Related
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 searched but didnt see much since Chrome beta came out. I tried it on my desktop and it worked fairly well, pretty fast and had extensions and whatnot. Do you think this would be possible to get on the Prime? Do you think we even need it for the prime for that matter, Chrome beta is here and extensions will come eventually, but there is no flash. I really liked the multiple logins. Maybe chroot it like ubuntu or dual boot instead? How is Ubuntu coming along anyway, the Dual boot method and the side by side method
Why would you even THINK about turning a device with a quad (quint) core processor into a dumb terminal?
ChromeOS should be dead, should never have been even a concept. Dumb terminals went out with mainframes for a reason.
Yes, I know that mainframes still have uses. I'm fine with that. But we don't need a dumb terminal on every desk. Having your processing power on your desk is a good idea for several reasons. Do I really need to list them?
Col.Kernel said:
Why would you even THINK about turning a device with a quad (quint) core processor into a dumb terminal?
ChromeOS should be dead, should never have been even a concept. Dumb terminals went out with mainframes for a reason.
Yes, I know that mainframes still have uses. I'm fine with that. But we don't need a dumb terminal on every desk. Having your processing power on your desk is a good idea for several reasons. Do I really need to list them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All I'm going to say is that you need to do some research into modern corporate IT and cybersecurity. "Dumb terminals" are alive and well.
However, I concur that ChromeOS was a flop.
I think Chrome OS is released years ahead of its time. We are still working with 3g/4g bandwidth issues, limited data plans, skyrocketing overage charges etc. It might actually work well when you dont have to worry about your data plans or losing connectivity. Now, there is a lot of dependency for it to work.
For the question on installing on Prime, Prime is too powerful to run a dumb OS like Chrome (I say it is dumb because it does not need that much processing power). To top it all, it is worse than installing iOS on Prime.
subramanianv said:
For the question on installing on Prime, Prime is too powerful to run a dumb OS like Chrome (I say it is dumb because it does not need that much processing power).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the first samsung chromebook runs on an atom N570 @ 1.66ghz (dual-core). it's a bit difficult to compare the performance of these two chips as the architectures are quite different. tegra3 may have more cores, but thus far web browsers has been better served by fewer, faster cores.
one thing is definitely clear - the performance and compatibility of the chrome browser on ChromeOS currently crushes Chrome on android. the chromebook feels and behaves like a desktop PC browser and the tf201 still feels like a slow, clunky tablet browser. i would love for chrome on my tf201 to perform like a chromebook, but it's just not there yet, not even in performance mode. whether this is the hardware, software, or both is something that i think remains to be determined.
All the bickering aside:
Someone might be able to get ChromeOS running on the Transformer Prime as a standalone OS. However I doubt anyone would be motivated to do so in part because the tablet is WiFi only, and running ChromeOS away from an internet signal would leave you with a useless tablet.
Also Android is like a more advanced and more capable version of Chrome OS. Pretty much everything that Chrome OS can do through extensions, Android can do with built-in features or apps available in the Android Market.
For the same reasons I doubt that Android Chrome will ever support Chrome OS the way you can run it in the Chrome Browser on Windows or MacOSX. Chrome OS is redundant on those systems and very few home users bother using it. It would be even more so on Android since almost all of the functionality available in Chrome OS is available via apps.
Well,
Now 4 jears later... the game has changed a lot.
Now it would be very interesting to have chromeos on the tf201.
Any solution for this?
Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
As You can see nobody is interested in Chrome OS for TF201, an old device with poor I/O performance.
I see one dev doing custom rom magic for Prime, users are slowly saying "goodbye". My TF201 is still loooking good though.
GibonXL said:
As You can see nobody is interested in Chrome OS for TF201, an old device with poor I/O performance.
I see one dev doing custom rom magic for Prime, users are slowly saying "goodbye". My TF201 is still loooking good though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://github.com/m943040028/chrom...verlay-tf201/chromeos-base/chromeos-bsp-tf201
I've been trying to figure out how many apps there are for Android tablets and it has been really hard to find out, which in itself hints that it ain't good. But the best estimates I could find online pin it at around 1000-2000 apps. Didn't iPad 1 release with more than that? What is wrong with Android? I sincerely believe that this OS is better with its Widgets and customizations and all. But does it not bother you that after a whole year we have so few apps? I may as well go for an iPad at this rate. I mean i have all the apps i need now, but still some apps are meant for the phone, like Facebook.... still I feel it is worth investing in a device that actually has proper support... you are paying $500, shouldn't you expect more then just thousands of apps? And don't argue that the new iPad with its hi res display will have few apps. That is only temporary... it too will soon surpass the android tablet app tally...
Took me 5 seconds to google that-
http://phandroid.com/2011/03/14/android-app-count-rapidly-gaining-on-ios-chart/
and its year old, so the number is bigger by now.
Android still has plenty of great apps. ICS is the merging of phone and tablet apps. So there won't be a need for either. Instead it'll be a universal app that would work on wither and if its tablet, then it'll take advantage of it.
I have over 200 apps on my Ipad. I have just as many on my prime and have found majority of my Ipad apps n AAndroid and have them on my prime now. So there's still slot of apps out there. Tablet only apps, yes Android has less but its steadily growing. Phone apps already caught up to apples.
Plus you won't catch many here wanting to switch to IOS over apps. Especially not me. I've already did the Ipad experience for 2 years n glad I came to android. I'm satisfied with what's available. It isn't like you can install all of them at once. Android has great apps n always could use more. But Android users generally know the deal when it comes to the apps. Apple needs apps to do things android does out the box by itself. My Ipad has alot of really good apps on it but I have them all ln my prime also. Majority being better on Android. So expect your poll to show love for Android and its ecosystem. Most try to stay away from limited features n capabilities of Ipad. Depends on what floats your boat the best.
That is Android Market on the whole. I've been talking about tablet optimized apps.
demandarin said:
Android still has plenty of great apps. ICS is the merging of phone and tablet apps. So there won't be a need for either. Instead it'll be a universal app that would work on wither and if its tablet, then it'll take advantage of it.
I have over 200 apps on my Ipad. I have just as many on my prime and have found majority of my Ipad apps n AAndroid and have them on my prime now. So there's still slot of apps out there. Tablet only apps, yes Android has less but its steadily growing. Phone apps already caught up to apples.
Plus you won't catch many here wanting to switch to IOS over apps. Especially not me. I've already did the Ipad experience for 2 years n glad I came to android. I'm satisfied with what's available. It isn't like you can install all of them at once. Android has great apps n always could use more. But Android users generally know the deal when it comes to the apps. Apple needs apps to do things android does out the box by itself. My Ipad has alot of really good apps on it but I have them all ln my prime also. Majority being better on Android. So expect your poll to show love for Android and its ecosystem. Most try to stay away from limited features n capabilities of Ipad. Depends on what floats your boat the best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All in all, it would be comforting to see a good recent estimate regarding android "tablet" Apps. As of now, I have apps to watch movies, socialize, a great browser, to read PDFs and eBooks and to take notes. I still feel that quality is lacking and I hope what you said about ICS unifying things will help devs dev more. But it bugs me that say Facebook has no tablet app, etc. Thankfully I don't game a lot though!
READ up on Ice Cream Sandwich Android version and see what its supposed to mean. Soon there will be no more need for tablet optimized apps as all will be optimized for whatever device its being used on.
If you want to get an Ipad that's cool, but I hope you didn't think most here would vote in favor of getting one. You will see soon most are happy with Android. Yes it could always get better but still love it regardless. I'd never switch back to Ipad. Seen so much more with Android now. Going back to IOS would be moving backwards in features and capabilities of a tablet.
---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------
litetaker said:
All in all, it would be comforting to see a good recent estimate regarding android "tablet" Apps. As of now, I have apps to watch movies, socialize, a great browser, to read PDFs and eBooks and to take notes. I still feel that quality is lacking and I hope what you said about ICS unifying things will help devs dev more. But it bugs me that say Facebook has no tablet app, etc. Thankfully I don't game a lot though!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I always see people complain about Facebook on android. Why? I have it and works great for me. I have like 3-4 different Facebook apps on my Ipad. Plus here is a reality check. The official Facebook app on Ipad isn't even the best one. It took them so long to bring it out that the 3rd party ones are the best now. The official app sux on Ipad and is buggy still. I have it and other ones on Ipad. You just have to search more. I have tons of great tablet apps on prime.
Here's a tip. If you want to look for android tablet app only marketplace, look for an app called Tablified. Its an marketplace that showcases all tablet only or optimized apps for Android. Its really good and apps must pass strict guidelines to be considered to be viewed in that app. Its a free app. A MEMBER here actually created it. It has a great look to it also.
demandarin said:
Android still has plenty of great apps. ICS is the merging of phone and tablet apps. So there won't be a need for either. Instead it'll be a universal app that would work on wither and if its tablet, then it'll take advantage of it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, until we see many more ICS devices, developers won't focus on it and thus we'll not see apps that make good use of tablets because of it. It's true that right now the number of really good tablet apps is low, and it's frustrating. I'd think that 5-10 million Honeycomb or ICS tablets in the wild would be enough to generate more developer interest.
I honestly think developers are gun shy about spending the time on tablet apps because the press on the Android tablet market has been so universally horrible (and the hype on the iPad so universally and nauseatingly high). Those developers who've made tablet-optimized apps have done a great job with it, but really the iPad has a HUGE, HUGE advantage here. Even I find myself sometimes wanting to switch because of all the excellent iPad apps, and I can't stand Apple.
You can find a good tablet app for a most typical uses, and in many cases the phone apps work fine (because they scale better in many cases than iPhone apps scale to the iPad), but it remains a limitation. It's also another area where Google has done a bad job, either of making it easy to make tablet-optimized apps (I don't know either way) or of providing incentives for developers to make them.
I really don't get the fascination and need for all these "apps". I hate that word too, sounds so gay.
Give me a good browser, some good media players and you're pretty much good to go.
There is no need for a Facebook program at all. No need for XDA program, a Twitter program. You don't use them on your Windows desktop do you? The browser is all you need for all that.
I just don't get it. I don't even have one homescreen filled on my tablet.
litetaker said:
That is Android Market on the whole. I've been talking about tablet optimized apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android doesn't longer have seperate Apps. Since ICS and fragments well written Apps will deliver an optimized layout for phones, tablets as well as Google TV. One App for all, that was the approach of Android and that's why the Google Play / Market doesn't have an extra Tablet section (beside the editors choice for tablets).
In the last years there was really a lack of good apps for tablets, but most of the new Apps make use of this new fragments and offer a great tablet ui.
New 8track app, tweetcaster, new official TED app, Astrid since their last update - just to mention a few.
In my opinion this will be the first serious year for Android Tablets and Apps which was also the reason for me to finally buy the Prime.
MysteriousDiary said:
Android doesn't longer have seperate Apps. Since ICS and fragments well written Apps will deliver an optimized layout for phones, tablets as well as Google TV. One App for all, that was the approach of Android and that's why the Google Play / Market doesn't have an extra Tablet section (beside the editors choice for tablets).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One think I've always wondered is: do fragments work on Android versions previous to ICS? Because if they do, then I wonder why more developers aren't using them. If they only work with ICS, then it makes sense--ICS is still only about 1% of the total Android population, and only on the Prime and Xoom in tablets.
And seriously, it should be MUCH easier to find tablet-optimized apps. While there are a handful of decent tablet-optimized apps, they're relatively hard to find and that fact alone contributes to the perception (real or imagined) that this is a real weakness of Android tablets.
Download Tablified Market
/thread
Here's a good reference for tablet apps...
http://www.tablified.com/
And yes, many popular apps do suck on a tablet and will continue to until ICS reaches critical mass.
litetaker said:
I mean i have all the apps i need now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's the problem?
I guess the question is what do you want to do with your Prime that would be fulfilled by an app? Or somewhat sarcastically; what could you do app-wise with an iPad that you want to do with your Prime? I suggest asking if your searching has yielded nothing suitable.
While it's fun to have lots of apps available, what if they are all crap?
Bye.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
Well, I got a solution. Buy an ipad 3 and a tf700 later in the year. All problems have been solved. Except for money.
jdeoxys said:
Well, I got a solution. Buy an ipad 3 and a tf700 later in the year. All problems have been solved. Except for money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You got banned? Just recently?
Developer here...
Even with older OS versions the only difference between a phone and tablet app is the layout. Android already has some pretty killer tools for handling that. ICS makes it easier with some new tools (fragments), but by no means is it necessary. Few devs will target ICS for awhile. There are just too many older devices.
So... the biggest inhibitor is time. It takes a great deal of work to develop an app that makes both screen sizes happy. It also takes some practice. Since Android is behind compared to iOS, and the Android tablet market is smaller, we just have to wait. People have to learn how to take advantage of all this extra space.
By the way, its not really any easier to develop an iOS tablet app. In fact, even using the older versions of Android, its easier to deal with different layouts than on iOS.
I think as long as theres fragmentation most app devs are not gonna put as much effort with android. Why when there are so many ipad users and they only have to develop for 1 single platform and can concentrate on making it better rather than concentrating on making it more compatible across every different android devices. ICS was supposed to be the answer but not all ICS compatible app will work on all ICS devices. Then google is supposedly now gonna come out with jelly bean? Whats gonna happen then? So if i was a dev right now I wouldnt want to develop even for ICS not knowing what road block jelly bean will bring when apple is more guaranteed. The return profit is just not as good on android tablets right now. Until we match apples ecosystem I dont think we will ever have the benifits that ipad users have.
demandarin said:
You got banned? Just recently?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, why?
10char
facepalm...
Do you remember when blueray players first came out, you could only get a handfull of movies for it? and now you can get damn near everything in blueray.
Remember a year or so ago when there was like, maybe 5 tablets total on the market? and now you cant turn the corner without finding yet another manufacturer of them?
Tablets are the fastest growing consumer trend in north america giving Apple a good run for their money. Considering this boom in the last year or so, developers are scrambling to try to support everything and find standards for how graphics will be displayed, etc. (which is why theres so many different versions of the same gameloft games)
Give it a few more months if you cant find what your looking for, it will be here then.
Also considering that ICS is still relatively new and developers need to make sure their apps work well on it before they release it, test, etc. its not surprising that there is limited support for ICS. If you want something thats tried, tested, and true then get the TF101. If you want to live on the edge like with the 201 then you have to expect some bugs along the way.
Give it time, it will come. Guaranteed.
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