Ok.. my bad Dianne.. I thought I've read somewhere that 3.0 is only for tablets.. I probably read that wrong. So from what you have said, it sounds like that a 3.1 could be tailored for both phones and tablets. I was under the impression from most likely "rumor" posts that the new UI in 3 was only going to be for tablets and that phones wouldn't ever see it. I really hope a 3.x comes out where the phones and tablets share a similar UI. I remember reading a while ago that 3.0 would remove the need for sense UI, motoblur, etc. From the looks of it, the 3.0 UI is nicer than all of them, including the iPhone. I would love to see that same UI on phones, although I can certainly see the issues with portions of the UI and small screens.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com>wrote: > Nobody said "Android 3.x line is only for tablets." Honeycomb/3.0 is > specifically for tablets. > > Why would anyone want to fork the code base into two completely disjoint > branches for tablets vs. phones? That would be somewhat insane. Did you > notice all of the new stuff in HC to help applications scale between tablets > and phones? That would be kind-of odd to do if the newer versions are not > going to appear on phones. > > Do you remember when Apple introduced the iPad, and they had a new version > 3.2 of iOS just for that? It never appeared on phones. This is similar. > The only difference is that we did a lot more work on our core platform to > take advantage of larger screens and help applications scale up to them, so > our new version was a big enough change that we bumped it up a major version > number. > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Kevin Duffey <andjar...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Dianne, >> >> If the Android 3.x line is for tablets, and let's assume we don't know the >> actualy api level for 3.0 yet.. but we know 2.3.3 is now 10.. that would >> tell us that if 3.0 becomes 11, then 2.3.3 is end of line for 2.x unless >> there is going to be either some sort of change in api levels to support >> tablets from phones? If 3.0 does become 11, then what we have now on our >> phones is it. No more upgrades. You stated before that 3.0 is only for >> tablets. That means, at least as it stands now, if 3.0 becomes 11, there are >> no more updates for phones other than minor 2.3.4, 2.3.5 etc that retain the >> same API level.. aka bug fixes only. I really hope this isn't the case OR >> that 3.x WILL come to phones. Perhaps, a 3.1 (api lvl 12) will be a merge of >> tablets and phones into one OS and that 2.3 devices like the Bionic/Atrix >> and many other makers, will be able to upgrade to a > 3.0 api. >> >> It's all very confusing at this point. I can see the apple fanboys loving >> this right now ;) I am sure a lot more posts about fragmentation and >> confusion will show up until it's all sorted out. It would be great if >> sooner than later, at least for us developers, that this info was sorted out >> and provided to us so we know what to expect in the near future. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com>wrote: >> >>> Well by definition there would be no API changes between API level 10 and >>> 11. The whole point API levels is to provide a consistent, strict >>> super-setting of platform progression. That is, you can say "is the >>> platform API level >= X" and always know that if this is true it will >>> contain at least all features of API level X as they are specified to work. >>> >>> This is the way API levels have been defined from the start, this is one >>> of the big reasons we made them (to separate platform progression from >>> marketing things like platform versions), and there are no plans to change >>> this. >>> >>> So again, let me please request: don't pay attention to rumors. They are >>> rumors. Trying to predict what is going to happen based on rumors is just >>> going to make your life a lot more difficult. Things should be very clear >>> here: you take the API level of Honeycomb (which I can say I expect to be >>> 11) as the point at which the Honeycomb features are available, and if you >>> need to check for this you say "android.os.Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= >>> android.os.Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB". >>> >>> Also for the other comment about the HC preview SDK version being "10", >>> actually it didn't yet have its own SDK version. During development, the >>> SDK version remains the same as the previous platform (the dev branch is >>> strictly a superset of the platform it is based on), and it is marked with a >>> codename that is used for android:minSdkVersion and android:targetSdkVersion >>> for apps that are building with its new functionality (which does not yet >>> have an official API version number since those APIs are still in >>> development and changing). >>> >>> There is some special casing for resources, because we don't have a way >>> to use version codes in the resource directories, when running as a dev >>> branch the resource system uses "current API version + 1" as the version >>> code for resource matching. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Ed Burnette <ed.burne...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, so if 2.3.3 is API level 10, and 3.0 is API level 11, where would >>>> any future 2.x releases fit in? Will they be called API level 10, or >>>> 12, or will you start using fractional numbers somehow (currently the >>>> level has to be an int)? The answer affects how we should write apps >>>> that work across multiple versions. >>>> >>>> For example, suppose I want to use a method introduced in 3.0 and I >>>> check for Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.HONEYCOMB. Is >>>> that always going to work? Or is it possible that the method will >>>> exist at SDK_INT == 11 but not at SDK_INT == 12? The alternatives >>>> would mean we'd have to start checking Build.CODENAME, INCREMENTAL, >>>> and RELEASE as well (yuck), or that reflection would be the only >>>> reliable way to check if a method or class exists. >>>> >>>> An easy fix, if there are going to be more 2.x releases, would be for >>>> you to use an API level number bigger than 11 for Android 3.0 to >>>> provide some room to grow. If there are not going to be any more 2.x >>>> releases then it won't matter. >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 1:25 pm, Xavier Ducrohet <x...@android.com> wrote: >>>> > I'm not commenting on rumors, but Android 2.3.3 (API *10*) is out as >>>> an SDK. >>>> > >>>> > Xav >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ed Burnette <ed.burne...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > Hard info to replace the rumors would be most welcome. :) >>>> > >>>> > > According to Viewsonic, there will be a release in between 2.3 and >>>> 3.0 >>>> > > (http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/38311/android-2-4-april-release- >>>> > > date). That means it must be under development somewhere now, which >>>> > > means some folks (the involved devs and project leads at least) have >>>> > > an idea what will go in it. Without roadmaps or public source trees >>>> or >>>> > > development work-blogs, the rest of us are left to guess and >>>> > > speculate. I'd much rather we didn't have to. >>>> > >>>> > > On Feb 8, 1:14 am, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote: >>>> > >> The Honeycomb framework APIs are introduced in 3.0. Any platform >>>> that has >>>> > >> them would be 3.0 or later. (And more important, any platform that >>>> has them >>>> > >> would have an API level that is at least that of Honeycomb.) >>>> > >>>> > >> Rumors, so much fun. :p >>>> > >>>> > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Kevin Duffey <andjar...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> > There is a 2.4 in the works if the rumor mill is correct, from my >>>> > >> > understanding of potentially bad sources, 2.4 will be a sort of >>>> reduced >>>> > >> > honeycomb for phones, hopefully giving it the same UI but perhaps >>>> a few >>>> > >> > different things? I am really curious how this is going to play >>>> out. >>>> > >> > Naturally the apple fanboys are shouting fragmentation again, but >>>> I am >>>> > >> > really interested in the UI differences between 3.0 and any new >>>> version for >>>> > >> > phones that come out. Will phones go the way of tablets, no >>>> buttons, same >>>> > >> > UI, etc? I personally hope so, the 3.0 UI looks fantastic. >>>> > >>>> > >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Mark Murphy < >>>> mmur...@commonsware.com>wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >> >> My initial reaction was that it was an homage to Spinal Tap. >>>> > >>>> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ed Burnette < >>>> ed.burne...@gmail.com> >>>> > >> >> wrote: >>>> > >> >> > 11? Does that mean the next 2.x release will be API level 10 >>>> and that >>>> > >> >> > there will only be one more 2.x release with API changes? Or >>>> am I >>>> > >> >> > reading too much into it? I was wondering how that numbering >>>> hiccup >>>> > >> >> > was going to be handled. >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > On Feb 7, 3:01 am, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> >> >> I don't know why it says that about minSdkVersion. The value >>>> of >>>> > >> >> >> minSdkVersion doesn't matter; all that matters is that >>>> > >> >> >> targetSdkVersion="Honeycomb". (Or 11 in the final API.) >>>> > >>>> > >> >> > -- >>>> > >> >> > 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 >>>> > >>>> > >> >> -- >>>> > >> >> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) >>>> > >> >>http://commonsware.com|http://github.com/commonsguy >>>> > >> >>http://commonsware.com/blog|http://twitter.com/commonsguy >>>> > >>>> > >> >> Android 2.3 Programming Books:http://commonsware.com/books >>>> > >>>> > >> >> -- >>>> > >> >> 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. >>>> > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > 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 >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Xavier Ducrohet >>>> > Android SDK Tech Lead >>>> > Google Inc.http://developer.android.com|http://tools.android.com >>>> > >>>> > Please do not send me questions directly. Thanks! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. > > -- > 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
