Is it just me or does android Overall lack standardizations?
There are so many different versions of android tablets and phones that app developers seem to have to make for one, then keep changing for others.
Things do not seem to be cross compatible between devices either.
The way I'm looking at is is like windows:
With windows you have all kinds of PC's and there is a standard, Keyboard & mouse. Windows interfaces between the hardware and apps and allows seamless transfer between different PC's with windows OS.
Then I look at android. And what runs on my android tablet, wont work on my friends tablet. Same in reverse.
Basically has anyone else noticed this? Lack of standardization when it comes to a practical interface?
And it seems to fall on the app devs to support a specific device, when android itself should be the interface between the hardware and the app.
Does anyone see where I'm coming from?
What does everyone else think?
Do you think there will eventually be a standard with android devices like what happen to the PC after Microsoft made windows and created a standard in that respect?
Do you think that traditional PC computers running windows and MAC will eventually phase out?
--------------------------------------------
And whats the deal with a phone needing 2 GHz dual core CPU's?
If the code was optimized properly, wouldn't you be able to get the same speed and quality from half that?
I've seen high end android tablet lag badly, when an intel PC of lesser speed runs windows just fine.
I dont get it, It would save battery power as well if it was refined, would it not?
---------------------------------------------
I dont really want this to be a question air post and people answer, I'm hoping all kinds of us people can have one big giant discussion.
Maybe if enough people want a standard for tablets and smartphones like there is with computers, there will be better progress.
Because at the moment, everyone seems to be doing their own thing, and they are all suing each other over the dumbest details, so what if someone elses device has a home button in the front like an iPhone, where else would you put it?
I think Samsung has the best setup of all of them, its touch buttons in the front bottom, other buttons on the sides.
Seems like a good place to start a standard design, don't you think?
The biggest advantage that Android currently has is that its available for every price range, in every flavor you would want. Android reached 72% market share not due to the flagships but due to the lower end devices that majority of consumers buy. Standardizing the specs at a high end would cause it to not be affordable for many people especially in countries outside the US where there are no carrier subsidies. So I vote for it to go on like this.
premsrj said:
The biggest advantage that Android currently has is that its available for every price range, in every flavor you would want. Android reached 72% market share not due to the flagships but due to the lower end devices that majority of consumers buy. Standardizing the specs at a high end would cause it to not be affordable for many people especially in countries outside the US where there are no carrier subsidies. So I vote for it to go on like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean creating a standard like with windows PC's, they are all the same basically, and each has its own price range and level of power.
And windows is the interface between the hardware and the software you install.
With android, I don't see this, I see app developers having to make the app for each device, when they should just have to make it for the android OS, and the android OS is the interface and inturpurtation between the app you install and the device hardware.
Aside from that, they should all at least have a basic standard interface like home, back, search, power, volume, buttons and then the touch screen. Kinda like the samsung phone design.
There are only so many physically achievable ways we can design a smart phone, for example apple sued Samsung over copying their iPhone because the home button on the Samsung phone was mechanical. I mean, what is this world coming to? Where would apple have liked samsung to stick the home button? On the back of the device?
It is in a practical location. So why not put it front and bottom of the screen?
I'm after a "basic" standard, not a complete identical standard. Something kinda like how every windows PC has the same basic keyboard design and mouse design. The rest can be different... But apply it to smart phones and tablets in their own respective interfaces designed.
See what I mean?
(I'm thinking of this great world where android ARM tablets, PC's, and phones replace the current computer systems and stuff. It would work, android seems to be able to do so much more and consume so much less power. While maintaining the same or greater speeds.)
zBusterCB87 said:
I mean creating a standard like with windows PC's, they are all the same basically, and each has its own price range and level of power.
And windows is the interface between the hardware and the software you install.
With android, I don't see this, I see app developers having to make the app for each device, when they should just have to make it for the android OS, and the android OS is the interface and inturpurtation between the app you install and the device hardware.
Aside from that, they should all at least have a basic standard interface like home, back, search, power, volume, buttons and then the touch screen. Kinda like the samsung phone design.
There are only so many physically achievable ways we can design a smart phone, for example apple sued Samsung over copying their iPhone because the home button on the Samsung phone was mechanical. I mean, what is this world coming to? Where would apple have liked samsung to stick the home button? On the back of the device?
It is in a practical location. So why not put it front and bottom of the screen?
I'm after a "basic" standard, not a complete identical standard. Something kinda like how every windows PC has the same basic keyboard design and mouse design. The rest can be different... But apply it to smart phones and tablets in their own respective interfaces designed.
See what I mean?
(I'm thinking of this great world where android ARM tablets, PC's, and phones replace the current computer systems and stuff. It would work, android seems to be able to do so much more and consume so much less power. While maintaining the same or greater speeds.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You must be a great essay writer
My English teacher would give you an A for sure.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
Related
Recently ive been wondering why android is so different compared to windows?
I mean, although android 2.2, 2.3, (2.4) is out and running, only a small percentage of the phones actually got the upgrade, and most of em are still running 2.1 or lower for the time being, so what is the point in having a new firmware available if you cant run it on your phone anyway ?
Android is just a firmware right ? So why cant it be like windows, when there is a new version, no matter what specs or brand of PC, you just install and your up and running... And phones are just like small computers right ?
So why doenst google make android just as compatible as windows, and as soon as a new version comes out, we just install it and were good to go ? I know this is sort or less the whole point of it being open source, but there has to be a solution to this.
This would actually make so much more sense than it is right now! I know all phone-brands want to add there personal touch to there android phones like SE did with timescape and mediascape etc, but its all just based on the same firmware right ? So why cant these things like timescape and mediascape be seen like an update ? rather than fully integrated in the firmware ?
In my opinion, phone brands should go back to what they are actually good at.. manufacturing phones, and google should go back to what they are good at, designing new android versions, this shouldn't be the other way around.
Could one of you pls explain this to me ?
As a master student in economics, IF android could actually be compared like windows as I just explained, this would only have positive effects on the android/phone market, instead of all these angry and disappointed customers...
http://gizmodo.com/5733556/the-complete-state-of-android-froyo-upgrades
this threat is what made me write this, it is clear we are not the only ones stuck with 2.1 (but the gods at XDA are doing their best to fix this!)
I understand your point. My take on it is about the fragmentation. I'm not commenting whether it is good or not, but here's what I think. Windows machine have a much higher memory where they can store drivers, settings, etc. Just Windows XP alone took approx 6GB? I don't think phones can have that much internal memory at the moment. Also, PC's have interfaces where everything comes out to the correct machine language (PCI, SATA, etc) While these lacks on phones. They have different architectures and peripherals that supports only that architecture. Therefore, to keep it lightweight, it is the manufacturer's responsibility that if they are using OS such as Android, that the OS works with their hardware, while on PC, it's more hardware to work with the OS.
I'm sure if there's a universal hardware interface for mobile devices and enough internal memory, your wish will come true
unknown13x said:
I understand your point. My take on it is about the fragmentation. I'm not commenting whether it is good or not, but here's what I think. Windows machine have a much higher memory where they can store drivers, settings, etc. Just Windows XP alone took approx 6GB? I don't think phones can have that much internal memory at the moment. Also, PC's have interfaces where everything comes out to the correct machine language (PCI, SATA, etc) While these lacks on phones. They have different architectures and peripherals that supports only that architecture. Therefore, to keep it lightweight, it is the manufacturer's responsibility that if they are using OS such as Android, that the OS works with their hardware, while on PC, it's more hardware to work with the OS.
I'm sure if there's a universal hardware interface for mobile devices and enough internal memory, your wish will come true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying, but then again, why dont we just manufacture android phones based on the same architecture ? So they will all be compatible with every version of android ?
If this could be accomplished in some way, manufacturers wont have to deal with the lack of compatibility of newer versions anymore, and every phone will run optimal with any given firmware.
Android is at the same development stage as windows when it was win.dos, effectively; the future development was not foreseen. The aggressive marketing by ms changed that, obviously, but pcs from that era are hopelessly outdated. Mobile manufacturers are keeping up with Google rather than being dictated to by them. Eventually, a physical threshold will result in Android updates being software instead of hardware.
I think...
Sent from my X10i using XDA App
android is a fairly new n young operating system... its hardly 2 yrs old....
give it time... the way its goin now it headed in the right direction (same as windows)... compatibility issues will be sorted as time progresses... bare in mind that android devices span vast array of price ranges (and thus diff hardware as suited for that price) so compatibility will be an issue which will be sorted out in time...
clintax said:
I understand what you are saying, but then again, why dont we just manufacture android phones based on the same architecture ? So they will all be compatible with every version of android ?
If this could be accomplished in some way, manufacturers wont have to deal with the lack of compatibility of newer versions anymore, and every phone will run optimal with any given firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is there's too many architecture to go for. A universal architecture means we're eliminating many companies. For example, say we choose snapdragon as our universal. That means ARM, NVIDIA, will all be taken out the competition. Of course ARM cannot build a microcontroller based on snapdragon's design either, this is due to licensing and such. I'm sure manufacturer wants something like you said, it will be much easier to manage, but chip makers are doing things their own way. Also, you have to consider how much new technology is being introduced to phones in just one year. It is massive. Even if phones have the same architecture, the problem that comes about is the memory size to store all the drivers. Either way, it will have to go through the manufacturer to strip it out, which would be back to where we start again. So it will not work out anytime soon...However I did heard Google is aiming to make a flexible Android where it can do something like you said, but looking at the hardware change, it's impossible for now
FWIW - I think that it's more to do with USP's - Each manufacturer could, quickly and fairly easily just bung stock android onto their hardware, and therefore make it extremely easy for us all to upgrade to the latest OS.. but they think.. "hang on, if we do that then all the phones will look and work in the same way.. why would anyone want to buy ours, over xxx competitors phone... no that simply won't do.. we must make our phones special, different and more appealing to XYXY subset of the market... that way we'll sell more phones than our competitors and eventually.. if we're lucky, we might just compete with Apple"..
Or something along those lines!
Gawd - I thought for a minute you actually wanted Android to be "like" Windows...
I nearly pooped myself.
k1sr said:
Gawd - I thought for a minute you actually wanted Android to be "like" Windows...
I nearly pooped myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking the same way! Windows? Nah! Windows itself is a bloatware OS...
Deleted...
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.
I know that we all probably figured as much and understand that in the future, Mobile phones and tablets will defeat PCs and Laptops completely (now that we are getting devices that can double or even triple as phone, tablet and potentially PC/laptop), still it is an interesting read and article. So, have a look at this. Specifically click on the "Future of Mobile>" link at the bottom of the article to see a powerpoint presentation!
Interesting indeed. I've wondered about this before, specifically Microsoft's future and the 'Andriod vs. iOS' war.
When it comes to Microsoft, I'm just not sure anymore. Sure, they have their hands gripped tightly around the desktop and laptop markets, but seeing this only reaffirms my opinion that Microsoft doesn't have much left going for them. With smartphones and tablets often going for more than an entire desktop computer, and now that phones and tablets truly are grossing more sales than desktops and laptops, Microsoft isn't the giant corporation it used to be. At least, not in comparison to the competition. If they don't get their act together soon, they may start to see profits dwindle. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't tried stronger marketing campaigns for their Windows phones and tablets; I know they exist, but I've never seen one in person and I've never seen an ad for them.
When it comes to Apple vs. Google/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/Nokia/Rim (essentially all mobile phone manufacturers), I've often wondered who will pull out ahead when smartphones continue to rise in sales and popularity. On one hand there is Android, along with it's very large user-base and realistically small developer-base, and on the other is iOS and its even larger user-base, extremely strong fanboy mentality, and its incredibly large developer-base. I used to think Android had it in the bag as I started seeing them all the time at school and work.. but I just don't know anymore. I would like to see Android win, because it's my personal preference, but I don't see it happening. Honestly, I think Apple's got this one in the bag. When it comes to apps and the user interface, they've already won.
theredvendetta said:
Interesting indeed. I've wondered about this before, specifically Microsoft's future and the 'Andriod vs. iOS' war.
When it comes to Microsoft, I'm just not sure anymore. Sure, they have their hands gripped tightly around the desktop and laptop markets, but seeing this only reaffirms my opinion that Microsoft doesn't have much left going for them. With smartphones and tablets often going for more than an entire desktop computer, and now that phones and tablets truly are grossing more sales than desktops and laptops, Microsoft isn't the giant corporation it used to be. At least, not in comparison to the competition. If they don't get their act together soon, they may start to see profits dwindle. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't tried stronger marketing campaigns for their Windows phones and tablets; I know they exist, but I've never seen one in person and I've never seen an ad for them.
When it comes to Apple vs. Google/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/Nokia/Rim (essentially all mobile phone manufacturers), I've often wondered who will pull out ahead when smartphones continue to rise in sales and popularity. On one hand there is Android, along with it's very large user-base and realistically small developer-base, and on the other is iOS and its even larger user-base, extremely strong fanboy mentality, and its incredibly large developer-base. I used to think Android had it in the bag as I started seeing them all the time at school and work.. but I just don't know anymore. I would like to see Android win, because it's my personal preference, but I don't see it happening. Honestly, I think Apple's got this one in the bag. When it comes to apps and the user interface, they've already won.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As long as I have an Android tablet and Android phone in my hand I will not agree that iPhone is winning. As of now Android has one thing going for it and that is its humongous user base. Yet it is baffling that it has at best a moderate developer base. I would guess that more devs would dev for this platform. Also, I learned that deving for android is easier as well. Oh well...
The ONLY way Android can win is if Google grows a pair of balls and tells all the manufacturers firmly that there is no way in hell you are allowed to make customizations. All you are doing is ruining the experience without significantly improving user experience and causing additional delays and fragmentation with deploying updates. From now on all of you release AOSP and update the week Google releases source code. Android's Achilles heel is fragmentation. That is why despite the fact that there are more androids than iPhones developers don't prefer it OR get much revenue from it.
So, Google, Grow. Some. Balls!!!
Moreover, I have always had a soft spot for Microsoft. I dunno but it being the underdog I always wanted MS to come sweeping to victory with their Windows phone 7. Frankly it is a very good OS. Many of my friends state that it has one of the smoothest UI. And it is so good that it can run amazingly on a single core device. All WP7 devices are single core but you'll never notice it. It is that good. In fact, I believe it was this CES or may be the last, when MS was cocky and started boasting that if you show us a device that can run smoother and faster than their Nokia Lumia 900 device, they will give you $100 (or may be the phone, I dunno). It was a bet.
Also MS did one more thing right. It had the balls, unlike Google to tell manufacturers that they can't customize WP7 other than the color scheme and some innocent apps/links on the home screen. No theming or skinning. And all WP7 devices get updates promptly, at worst within a month!!! Google, you can learn a thing or two from MS! Unfortunately MS is not really advertizing WP7 as much as they should. They can easily get more market share by appropriately marketing it and boasting its plus points!
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA Premium HD app
The reason why Android has so few Devs compared to apple is because apple is one phone with a large portion of the market. If you're a company producing apps, you look at this and think: well, we could code for Apple and get this much market share, our we could code for Android, and then we would have to make sure it's compatible with all 200 different types, screen rezs, screen sizes, etc, to get a slightly larger market share.
In fact, up until about last summer, Google's dev page said to program the code for iPhone first, and then port it to Android, if you were going to do both.
So yeah. Unfortunate, but a fact of life.
Sent from my Incredible 2 using xda premium
Very thorough presentation there.
Ideally, I would like to be able to broadcast any display (if we're dreaming, any section of any display) to any other display.
I can do that fairly well from Apple's iOS or MacOSX to an AppleTV. But, I can't go iOS to MacOSx and vice versa. I can't go from any mac device to pc. Pc to PC might be possible, but it's clunky. Android to PC - I dont know of a way. Same vice versa. I know I can use iTunes on my pc and Remote on either Android or Apple to turn it on and off and that seems to be an excellent way to manage your music system especially with iTunes Match and AppleTV.
But, if you want to teach it's hard to do that if people have to look over your shoulder. I would like to buy a couple devices, like two Nexus 7's, and be able to grab any information / control my pcs with it, kind of as a repository or to do any difficult processes with either device as well as being able to get either device send stuff back and forth.
It doesn't need to be complicated, either. Apple pretty well has the right idea. Pull (or up) a control menu of some kind, press one button and then choose the destination to start broadcasting your display. When you do that, the other device automatically starts displaying it. Since it's only on your home network we can presume you will only be able to send your displays to devices you are also on the network for. Tunnelling into other networks might be a way to connect multiple homes together...but I digress...
A display is a display. A keyboard is a keyboard. There is no reason, other than $, to build a screen that only works on one computer. Even if one computer runs Android and one runs iOS and one MacOSX and one Windows 7, just like java can have an environment in any of them (iOS?), surely you could build a way for them to send and display whatever is on the screen.
Technically, it should be very possible. There just needs to be the will.
A long time ago they thought one computer in every home would be an achievement. I'm thinking the average person is going to have, or at least have access to, a LOT of screens. It would be nice if you could actually manipulate those things. Toss this movie on one screen, toss that document on that tablet, pass that animation to a desktop screen. Use the cloud computing to keep everything connected. The last thing is processing power...to be able to have a home desktop do all your heavy lifting (ie: rendering crysis 2) and then all your other devices need to be able to do is download fast enough to display at a reasonable fps and the other device capable of sending. That's already possible on Apple. Google is already starting down that road with the Nexus Q. Logmein has already started on the cloud aspect. There are probably lots of little projects that will work for a while then fizzle out in the light of something better.
And typing on a keyboard is still infinitely better than typing on any screen or tiny keypad or weird device. A keyboard that you can specifically point at any device to control it with would be awesome. You'd just need one nice keyboard in your entire house and if you wanted to type onto your Nexus 7 or your iPad or your Nexus Prime or iPhone or Windows 7 pc -- you would just 'point' (not literally) that keyboard at the device you intend. Maybe with those neural attenuators you might be able to use slight muscle movement and maybe with a magnetometer you could also tell which way you were facing and with the location of all objects in the room you would literally just need to look toward something and it would display on a device.
Oh, like if you had something called Google Glass -- you would look at a screen and with a few commands select the screen you want and then whatever it is you want to display. Cloud servers could do the heavy processing and then stream your word processor or whatever software you like onto whatever screen you have. That way you could use Sony Vegas on your big screen tv or your iPad because it would actually be running on a remote server somewhere else and all you would need is to broadcast at a reasonable framerate.
We are literally on the verge of that being widely possible with the average man's bandwidth. Then, it doesn't matter how intensive the application is. All you need is a device that can display that stream and all the ramping up and down of processing power would be done on the servers -- computers specifically designed to be extremely efficient and powerful at central processing or graphical processing, etc.
Ideally, everyone should have their home desktops being these power computer stations. That way you would be responsible for maintaining your own cloud and worst case scenario if anything ever happened youw ould still own your files, and applications, etc. Using public cloud services like Dropbox or iCloud are convenient, but do you really want to completely take all storage and computing power out of your hands and put them into some giant conglomerate that you have no control over?
Yes, it would be more efficient but I think that's kind of like saying the world would be safer if only one army could buy, build or use any weapons. Maybe...but it would also be ripe for oppression.
Balance is the key to life.
Yes, I realize this post kind of went all over the place. Sorry about that. I still think the idea is neat.
There is some progress towards what you are talking off. There is an app in the store that enables your Android device to act as a second monitor for your PC/mac
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.idisplay.virtualscreen&feature=nav_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDMsImNvbS5pZGlzcGxheS52aXJ0dWFsc2NyZWVuIl0.
22sl22 said:
There is some progress towards what you are talking off. There is an app in the store that enables your Android device to act as a second monitor for your PC/mac
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.idisplay.virtualscreen&feature=nav_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDMsImNvbS5pZGlzcGxheS52aXJ0dWFsc2NyZWVuIl0.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's cool, but shows how far we've yet to go. We'll all be old before this really unfolds. But, there's something fun about looking at the future and seeing what is yet to come before it does. The computer revolution probably will not slow in our lifetime. Maybe not for a thousand years. I don't know of any theoretical way all the computers of star trek couldn't exist and do at least everything it did in the series. Or minority report. Or 1984.
Space travel, on the other hand, is almost always impossible no matter how simple they try to make the concept. Maybe one day, sure, but unlike computer and software advances, I don't think it's as sure of a thing. I think it takes a LOT of energy and there's more empty space and dead worlds than living ones. A living world takes perfect balance. A dead world takes anything else.
It's more likely and almost certain that one day humanity is going to have to face the threat of the androids(ie: the terminator), cyborgs(deus ex), genetically engineered super humans(and you thought doping at the olympics was bad), or some combination of those. It certainly could exist. It wo:laugh:uld require mapping out the human brain and learning so that we can rewire it. We've already unlocked the genetic code. We already use computers to model protein folding and unfolding. We can already induce or suppress regions of the brain with magnetic induction. There's probably a way to communicate directly with the brain directly as a computer like in the matrix. In a hundred years we could have the computing power to unfold an entire brain. An entire human.
Imagine that -- you put in your DNA and the program literally 'grows' you. You see yourself live and die in the program on accelerated speed. Atom for atom, true to life. Virtual you. Every neuron firing, every muscle growing..all those countless atoms making molecules making cells making organs making you, or him, or her, or them... All ran in a virtual environment at accelerated speeds. Hundreds of them born then die to see if they have any problems with their genes. If you have a super computer that can literally simulate a thousand people atom for atom...are you creating life and are you torturing them? Does a computer program feel pain?
And when they do this, they can cut out the code for one protein and replace it with another and see how that changes things. Simulation after simulation -- like with combinatorial chemistry, they could just throw down every permutation and see which one out competes (out lives in this case) the others. You would just throw all kinds of random variations of DNA in the program and grow one person, then ad ifferent one, then a different one...until you finally find the one that works really well. That one looks like the universal soldier -- so you grow it for real. Sequence the DNA, and fertilize an egg with it and then let nature do it's thing.
And if your computer can keep up with this it can also record this data....so it remembers what does what. If you need to improve your arm strength it can start using what it knows to search for genetic code that might improve things. So, instead of guessing random with brute force hoping for the best, you can guess random but select certain choices first because you have a feeling they might offer better results.
It's not like you're going to throw this information away, either. So each successive generation will have a larger library to work through, a greater understanding, and better tools. They can genetically engineer humans to be even stronger, healthier, happier, faster, smarter, and even more obedient and accepting of social groups. It's only limited by what the universe allows...which is pretty unlimited for our scope.
And if one day we write a programming language and build a computer that can interface with people. Real people. So that we can hack a person and program their brain to do anything, be anything...be anyone. What will become of us then? It's not like the lack of will exists -- what do you think billions of dollars are invested into advertising and marketing every year for? And do you think there are control freaks in the world?
It sounds like a silly question today but one day it will be the only question.
If a Djinni appeared and said, "I will grant you unlimited wishes with which to change yourself", who would you become? Who would we all become?
What are the chances we'll see the new Ubuntu for phones os running on our hardware anytime soon?
As far as I understand it it should be just a matter of compiling for our specific soc, making a flashable rom and then flashing, right? They say it can run on android kernels so there shouldn't have to be any hardware interface work that needs to be done, right?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
rangercaptain said:
If you don't mind me asking, how would this make any difference to us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would enable us an alternative operating system choice, allowing application developers to create processor native applications (rather than using a java virtual machine that's quite resource intensive than running apps on the bare metal) thus using less system resources, enabling faster multitasking, greater compatibility with preexisting applications, enhanced security, and the desktop mode that they are touting is quite nice as well. connect an hdmi dongle and use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse to turn the phone into a desktop computer... there are lots of uses for a bare metal operating system on a hardware platform with restrictive system resources.
there's really nothing wrong with android per se, she's a great OS, but there are a wide number of other approaches to building os's and user experiences. I would consider this pretty similar to choosing to install ubuntu on a PC, or windows on a mac for that matter. it's a matter of widening the variety of application approaches and compatibility. a matter of choice.
I really want to know if this is possible after seeing the demo of it on engadget this morning I'm convinced that this is one os I'd be willing to flash and possibly leave on over android, as amazing as Android is this just better though out in terms of where everything is and speed of access
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
gregsarg said:
It may take off, if someone is able to best the entire android community as a whole, but the odds of that are "0"...
We would be better served if google took it over, and incorporated the OS into a handful of smart phones. Beyond that prospect, a port for us would be nothing more than a pet project.
This idea is not new, and mention of it can be found in virtually ever forum on this site, and a few devs have met with success on getting a bootable Android device running Ubuntu, but it was a short lived event, as support for the OS is simply not there ATM.
I do agree that a different OS is a good idea, but as a dedicated Android user, I would not be willing to switch at this point, as a stable, functional OS is months or even years away.
Likely the OS would fall the way of RIM, and other OS platforms, albeit, ahead of it's time.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I strongly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fact of the matter is that it's already running on the quintessential android test bed for the current generation of phones (the galaxy nexus) which means that it should be very easily ported to other, similar hardware (which is most of the android devices out there right now.). if they made this completely open source (which i'm pretty sure they'd have to given that most of the components of the OS are built on open-source licenses), and allowed the already very good and very diverse linux community expand it's functionality, write good apps for it, I think it has some pretty great promise.
my personal standpoint however, is that operating systems for mobile should work exactly like they do for PC's (and macs for that matter). you should be able to install whatever, whenever, without the approval of the company that happens to make the hardware, and without the approval of the company who provides the data and telephone services for the device... it's a pocket computer, not a dumb phone designed for one thing.
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Ubuntu won't be released til 2014, will older phones like our note1 be supported?
Keep in mind that by 2014 the note1 would be considered old in mobile years.
rangercaptain said:
I thought Android was Linux and Ubuntu was Linux. Why is one type better than the other? And to run native, wouldn't hardware manufacturers have to write a butt load of drivers? Like the fiasco of upgrading from win2000 to win7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hardware drivers always run on the bare metal anyway (usually as part of the kernel, or occasionally as a background daemon service). the point is that android applications are built on top of the java environment which is a virtual machine - it's processes are abstracted and emulated which requires much more system resources than writing in something like c++ for the underlaying hardware. the only compatibility that this would break is that binaries don't work across cpu platforms. if something is compiled for the arm9 architecture for example (what most modern smartphones use, including our note), it wouldn't run on android for x86 or another java virtual machine like bluestacks. in order to get it to run on a different hardware platform you'd either have to emulate a complete device (like the iphone and android sdk simulators), or recompile it for the platform you want to run it on (only useful if you have the source code). the latter method is how linux distributions have been doing things for years. there are virtually identical linux distributions that can run on intel, arm, powerpc, sparc, motorola 68k, etc. etc. they can all run pretty much the same applications (because of the hardware abstraction layer present in the kernel), but in order for it to work, those applications must be recompiled for the appropriate underlaying processor architecture, as the output of a c(++,#) compiler is code that is cpu architecture specific.
also, windows 2000 and windows 7 were designed for the same (or similar) underlaying hardware problems. windows 2000 to windows 7 was mostly a piece of cake. whereas the move from windows 98 to windows 2000 or windows 98 to windows xp was difficult because windows 9x and windows 2000/xp use a different variety of hardware abstraction layer and thus different drivers must be written as drivers designed for one HAL won't work with another. (same thing for major linux revisions. the HAL in the 2.4 series of kernels is different from the one in 2.6 series of kernels which means one has to rewrite device drivers in order to get some less-than-standard hardware working.
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
gregsarg said:
So cp....
your a smart guy...
Get it going for us.....
you've got the skills we need to pull it off....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, If i had access to the sources (that by all rights should be open thanks to the way the gpl is designed), I'd be happy to build a rom and help with the development efforts. I'm pretty decent at optimizing linux distributions for arm hardware. we should all petition canonical to release the code post haste.
I would love to see ubuntu ported over to phones. I almost fell off my chair when I heard of the idea that your phone could just connect to a monitor/keyboard/mouse to become a fully fledged desktop computer. This would literally replace almost all of my gadgets into one device. I wouldn't need a laptop, an ipod, a dvd player, or even a gaming console possibly as well.
I've been using ubuntu for a number of years and would be overjoyed to see almost all of my electronics and computing essentially made into one pocket sized device. The possibilities are so great for this kind of leap in technology and it almost seems to be the inevitable succession in personal computer technology. This could possibly be the beginning of the end for laptops, desktops, tablets, and netbooks/ultrabooks. All data would be transmitted using flash memory or transmitted OTA instead of spinning disks or other media.
If the source code is released, and I'm sure it will since Canonical has done a decent job of running Ubuntu lately, I hope someone brings it to the i717 because then I would probably sell a lot of electronic equipment
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
gregsarg said:
The release will never happen to allow a single, all inclusive device.
Ubuntu or not, there are too many hands in the pie, and billions of dollars on the table.
The apples, and Samsungs of the world will go at it until the day we die.
They all want the biggest piece, and will squash anyone that gets in their way.
Ubuntu would need a home run piece of code that emulates a magic carpet if they ever hope to slay the beast.
And if they did, I'm not so sure that people would embrace the one stop shop mentality for a single device anyway.
It simply stinks of yet another apple type monopoly in the making.
I support the idea, but it's the logistics that kill the deal, money driven logistics of course.....g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too true, it's all about the money in the end, even with free stuff.
Now that you mention it, it does sound a lot like some sort of Apple type ploy to get you to buy their things... either way I hope it happens someday