Eric, I hope to suggest that the design of Motorola's products will be reaching towards a standard that does not require the dev community's familiarization with Motorola products to a level of detail that starts to shine through here. This actually applies to all device makers. HTC has been supplying the dev devices so far, so to me, that's the "standard" at this point. They've taken the plunge first, accommodated the limited production runs of dev devices, so now they deserve the privilege of taking the wheel. Assuming there's a series of "quirks" associated with Motorola's products, I'll make a prediction that hardly any dev will make the effort, or be in a position to effectively develop towards Moto devices in the first place. In other words, it just ain't going to happen, all the while the units move into the hands of expecting users that'll get bounced around between Google, devs and the device maker. Once we start seeing disclaimers in the already cramped Market app descriptions, to the effect: "Tested on device X" (good luck otherwise), we'll know we're at the point where noone wins. JP
On Sep 11, 11:05 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > [I could've sworn I pressed "send" and yet my reply hasn't shown up. > I'll try to paraphrase. I'm sure as soon as I press "send" this time, > the original will show up. ;-) ] > > Mark, et. al., > > There is an SDK add-on for the Cliq under the MOTODEV AAP that is > based on an older system build and had some issues with supporting the > ALT keys. It's using the code name for the device, which is no secret. > The issues have been fixed and a recent system image is in a newer > package that we reviewed and approved last week. The file name uses > the model number (MB200), which should work for either Cliq or DEXT. > It may not have been pushed to the MOTODEV site with all the changes > they were doing yesterday for the announcement. I don't know if it > will be in the public MOTODEV area or still in the AAP. I'll follow- > up on that. > > Mark, I don't think there was any intent to use published applications > as a gating criteria for acceptance to the program. I'll pass your > concerns on to the people who run the program. > > -E > > On Sep 11, 12:29 pm, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Buzz Android wrote: > > > There is an AVD. Access to it has been one of the benefits of the > > > MOTODEV App Accelerator Program. > > > Ah, that would explain matters. > > > One of the annoyances of the App Accelerator Program is it expects me to > > lie on the application form to gain access ("What is the name of your > > mobile application?"), and therefore I haven't joined. > > > > I > > > think we all knew that at some point there would be devices that > > > didn't follow the same design model of the current devices. > > > I worry about those who don't fit in the "we all knew" bucket, as I am > > sure there are some. That's part of the reason why we need to get the > > word out about what specific things developers need to consider for > > maximum compatibility. We'll go through the same thing once the first > > non-HVGA device (or ready-for-prime-time AVD) hits the streets (e.g., > > HTC Tattoo). > > > Thanks for the info! > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons > > Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > > Android 1.5 Programming Books:http://commonsware.com/books.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" 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-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
