improve soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You make some interesting points, but I disagree that iOS is anywhere near being accepted as a PC replacement. In many important ways, Android is much farther along in this respect--access to the file system alone is one area. And, I think the idea that tablets will replace PCs is way overblown--having tried to use mine (even with the keyboard dock) as a replacement for my Windows notebook, I can testify that although some things are more convenient with tablets (like ebook reading, casual surfing, etc.), NOTHING is as efficient as with a "real" PC.
I could never do my job on any existing tablet, whether it's iOS or Android. I work with complex documents, use Photoshop for more than changing color tones, do some light video editing, etc. None of those are efficient (or even possible) on a tablet. Even the simple things like browsing, Twitter, etc., etc., are more efficient on a notebook or desktop. Again, a tablet is convenient--lightweight, long battery life, etc.--so it has its place alongside a real PC. But thinking it can replace a PC for most people is, I think, entirely unrealistic at this point.
Maybe that'll change in a few years, although I doubt even that. Seriously, who can imagine working EXCLUSIVELY on a 10" screen? And if a tablet becomes something that you plug into external monitors and keyboards and such, well then, ASUS is already mostly there with the Transformer series. And at that point what we'll have is just a more portable PC with external accessories. Once a tablet becomes complex enough in terms of network support, printing, peripheral devices like scanners, etc., then is it really a "tablet" any longer?
..........
demandarin said:
Actually Google is already consdidering this. read several articles on it. it's a great idea bit one catch, Phone carriers would hate it. those companies add those GUI to devices to differentiate themselves from other similar devices. I'd rather have vanilla android experience and not have bloat ui on top of it. A GUI on top of vanilla android will never be faster out the box than a plain vanilla experience. one suggestion was to make the various companies GUI removable if the user chooses. they could use that companies GUI or go vanilla route or use one of the many launchers available on android. Usually a company GUI will be more integrated and stable than one from marketplace.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was hearing at one point that Google was looking to simplify the custom GUI creation (just a custom GUI xml that the manufacturer can push that the vanilla OS will honor) so that even if there are large changes underneath by Google, there is no change needed by the manufacturer prior to release (assuming the manufacturer is only making GUI changes and not anything deeper).
sparkym3 said:
I was hearing at one point that Google was looking to simplify the custom GUI creation (just a custom GUI xml that the manufacturer can push that the vanilla OS will honor) so that even if there are large changes underneath by Google, there is no change needed by the manufacturer prior to release (assuming the manufacturer is only making GUI changes and not anything deeper).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that was what it was involving. thanks for pointing out those details.
Link doesn't work anymore!
I can't seem to find much on this, so I thought I'd ask the question. I personally use a Samsung Galaxy Nexus and was a previous owner of a Galaxy S1. I also sport an Apple Macbook Pro and I love the computer.
There's been a constant "reminder" from various articles how developing for iOS appeals to the developer more than doing so for Android.
This topic has spawned countless of times, and with the recent intro of Instagram to Android, that topic has been re-written once more to show why iOS is "dominant" among developers compared to Android. Article HERE.
Thing is, with all this talk about developing for iOS being better, I find myself asking "if that were true, then why do developers still develop for Android? If that were true, Instagram wouldn't even bother coming to Android...especially since it's free."
So what would make developers for Instagram want to make an app for Android when according to these articles:
Developing on Android is "harder" because it has to adapt to countless hardwares
Android developers make less than iOS developers
Do you develop for both iOS and Android? What's your take? What actually entices you to want to work on the Android platform?
It would be nice if a developer who works on both platforms can give some insights. Please no fanboy or anti-apple talk here...I am sure many of you Android users like me, would have had your friends who are iPhone users bring up such a topic on how they've read that developing for iOS is better, and you can't explain to them why people still make apps for Android cause there's little material online to covers that topic. I'm genuinely curious to know from a developer's perspective
Developers want to get their program out to as many people as possible so they develop for platforms where the customers are at. The two biggest phone operating systems right now are iOS and Android.
Developers choose iOS first because their is a lot less device diversity with iOS devices so developing an app is probably easier. It has also been shown that there is more money to be made selling iOS apps than Android apps which could be due to the fact that people who are on a tight budget may see an Android device as a better deal or may have a carrier that doesn't even sell the iPhone. Piracy is an issue on both platforms but it could be argued that Android is easier to pirate on since apks can be sideloaded without rooting where as iPhones have to be jailbroken. But sideloading apks is used for legit reasons as well, like testing betas, nightlies and other apps that aren't distributed through App Stores.
Android apps have to account for multiple screen resolutions, ratios, and densities. Most regular apps scale just fine. Games seem to be where there are the most issues and I really wish Google would address the issues. It seems each GPU type needs its own support (PowerVR, Nvidia, Adreno, etc). I really wish Google would implement something like DirectX so games can be played on any GPU with enough power. iOS has the advantage here because only a single GPU type is used, PowerVR I believe, so all games can be optimized for it. Couple that with the fact that iOS tends to bring in more money and this is why the game developers usually favor it over Android.
Thanks for the insight. I figured gaming would be difficult for developers but didn't understand why, I just naturally assumed that "if the app seems more complicated, it naturally equates to more complications making it run on various hardwares".
Am I right to say then that when tech reviewers write about how Developers favor iOS to Android, it's mostly pertaining to gaming?
What about non-gaming apps? Is reaching as many people as possible the only incentive to go Android? Take Whatsapp, or Instagram that recently came out...it's free on Android, it also has to deal with multiple hardwares (though now I'm assuming it's actually not as tough as it sounds to accomplish if the app's fairly simple)...is there an incentive for developers to create an Android App...cause the guys at Instagram or Whatsapp could have gone "Well there's nothing here for me, I'll just stick to iOS"...because from what I see, it looks like opening it to the Android market meant having to stress their servers with a sudden influx of users, which mean spending more money to maintain them so it doesn't slow down too much...it seems like a lose-lose situation from where I'm standing. =\
I guess for some apps, google ads are what keeps them going...like Draw Something. I do wonder though how Whatsapp and Instagram manages its upkeep when it doesnt have ads...and if the answer is that they use the money earned from iOS to manage their expansion, is it really worth it if the goal is just branding purposes.
If there is a market to reach developers will develop. Web developers had to put up with the terrible non standard supporting ie6 for years. It was a real pain to develop for but had a large user base that couldnt just be ignored. Android is the same way, developers go where they can reach the consumer. Luckily android its nowhere near as bad as ie6 was.
Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk
spunker88 said:
If there is a market to reach developers will develop. Web developers had to put up with the terrible non standard supporting ie6 for years. It was a real pain to develop for but had a large user base that couldnt just be ignored. Android is the same way, developers go where they can reach the consumer. Luckily android its nowhere near as bad as ie6 was.
Sent from my Touchpad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the input! From your take, it seems like developers make apps for Android not because they want to, but they have to.
Do you or any of the developers reading this, can testify that there are some ups to developing on Android as compared to iOS.
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions &
Read the Forum Rules Ref Posting
Moving to Q&A
lufc said:
Please use the Q&A Forum for questions &
Read the Forum Rules Ref Posting
Moving to Q&A
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, sorry the topic may be [Q] but it's meant to generate comments and thoughts pertaining to the Android platform as per the sub header for Android General
Could it please be sent back to Android General? The Q&A section seems to be a place for people to post technical questions they need help solving.
Anyway, anyone else able to share their thoughts? Do you develop for both iOS and Android? It seems so far that people prefer to develop for iOS and lesser for Android, but they do it cause they have to as a means of reaching to the masses, but not really because they want to.
Anyone beg to differ? Do you have a reason why you actually prefer developing for Android over iOS?
Hi,
I'm a web developer, and when I decided to try mobile development, I made the choice to develop only for Android, for various reasons, but mainly because I'm not a fan of the Apple ecosystem.
This is not fanboyism here, I'm not bashing Apple, they make great products. But I prefer a fragmented ecosystem, with various companies, various devices, various app markets, etc. because this is a great source of opportunities. I also like the fact that android is open-source, leaving the availability to study the source code and hack around.
As for the difficulty to develop for various devices, I'd say that I'm used to it, being a web developer. Web devs are used to cope with various browsers (some of them being pretty old) and different screen sizes. See for example the mediaqueri.es site (cannot post link since I'm a new user)
thibaultj said:
Hi,
I'm a web developer, and when I decided to try mobile development, I made the choice to develop only for Android, for various reasons, but mainly because I'm not a fan of the Apple ecosystem.
This is not fanboyism here, I'm not bashing Apple, they make great products. But I prefer a fragmented ecosystem, with various companies, various devices, various app markets, etc. because this is a great source of opportunities. I also like the fact that android is open-source, leaving the availability to study the source code and hack around.
As for the difficulty to develop for various devices, I'd say that I'm used to it, being a web developer. Web devs are used to cope with various browsers (some of them being pretty old) and different screen sizes. See for example the mediaqueri.es site (cannot post link since I'm a new user)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your 2 cents! Am I right to assume that in fact, having to deal with different hardwares and screen sizes are actually a norm among developers before iOS came along? In other words, yes, Apple is right to say criticize that other platforms are harder to work with compared to iOS but that's because iOS is the exception among developing platforms where it's system is easier to work with?
spunker88 said:
I really wish Google would implement something like DirectX so games can be played on any GPU with enough power.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But Android and iOS already have something like DirectX - OpenGL ES 1.1 and 2.0.
The_R said:
But Android and iOS already have something like DirectX - OpenGL ES 1.1 and 2.0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the additional input...if there always is a direct standard like Open GL in both iOS and Android, what's the difficult part about manufacturing games for Android?
iOS required Apple computer to install their development environment. And You must pay 99$ per year for being the official iOS developer..
ayen1234 said:
iOS required Apple computer to install their development environment. And You must pay 99$ per year for being the official iOS developer..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd actually say that it is worth it.
yeahyeahright said:
Thanks for the additional input...if there always is a direct standard like Open GL in both iOS and Android, what's the difficult part about manufacturing games for Android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think its large number of the types of Android devices. It really isn't as simple as just supporting different screen sizes. Doing that is actually a really simple task using OpenGL.
With my own games I've experienced that what generally works on my test device won't necessarily work the same way on someone else's. For example, some devices support textures of any size while some devices have a constraint of the texture size being a power of 2. On many of my games which need multitouch, I've experienced that it doesn't always work the same on all devices either. On some it is downright broken while on other it just works fine.
There are many such other issues which you'd be aware of only after experiencing them.
The reason for this is the different hardware and the different software implementations that each phone manufacturer brings in. Even if the game "works" on a wide range of devices, there is always a different feel that you get when playing on a different device because of the hardware variations. You might get a good frame rate on a high end phone but have you tried playing it on a low end one? I've seen games from even the big publishers working fine on a high end phone but it just is completely glitchy on a low end one.
Now for a small developer with limited resources it can get really hard to test on and support as many devices as possible. This is one of the main reasons I feel that it can get really hard to develop games on Android. It just requires more effort if the developer wants to guarantee a good experience on a wide range of devices.
The other factor as stated before is that the iOS platform is more uniform. And moreover there are more people who are apparently willing to pay for your game on iOS than on Android. With one of my own games I've experienced that I've made more money in the last 10 days by selling it on the iOS App store than on Android in the last one year with ad revenues.
I actually started developing games on Android initially and one of the really big disappointments for me has been that I am not able to sell my games on the market(now Google Play) because Google checkout for merchants is only available in a few countries. This was the main reason for me to consider moving over to iOS. I think I could sell on a different market like the Amazon App store if I really wanted though.
Inspite of all that I'd say that Android is a great platform.
Wow thanks a lot for the insight! It's great to understand it from a developer's POV, especially one who works on both platforms.
I realise people do comment a lot about Android users less committed to pay for an app, I wonder why...I don't think it's due to their budget, my guess is that their afraid it may not work well on their devices...to that I think Google could really push hard and promote it's 15 minutes refund policy which I think a lot of users are not aware of....I use the 15 minute window a lot and it helps me to decide if something is worth my time buying or not.
I guess the "openness" of Android has allowed phone manufacturers to get really creative with their products (Touchwiz, Sense, Dual Screens, Qwerty Keypads etc) but at the same time, makes it harder for a developer to create stuff, probably even harder than creating stuff on a Windows Desktop.
Do any of you think that having "game settings" like you get on a Windows PC will help change this experience? Either one where the user gets to tweak the graphics (low, med, high) and performance, or perhaps one where the game will adjust graphics to the "recommended setting based on your hardware"? Is this even possible on Android or it's more complicated than you'd get on Windows?
yeahyeahright said:
Do any of you think that having "game settings" like you get on a Windows PC will help change this experience? Either one where the user gets to tweak the graphics (low, med, high) and performance, or perhaps one where the game will adjust graphics to the "recommended setting based on your hardware"? Is this even possible on Android or it's more complicated than you'd get on Windows?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I have actually seen a few games that do that, and it does help. But it also requires some extra time and effort on the developer's part.
In some of my games too, I've added some simple settings in order to change the control schemes, so that if one of them doesn't work for you, you could choose the other one. Graphically, though, my games are really simple.
yeahyeahright said:
Thanks for your 2 cents! Am I right to assume that in fact, having to deal with different hardwares and screen sizes are actually a norm among developers before iOS came along? In other words, yes, Apple is right to say criticize that other platforms are harder to work with compared to iOS but that's because iOS is the exception among developing platforms where it's system is easier to work with?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having to deal with different hardwares started to be a thing of the past, with the explosion of web apps. One platform for all, what a dream! Then came smartphones and tablets, and developing for a native platfrom became cool again.
Anyway, building for the web is still the only way to reach anyone with an internet access. The only problem with web apps is that it's harder to monetize. But the web's decentralized architecture is not a bug, it's a feature. That is what guarantees it's freedom and independance. You don't have such guarantees on a centralized market managed by a single company, whose first goal is profit.
Well, this post was slightly off-topic, sorry about that.
Thanks both of you for the really good insight. I guess Android is great as a supposedly "open" phone os, it certainly has a lot of hurdles to clear in order to please and entice developers the way iOS does, I'm not certain it can get there, but I do think they do make an effort, like the just upgraded emulator which shows Google's commitment to better developed apps (talk about timing!).
I'm certainly happy with my Android phone and from what I've read about the negative results developers gain from working on Android than on iOS, I take my hat off to those that stick around on this platform and try to make things happen. *clap*
=)
I choose Android for one reason. It's much cheaper. Only 25$ one time. iOS is 99$ every year
When the Q was first leaked during I/O, I remember thinking immediately that it looked awesome and that I would buy it, as long as it was around $150. Bear in mind this was before it was even apparent of what it actually did, there was just a leaked product image and the notion that it was a Nexus Device. I was dissapointed with the price at first, but can see that Google blew their budget on the design of the Q itself (just read the "Finish" description in the Play Store listing, it makes the device sound AWESOME). I have a couple of questions about the Google's decisions though and some insights on some early common questions I had as well.
First and foremost, my immediate response to the unveiling was the question "Why does it not run Google TV?". This took relatively little time to figure out though. Only days before they announced the new Sony Google TV at $200 and the even more affordable Vizio CoStar at $99. At $300, it was clear that this was not going to compete against them, cool design or not. They also were going for a different direction with this and I also believe they're putting Google TV on the back burner for now as their primary entry point into the living room. This device is obviously more reminiscent of the [email protected] showing that Google had at I/O last year, and is even strikingly similar to the Tungsten Speaker they had demoed last year, down to the LED lights, NFC pairing, and instant streaming from Google Music/What would become Play rather that streaming from the device itself. Also, the amount of testing that this device has been going through if you have been following Google Reports closely which desciribe a Bluetooth Internet connected device that was being tested in private through employees at home; you can tell that they are aiming for bigger things than Google TV with this. Personally, I'm glad as I never understood Google TV; I don't watch a lot of cable and an Android device mirrored on a TV would be more beneficial to me, as I only really want Chrome and Apps.
The second question I had came after I learned about the streamer from News sources, as I can't recall it was in the unveiling. The Nexus Q runs ICS, not Jelly Bean like the other Nexus devices. This puzzled me at first but makes sense when you understand that 4.1 really only brings graphical changes and graphical performance enhancements (seeroject Butter). The advantages of 4.1 would only come in once the Q gets a GUI, but I suppose that the gap less playback support would be useful as well. Either way, I also believe Google will update this device to 4.1 eventually for compatiblility as it is a Nexus after all.
Next, the hardware. I don't really understand why it is essentially the Galaxy Nexus under the hood rather than the Nexus 7. I guess cost would probably be the answer but isn't the Nvidia Kai platform the answer to that question? If they released it with Tegra 3, it would essentially be the Ouya "Elite" (a parallel to the Xbox 360 Elite, down to the black finish and premium features like 25w AMP). In some ways, this could be what Google had in mind when they packed it with 16GB of storage. My speculation is that the reason for this particular hardware is that it's cheaper for them to produce, as the Galaxy Nexus has been in production for so long now. The internal storage is probably because of this too.
The largest question is what Google wants this product to do exactly. Android Police had some interesting ideas that this could become your central [email protected] hub of sorts, and sync with all your other Android powered fixtures in the future (like the bulbs last year at I/O or an Android powered Nest like thermostat). The fact that it communicates directly with Google Play and doesn't rely on streaming also supports this idea, as it means that it is independent and can become the center of your future Android powered home. The superfluous ports and private testing, along with the advertised hackabity makes it seem like they are hoping for a Kinect like response from the Dev community, in which people will find out how to use it in interesting and unique ways. They most likely want to see what UI and applictions others come up with before revealing their own.
Lastly and this is something I've thought only recently is about the off-market price. The device isn't even released yet people are selling the I/O model on eBay for $229. This just speaks to the demand for this product I guess, but it means serious Devs who see potential in this device can pick it up for a relative bargain if they so desire.
So, what are your thoughts?