Thanks Dianne, for this infomation on Compatibility Testing. Couuld you clarify the exact scope? Is it the devices core API that have to pass or their implementation of it?
My query is a little bit of a grey area: On the latest Samsung Tablets (e.g. Tab 7 Plus) the LayoutAnimation on AppWidgets doesn't work in their TouchWiz homescreen. From the log cat it seems they are deliberately stripping them out. This works perfectly in AppWidgets in the emulator from all APIs since 1.5, and on most other realworld devices. However, if I install another Homescreen app on the Tablet such as Go Launcher, the AppWidgets are fine and display the LayoutAnimations correctly. So it their Touchwiz homescreen covered by the CTS, or do they pass because their underlying Android implementation supports it, as shown by Go Launcher, and it is just my tough luck that their particular Home Screen is not fully featured? Regards James Dusk Jockeys Android Apps http://duskjockeys.blogspot.com/ On Jan 13, 4:40 am, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote: > If you find devices that are behaving inconsistently with the standard > platform, please please at least file a bug so this is known, and supplying > a test case is a great way to get in to CTS so it never happens again. > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Stephan Wiesner <testexpe...@googlemail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > I agree and actually profit from it. As a private developer I hate > > that I have to write Bugfixes for single devices/Android versions > > (just thinking of the Galaxy SI lagfix thing gets me goosebumbs) but > > in my professional life I am a software tester and we actually earn > > our money by offering our clients to have us test their apps on > > different devices/Android versions. > > As Dianne mentioned there are actually not _that_ many differences/ > > bugs, but they are real and they can get very expensive (again think > > lagfix). > > > Greetings from Zurich, > > Stephan Wiesner > > > On 11 Jan., 23:31, Christopher Van Kirk > > <christopher.vank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with your assessment. > > > > Making software is a business. An investment. To reap maximum rewards on > > > that investment the product has to have as much reach as possible, > > > meaning the OP is absolutely on point about OS upgrades. Who is going to > > > spend 10k, 100k, 1m, etc, developing an app whose target market is less > > > than 1% of active installs? 4.0 won't be an attractive target for > > > developers until it commands at least 80% of the installed market, which > > > will likely take at least a year to occur, perhaps longer. > > > > Comparing handset differences with browser difference is just absurd. > > > How many browser versions are there? Five maybe six? An average Android > > > app has to deal with over 600 different devices today. That's a > > > difference of 100x. This number is also growing at an exponential rate, > > > so even if you can manage to test on all of those devices, in three > > > months you'll probably have to do the same number again. > > > > What you're apparently not appreciating is that unlike the PC/Mac world, > > > the Android world lacks strong compatibility standards and more > > > importantly, conformance testing. As a consequence, devices tend to have > > > niggling and chronic differences that in aggregate make for an > > > inconsistent and unstable feel for the platform. You really have to have > > > a very large operation or have a very unambitious app to make an app > > > with long reach in the Android world. > > > > By contrast, the Apple approach is that one size fits all. From a small > > > or independent developers perspective this really is preferable, because > > > you know if you test it and it works on one device it's going to work on > > > all of them, and there are millions of them out there. You simply don't > > > have that guarantee in Android. It's no accident that the most > > > profitable app market is to be found on Apple devices. > > > > Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Apple fan. But having spent considerable > > > time fighting with device peculiarities in the Android ecosystem instead > > > of adding features to my app, I find that I long for the simplicity that > > > the Apple ecosystem guarantees. > > > > On 10/28/2011 12:01 AM, Studio LFP wrote: > > > > > Eh, it's not that bad. > > > > > If you look at the history of developers, we're already use to having > > > > to deal with a lot worse fragmentation issues than Android. Anyone > > > > that's ever developed a website correctly knows that supporting the > > > > available web browsers is a lot more of a challenge than with Android > > > > versions. > > > > > Windows, Mac OSX, a ton of server technologies, databases, etc., they > > > > all have tons of different versions available to support. Most > > > > companies stick with older versions because it is what they have and > > > > it is working. When it comes to Android, I've been pleasantly > > > > surprised at the efforts Google has gone through to help manufacturers > > > > upgrade. Even though 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are different, they aren't so > > > > much different that in most cases you can't treat them as 2.x. It > > > > seems to me that Android is more broken up in 1.x, 2.x, 3.x and now > > > > 4.x instead of the individual versions themselves. > > > > > I'd rather a little fragmentation in Android than for them to pull an > > > > Apple and everyone is the exact same, right down to the hardware > > > > level. Variety is something we need in the mobile market, not a one > > > > device fits all concept. > > > > > Steven > > > > Studio LFP > > > >http://www.studio-lfp.com > > > > > On Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:36:24 AM UTC-5, Greg Donald wrote: > > >http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans-visuali... > > > > < > >http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans-visuali...> > > > > > Wow.. I knew it was bad, but man. > > > > > "most app developers will end up targeting an ancient version of > > the > > > > OS in order to maximize market reach." > > > > > I totally agree.. It will literally be years before I will begin to > > > > care about the new 4.0. I'm still supporting devices running 2.1 > > and > > > > will be for some time to come. > > > > > -- > > > > Greg Donald > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Android Developers" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > android-developers@googlegroups.com > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Android Developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en > > -- > Dianne Hackborn > Android framework engineer > hack...@android.com > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. All such > questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and > answer them.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
