Good points. I think what I read indicated that the UI is that good that a custom UI would no longer be needed.. or probably more likely that hopefully a custom UI won't be built and that all android 3+ devices would share the same UI. I doubt that will be the case, as you said it's open and handset makers are always going to want to find a way to entice people to buy their phone instead of a competitors. When you have similar specs for a phone, often the UI is what sets it apart. That and stability of the device.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com>wrote: > Well 3.0 == HC, which is very different from "3.x", which is fairly broad > in the possible versions it includes. Also any statements about HC removing > the "need" for Sense UI etc is just more rumors -- there have been no such > official statements, I don't even know what "remove the need" means. I have > also seen rumors around about how HC (or GB often) would not allow > customized UIs, which of course is fairly ridiculous since Android is open > source. > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Kevin Duffey <andjar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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
