Of course we want to cut into the continuity. We are trying to make a new platform that solves new problems and achieves new goals. In actuality I am working on a doctoral project that involves custom communication handlers, and inserting intelligence into the call reception protocols. Android was promised to be open entirely, and I assumed it was going to allow creative use of the device, instead all we have is silly PDA style applications. It's very disappointing, and I take offense that you can tell the community of an open platform what the users will and will not appreciate.
I do understand that this might be a very tough and deeply integrated part of the operating system and that it simply did not make it into the 1.0 release. Perhaps in 2.0 we will actually have an open telephone platform, but that sounds so unlikely. I'm not asking to mess with Verizon's network, nor AT&T's network. I just want to have control of the handheld's reactions. On Sep 18, 8:50 am, Charlie Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good point Mark. I was speaking in terms of using the API to develop > an application. Those delivering their own platform all the way to > firmware probably will, and certainly should, have access to all of > that. > > In terms of the "now now" type comments (@kstamm), yes, it will be > "open source" all the way down to the hardware. That still doesn't > make it a good idea to change such fundamental behavior as the dialer/ > calling if you are working on an app for the "T-Mobile Google Phone" > for instance (users won't appreciate it). In cases where you are > building an app you don't want to cut into the continuity of the > platform. And, I would completely *disagree* that that is the only > thing that separates Android from other platforms (the entire > architecture with the nature of intents and services and the platform > managing the security and memory and so on is a different tack, > altogether, and a significant one - which has nothing to do with > whether or not it is open source, though that is also another plus). > > On Sep 17, 11:47 am, "Mark Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think the idea is that certain key functions of the phone - calling, > > > and going to the home screen - usurp other functions. All non built-in > > > key functions, e.g. applications, are still equal, but yes a few key > > > functions have a higher priority > > > I suspect there will be two tiers of development for Android. > > > At the level of the SDK, you're probably correct -- not each and every > > phone function can be replaced or hooked into, in part for security > > reasons. > > > If you're willing to roll your own firmware, though, you'll probably be > > able to do whatever you want. So if you're creating your own phone, and > > you want to create a different dialer or in-call display than what stock > > Android comes with, you can probably do it. > > > Leastways, that's how I'm reading the various tea leaves. > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > > _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 1.2 Published! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
