Related
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
This question has flooded my mind almost as much as Android has flooded the market...
Does anyone else think that Android has gone out of control? I mean there are literally dozens of devices announced / released every week, updates are a mess, developing is tricky due to all the different versions of the OS, screen resolution, cpu, gpu etc. The custom overlays is so common that the AOSP phones are almost non existant.
Manufacturers release a new phone each week since its an easy buck because its free and they know that with Android it cant keep a decent life span since its forgotten pretty much the day its released since all the new phone arriving or due to arrive, so asking for good support is a bit much nowadays. It seems like Android is becoming the new "featurephone OS" since almost every phone released runs it, so imo it loses its Premium feel since i can run most of the same apps in a crappy free budget device than a high end monster save some games and speed...
I have had dozens of android devices, from the HTC Touch port, to the EVO 3D, and frankly its hard to get exited for an android device nowadays since theres always something bigger and better almost immediatly instead of living out its life span before it gets eclipsed by something else. Thats why i like the iOS and WP7 approach since they release it in batches (cept apple because its 1) in a certain time frame, so you know you dont have to worry about being left behind or being behind the curve for a good while (i you care about that stuff like me) OS updates are a sure thing, app compatibility is all there and it just feels more integrated and organized
Android feels like mess actually, i have an android and really like the OS but honestly, its a touch friendly version of Windows Mobile in my eyes. It has all the features you would wanr, but performance is inconsistant, user experience is a mess, updates are hit and miss, and development is a headache
Sorry to rant so much, i really like Android actually, but got to the point that flooded the market with such a thing has ruined a good thing imo
Any imput?
s3nT Fr0m mY pYrAmId fLaVoReD gLaCi3r
*Fixed a few things
Well, I believe that's what android is about. Its like windows, many different computers run different versions of windows. I understand the "premium feel" aspect, but there's no alternative to Linux on phones besides android.
on the other hand, no one wants to be as confined as iphone. there is nothing unique between one iphone and another. they are both iphones whereas android has variety
It'll really be interesting to see what the future holds. Android could replace Windows and MacOS in a lot of ways.
Good post OP. I feel, as you do, that the fragmentation of the Android platform is a complete mess. It would have been nice if Google had more control over what happened to the OS on a manufacturer level. I'd have liked, at the very least, to have seen a minimum hardware requirement, an outright ban on carrier bloat and manufacturer skins too. I'm a purist though and some people buy HTC, for example, because they want 'Sense'. Personally i believe these skins should have been an optional component, perhaps available as a Market download.
Updates to the OS should have been arranged in a more consistent and controlled manner too, but with the diversity of hardware it has become a crap-shoot. Manufacturers are churning out phone after phone and most are horribly derivative. Of course, it's all about the $$.
I'm a fan of what Microsoft are doing with the WP7 platform and can only dream about a similar scenario with Android!
I think its all good.Its all about freedom.The freedom to choose you firmware,kernal,ROM or what ever.Others like iOS are to confined.Its great.
It is just because android is "opened". All manufacturers can produce and sell a phone running android. Like the computers, for example, you can't say to HP that "Why did you guys releases computers so fast? ASUS just released one yesterday!"
Also about what you think android is complicated is because of it's customizability (ability to be customized). When it can be very personalized, it gets a lot of settings. When it have a lot of settings, things get complicated. This is also why every android device is unique
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I've always been a PC guy and have used Macs in the past. I'm just used to Windows as opposed to an iOS. The fact that Android is open sourced, it allows for any user to customize it however they want.
I own an EVO 3D, and own an iPod Touch. There's endless possibilities on what I can do on the 3D versus what I can do on the iPod. I also know that the iPod can be jailbroken as well.
I do understand your argument as there are many different phones that come out each week/month. It gets overwhelming as to which device is better and what not, but it all comes down to what the end user wants for a device that fits their needs. A typical user just wants to be able to call, text, and get online. These typical users would like to see different styles, colors, sizes that fit their lifestyle.
Apple has a standardized iPhone/iPod and it receives an update once in a while. Granted, you can pick out a cover for it in different colors and styles, but it has the same UI look.
But I, on the other hand, like to tinker and like to customize the device of my choice.
Based on the fact that we're all members here on this forum by choice and are happily reading and writing...I'd say that there's no such thing as too much.
Although I'll be honest, I was dying to just say about this much "...................." (there I said it)
i agree that android is all over the place with late updates ect however i love the fact that its available in all flavors not just one flavor like you know who.
Android is just the hip thing. It's quickly becoming to mobile-devices what MS-DOS/Windows was to home computers. Only, the licensing is different
That doesn't mean there's too much of it though. Android is still linux at its core, and part of that is putting up with the disorganized community development.
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
Why is it more apps are being developed for iOS and not android?? I personally think this sucks considering phones with android are dominating the smartphone market e.g android currently runs on Samsung phones, HTC phones, LG phones, Motorola phones, ZTE phones, Huawei phones as well as tablets such as Acer, Nexus 7, Galaxy Tab, HP Touchpad etc. I just get the feeling android is being left out. IOS runs on the iPhone and iPad and that's it....doesn't make sense to me.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Agreed. Fortunately I have all the apps that I need
Its because if you make a app on iOS it only has to really work on 2 or 3 devices which makes testing and making bug free much easier.
With android there are so many devices it can be hard to debug across all device and screen sizes etc etc.
For 'simpler' apps its not a issue but with bigger more complexed apps it can be a bigger issue and thus far more work for the dev
Apparently over 40% of IOS Apps have never even been downloaded once so I think the word Shovelware certainly applies.
Its still the largest single device out there, one phone and one tablet. I imagine it makes dev work easier, sort of like building a complex website that only has to work in one browser. Plus the way the media talks about the iPhone all the time, many probably think it has a huge majority of the market share.
spunker88 said:
Plus the way the media talks about the iPhone all the time, many probably think it has a huge majority of the market share.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that's right. In fact, I never seen an Google commercial on TV, and many people don't know about Android. However, if you ask them "Do you know the iPhone/iPad?" surely the answer will be "yes... it's cool"
RoberGalarga said:
Yeah, that's right. In fact, I never seen an Google commercial on TV, and many people don't know about Android. However, if you ask them "Do you know the iPhone/iPad?" surely the answer will be "yes... it's cool"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are some Nexus 7 commercials on these days, and back before Verizon got the iPhone they ran quite a few commercials with the OG Droid and Droid X. The iPhone is in nearly every new movie when a cell phone is shown. Its ironic because for years Apple embraced being different than the mainstream majority of whatever product they were trying to sell. Now the iPad/iPhone is about as mainstream as you can get since its everywhere.
What about the android shop in California....that must be the only store dedicated to an OS lol
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Once Google opens a nexus store in every big city in the world and has more commercials, sues the heck out of everybody and mocks Apple then they will be more popular. Oh yea there are ups and down on both platforms. Apple charges 99 bucks a year to develop apps and publish them while android only charges 25 bucks. But like said above there are too many androids from 3.5 inch 800 megahertz processors to giant 4.8 inch phones with a quad core cpu. The galaxy note is 5.3" GEEZUS
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda app-developers app
apple smooth and no laggy
NicoJanuar said:
apple smooth and no laggy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And JellyBean isn't?
NicoJanuar said:
apple smooth and no laggy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Iphones and iPads are just overpriced ****e imo! They all look and feel the same, layout has been the same since day 1, their not very attractive, specs are a joke (4s is EXACTLY the same as the 4 just added a dual core 800mhz CPU and a joke piece of software called siri, which doesn't work half the time) and they have a cheek to charge £599 for a beefed up version of the iPhone 4!!! You must be kidding right??
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
I just picked up a Galaxy S3 and it cost roughly the same as a new iphone. Apple appeals to a broad consumer base as any idiot can figure it out, and most people only use their phones to talk, text, facebook, angry birds, etc anyway. They're usually stable, and just work. Android, however, claims the cake because it doesn't lock you into any single hardware manufacturer, and has the open-source backing. It just so happens that since the tv is lovestruck by apple products, most people clamor to apple cause they saw it on tv, and since apple has the outspoken user base it does (aka fanboys), it popularly perceived that ios is the most popular platform. And with that, most entrepreneurs are going to go with the platform they feel their products will get the most exposure on, which leads to higher revenue. Econ 101
drbobmd said:
I just picked up a Galaxy S3 and it cost roughly the same as a new iphone. Apple appeals to a broad consumer base as any idiot can figure it out, and most people only use their phones to talk, text, facebook, angry birds, etc anyway. They're usually stable, and just work. Android, however, claims the cake because it doesn't lock you into any single hardware manufacturer, and has the open-source backing. It just so happens that since the tv is lovestruck by apple products, most people clamor to apple cause they saw it on tv, and since apple has the outspoken user base it does (aka fanboys), it popularly perceived that ios is the most popular platform. And with that, most entrepreneurs are going to go with the platform they feel their products will get the most exposure on, which leads to higher revenue. Econ 101
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you pretty much nailed it. Android being based on linux, and an 'open' system, alot of linux users/hackers use it, and there for do not want to pay for software, as with their computer operating systems. Now dont get me wrong, some people do pay for software, but if you can find a free alternative, or even better just create your own, why would you pay for it ?
With Apple products, basicly morons are buying it because they are told to, they think it is cool, all thier dumb ass friends have them, and so any software that is needed for it, they will pay through the nose for, just like their devices they have to upgrade before they have finished paying off the last one.
Forgive my extreme dis-like for Apple products. I just really do not like them.
It was long before the iPhone that I stayed away from Apple products. Their computers were and still are way overpriced when compared to the same specs on a Windows PC. Or you can build your own and save even more money. iPods are overpriced and you are forced to use iTunes. I've used Creative and Sandisk players that don't require any software as they were USB mass storage devices. I can write a simple batch file to sync two directories, I don't need a big program like iTunes. I remember one of my friends showing off their cool new iPod shuffle years ago, the model without a screen. Meanwhile I had a Sandisk player (forget the model) that had a screen and more storage space plus it costs less. I also had (still have) my Dell Axim x50 which still is a better MP3/video player than any iPod today since it has CF and SD slots and can play nearly every format with TCPMP.
Android was the next move for me after Microsoft discontinued Windows Mobile. Its the only popular mobile OS for power users left. Its a lot more stable than WM ever was, not responding apps will force close where as on WM you would often have to restart the device.
Unless Apple does something innovative with the iPhone, I predict it is on a sinking ship. Its an outdated device/UI after 5 years with little changes. After ICS, anytime I see an iOS device it just looks so outdated. There have been hardware upgrades but today's iPhone doesn't look much different from the 2007 model. The mobile market moves fast and those who don't keep up die off, look at what happened to Windows Mobile which didn't change for years.
One Topmost reason why Apps are more developed for iOS than Android:
The high-rated, most popular and mostly downloaded apps in Android suffers PIRACY ISSUE which is not acceptable to the developers as it incurs the developers a huge loss. Although it also happens with iOS apps, but their piracy rate is not that high as Android.
Also we must be thankful to the developers that in spite of these issues, they still develop good apps for us and make Android a better OS.
Sent From My Pencil
clonak said:
I think you pretty much nailed it. Android being based on linux, and an 'open' system, alot of linux users/hackers use it, and there for do not want to pay for software, as with their computer operating systems. Now dont get me wrong, some people do pay for software, but if you can find a free alternative, or even better just create your own, why would you pay for it ?
With Apple products, basicly morons are buying it because they are told to, they think it is cool, all thier dumb ass friends have them, and so any software that is needed for it, they will pay through the nose for, just like their devices they have to upgrade before they have finished paying off the last one.
Forgive my extreme dis-like for Apple products. I just really do not like them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah dude I feel ya. You get the same (for the most part) applications for less to nothing, and if it doesn't have the exact functionality you're looking for, you can change it yourself. Apple doesn't even give the option to sideload whereas Android allows it even for a stock unrooted user. But where we see these drawbacks, it does make iOS much more stable because it's extremely difficult for iphone users to screw it up. But you have to remember, different clientele. The one thing Apple has going for them is their brilliant (if you wanna call it that) marketing. That's the only reason they've done so well, is because they've managed to make a cult of it and exploit that fact that people are half the time so pathetic they need some product/brand to represent who they are, and Apple has provided that branding for millions of people. I do some home automation/networking projects as a hobby, and I hate my buddy's macbook cause that thing leaves crap all over my servers, even if the shares are on major lockdown. And getting them to play nicely with media, forget about it.
spunker88 said:
It was long before the iPhone that I stayed away from Apple products. Their computers were and still are way overpriced when compared to the same specs on a Windows PC. Or you can build your own and save even more money. iPods are overpriced and you are forced to use iTunes. I've used Creative and Sandisk players that don't require any software as they were USB mass storage devices. I can write a simple batch file to sync two directories, I don't need a big program like iTunes. I remember one of my friends showing off their cool new iPod shuffle years ago, the model without a screen. Meanwhile I had a Sandisk player (forget the model) that had a screen and more storage space plus it costs less. I also had (still have) my Dell Axim x50 which still is a better MP3/video player than any iPod today since it has CF and SD slots and can play nearly every format with TCPMP.
Android was the next move for me after Microsoft discontinued Windows Mobile. Its the only popular mobile OS for power users left. Its a lot more stable than WM ever was, not responding apps will force close where as on WM you would often have to restart the device.
Unless Apple does something innovative with the iPhone, I predict it is on a sinking ship. Its an outdated device/UI after 5 years with little changes. After ICS, anytime I see an iOS device it just looks so outdated. There have been hardware upgrades but today's iPhone doesn't look much different from the 2007 model. The mobile market moves fast and those who don't keep up die off, look at what happened to Windows Mobile which didn't change for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually you can use an ipod with rhythm box, an itunes-like media player for Linux . I don't have one, so I can't say anything on its functionality. I had a windows phone on, if I remember correctly, a motorola que or something. WORST PHONE EVER. I got from a friend, but I was rebooting a good 10 times a day cause it would lock up or something wacko. In terms of iOS's gui, all they'd have to do is keep adding gooey nonsense and if the play it off as an upgrade, the apple kids will eat it up for the next 30 years without any need for advancing the base functionality. Honestly, I'm sure karma will catch up with Apple (as it did for Microsoft) and they'll bury themselves in crap. Don't know what, I'm just being hopefull
Really because the iOS users are the dumbest and will buy pretty much any app that is developed.
I joke I joke.
But really the reason is because a lot of developers feel that all android users do is pirate apps so they can't make a profit.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
There are so many factors why apple appstore has more apps,
Firstly it has a quality control, so when your apple appstore app is approved, then its a thing to be proud of next, the payment schemes offered my apple is easier than android, and also, you just need to test on 2 or maximum three devices unlike android where you gotta test on so many devices to with so many different API versions and screen sizes.
Next , visibility of new apps is much much more on apple store compared to Play store.
And lastly, the play store's global reach is less!
protonsavy said:
There are so many factors why apple appstore has more apps,
Firstly it has a quality control, so when your apple appstore app is approved, then its a thing to be proud of next, the payment schemes offered my apple is easier than android, and also, you just need to test on 2 or maximum three devices unlike android where you gotta test on so many devices to with so many different API versions and screen sizes.
Next , visibility of new apps is much much more on apple store compared to Play store.
And lastly, the play store's global reach is less!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. They simplify everything for quality control that they feel provides a better user experience, and to some extent it does. While it is extremely restrictive, it still provides the masses with simplicity, of whom don't know a motherboard from a graphics card half the time. Android is more of a Wild West of sorts, allowing the users to have more control of their environment. Then again, Apple proponents are more likely to pay stupid amounts of money for close to anything so they can be one of the cool kids whereas Android folk either couldn't/didn't want to afford an iphone, or are Linux people who aren't gonna be keen on paying for software in the first place.