Right. Google "won" that particular battle. To ConAim
"Bring yourself back to reality man. Do you know why 99.9% of carrier out there afraid to use Android OS? [yada yada]" Right. The phone companies want to charge as much as possible for as long as possible. I get it. You like text messaging? Its a crappy version of email, with archaic restrictions (160 chars). If you go over some number, they charge for it. Verizon has all sorts of bad limits and rules. Its crap. What's reality? The technology exists for a pretty sweet network, yet we don't have it. I have that gripe about a lot of the internet. Why do I have people I barely know hitting me with movie trivia on Facebook but paying my bills is still a haphazard, partially manual, error prone process? Don't look at the way things are now. Look where you want them to be. To the people talking about whiners, please chime in here. You think things will be the same 10 years from now? I think you're the one who needs to think about reality. On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyway, I read somewhere on the news that Google lost their wireless > > bid to ATT, Verizon ... I'm sure they was trying to get something > > going ... > > If you guys have some free time, look into it. > > Their intention was not to win but to ensure that certain rules that > would allow almost any device to run on that network would kick in if > the bidding price got to a certain level. They raised the bidding > price to the point that they wanted so that the new rules would kick > in. After that they let the other guys outbid them. > > > > > On May 5, 11:46 am, ConAim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure, compare to Symbian then it's greater, I can see it as well, > > since it's the worthiest one in the list ... lol > > But guess what, they do have hardware to run on, don't they? > > > > ***** > > Android will come out and be on a lot of phones. There> > will be a lot > of innovation in that part of the phone world, which > > > > will force the other guys to open up too. > > > > ****** > > > > Bring yourself back to reality man. Do you know why 99.9% of carrier > > out there afraid to use Android OS? Yes, correct there is a bad side > > of been "Open", I'm sure none of the carrier want their devices to be > > a VoIP phone via WiFi. You have to know this is a mobile business not > > an internet advertising business, and if you (the Google lovers) and > > Google think that they can change the world, and then be it. > > > > Anyway, I read somewhere on the news that Google lost their wireless > > bid to ATT, Verizon ... I'm sure they was trying to get something > > going ... > > If you guys have some free time, look into it. > > > > On May 5, 9:40 am, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Amen to that. > > > > > Whatever glitches and inconsistencies are out the in GUI, they most > > > likely can be addressed within existing framework, which does seem > > > quite flexible. > > > > > Android platform itself does seem quite bold and progressive in > > > design. Smart application life-cycle management. Pushing some novel > > > concepts to mainstream out of mostly research realms (e.g. Intents). > > > Smooth integration for technologies that existed but were neglected > > > (e.g. integrating geo/spatial data not as an afterthought). Dalvik > > > does look like a better take on mobile Java than cvm/kvm. > > > > > It is very clear that a lot of effort by smart people went into > > > designing that platform. People who think it's bad should go and try > > > rewrite their submission for Symbian. > > > > > On May 4, 5:23 pm, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I'll respond to this. I think the platform itself is great. Here's > why. > > > > > > - The iphone is polished, but Apple is like a totalitarian state. You > > > > can do whatever you want, as long as Steve is OK with it. You want to > > > > have an app on the iPhone? Better hope they like it. You also better > > > > hope they don't decide to compete with you. Yank. Your app is out of > > > > the store. Also, I believe you can't just give it away. YOu need to > > > > charge, and they take a cut. You want to develope something open > > > > source and give it out? Not happening (as far as I know. I could be > > > > wrong). You want to write some in-house app for a business or > > > > whatever? I don't think you can do that. The android platform is > > > > nice in that it approaches the open source world, where the real > > > > innovation happens. If the future of the internet and technology goes > > > > down the apple route, we'll all be locked down again. That sucks. > > > > > > Plus, Objective C? Really? > > > > > > - So. Even if the platform is open, if it sucks, it sucks. Right? > > > > Take a look around. JME is crap. Android is buggy, but that's > > > > because its not release software yet. The look and feel is a little > > > > rough, but I'd put a lot of money on that being well taken care of. > > > > The difference betwen m3 and m5 were huge. To ding them a bit, the > > > > docs for UI modification are terrible, and they didn't really finish > > > > the refacing. Just try creating an app with the "Light" theme. > > > > However, the UI is pretty good. Far better than JME. Not better than > > > > the iPhone? OK. It'll be a lot better really soon. I do think > > > > building UI's is pretty slow. There is no UI designer. True. I > > > > would say a large percentage of UI design is done without a graphical > > > > layout tool. As a career web guy, I'll tell you I never use a visual > > > > tool. You know what's great about the open nature of the platform? > > > > You can build that tool. If you did a decent job, I bet you'd get in > > > > the top 50 for round 2. > > > > > > - "so much bug". Its not release level yet. Like all code, for all > > > > time. Its got some bugs. > > > > > > - The emulator does take forever to start. Not sure why that is. > > > > After its up, though, it runs pretty good. I have my asteroids clone > > > > posted in one of the other forums. It runs fine. My app has > > > > thousands of rows in the db, and its pretty responsive on the queries > > > > and display. > > > > > > The summary. Android will come out and be on a lot of phones. There > > > > will be a lot of innovation in that part of the phone world, which > > > > will force the other guys to open up too. That's the beauty of this > > > > particular chess move on Google's part. Android doesn't have to "take > > > > over". It just has to open the door. IPhone is going to have a tough > > > > time being a closed SDK platform when a major competitor isn't. > > > > Right? Not sure if everybody remembers back when Apple had a large > > > > part of the computing world and blew it by being closed off to outside > > > > competition and innovation. Its the exact same thing they're doing > > > > now.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Challenge" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
