Here is a video of HTC Magic (French version) http://www.mobinaute.com/265180-videonaute-htc-magic-android-google.html
On 24 mar, 19:46, "Al Sutton" <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > The problem is that 1.1 was the most recent and the concern is that as the > latest release has a "device then SDK" order this may be seen as an > acceptable way to do things in the future. > > As for announcements of phones with cupcake. Vodafone have been saying since > February that they'll ship the HTC Magic in April > (http://www.vodafone.com/start/media_relations/news/group_press_releas... > /vodafone_and_htc_unveil.html ) and HTC show the Magic as having CupCake > features such as video recording > (http://www.htc.com/www/product/magic/overview.html) > > Al. > > -----Original Message----- > From: android-developers@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Romain Guy > Sent: 24 March 2009 17:49 > To: android-developers@googlegroups.com > Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK? > > All the SDKs released before 1.0 were no accident you know. > > So far, only the 1.1 SDK was released after the firmware (and not long after > at that.) I don't understand the point of this discussion. We know that the > SDK should be released before the bits are placed on actual devices and you > know that as well. Since there's been no announcement of Cupcake > availability on actual handsets, why all this fuss? > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > > Dave, > > > I understand the effort involved, but the choice for any SDK is > > really; > > > a) Release the SDK before the devices and let developers test and > > prepare their apps. > > > b) Allow users to start buying a device which may not properly run the > > applications available from Market. > > > This is a no-brainer and in order to not appear like a piece of > > half-thought out technology the answer has to be a. > > > Apple understand this. Microsoft understand this. Symbian understand this. > > RIM understand this. This is why they all have developer programmes > > which give previews of upcoming OS releases and features. To ignore > > this fact is like signing a death warrant on the general publics > perception of Android. > > > I know that you're going to make every effort to make sure it does > > happen, but from a users point of view being told "well we did try" > > just doesn't cut the mustard. Being told they may encounter problems > > using applications from Googles market running on a Google branded > > phone downloaded directly on the 'phone is just going to look really > > poor. After all who wouldn't be mad if they bought a Ford car which > > turned up with an Ford accessories catalogue, bought some stuff from > > the accessories catalogue, waited for it to arrive, tried to fit it, > > find out it doesn't work, 'phone up Ford, only to be told "Oh yeah, we > > left it in the catalogue, but the accessory manufacturer had no way of > > testing if it worked because we couldn't do that for them" (although > > given Google Support Desk the user will probably just get told "It's an > app problem, it's the developers fault"). > > > This is one of the few occasions where I think a marketing persons > > view could be of use. > > > Al. > > > ________________________________ > > From: android-developers@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Turner > > Sent: 24 March 2009 16:01 > > To: android-developers@googlegroups.com > > Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the > SDK? > > > Hmm.. Despite the fact that this is what we want, we cannot make a > > guarantee that the Cupcake SDK will be officially released strictly > > before the platform is available on retail phones. > > > Properly testing and packaging a SDK takes a lot of time, we may > > encounter blocker bugs that have nothing to do with the software on the > phone (e.g. > > emulator crashes on platform X, ADB doesn't see emulator/devices on > > platform Y, etc..). While we test the SDK frequently during > > development, doing the necessary job to ensure that it's not going to > > break on the machines of all people who download it from the official > > repository takes some time. And then, the web site needs to be > > updated, especially the documentation needs to reflect the new features / > fixes / etc... > > > But apart from that, I don't see a reason why this SDK would lag > > behind, and as I said, we want it to be released ASAP. > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > > >> JBQ, > > >> Can you pass up the chain that the 'phrase > > >> "...you can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a > >> cupcake-originated release as soon as possible." > > >> should be planned to be a point in time (hopefully a couple of weeks) > >> before a carrier releases a device with it on. > > >> I'm sure you're aware there's no bigger recipe for pain than when the > >> first people to test applications on a new release of a platform are > >> users who are trying out a new 'phone in a shop. > > >> Al. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: android-developers@googlegroups.com > >> [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > >> Jean-Baptiste Queru > >> Sent: 24 March 2009 15:39 > >> To: android-developers@googlegroups.com > >> Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is > >> the SDK? > > >> 1.1 was essentially a update of a few Google-proprietary bits on top > >> of the same platform as 1.0. > >> From the point of view of the Android platform (and therefore of the > >> SDK as well), the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 are extremely > >> minor. > > >> Cupcake is a branch name, it's not a released version. A future > >> numbered release will be cut from the cupcake branch, but that > >> product isn't ready yet, and therefore there can be no SDK yet. > > >> As cupcake contains significant platform changes compared to 1.0/1.1, > >> you can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a > >> cupcake-originated release as soon as possible. > > >> JBQ > > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM, tauntz <tau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > I just hope that this time the release date for the official SDK > >> > will be BEFORE the update hits the masses. Not like it was with the > >> > 1.1SDK > >> > - it was released way after 1.1 was released to end-users (the > >> > argument from Google was something in the lines of "Hey, this is a > >> > small release with no mayor changes so don't whine that you get it > >> > so late"). Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that this is ridiculous.. > >> > One of the reasons why we don't have the official 1.5 (or cupcake > >> > or however it will be officially called) SDK is that "It's not > >> > stable enough" - fair enough but I really hope that you guys @ > >> > Google will release it as soon as the code is stable enough (eg the > >> > code is tested and ready to be released to the operators). That > >> > would give us a week (maybe more) before the operators push it to the > end-users. > > >> > And don't come with the "you can build your own SDK from the > >> > opensource tree if you want" - the last releases didn't come from > >> > the opensource tree so even if I wanted, i couldn't build the SDK > >> > based on the code that's shipped to the end-users. And even if this > >> > release will actually come from the public tree, you can't expect > >> > all app developers to build their own SDK, can you? We need an > >> > official SDK - and we need it as soon as the tree is stable enough > >> > (and way before it's pushed to the carriers/end-users) > > >> > Tauno > > >> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM, AndroidApp <zl25dre...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > > >> >> Not if you stay anonymous (hint, hint) ;-) > > >> >> On Mar 23, 7:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous > >> >> <firewallbr...@googlemail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> " Someone from Google? " makes it official i guess :D > > >> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, AndroidApp > >> >>> <zl25dre...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >>> > Can someone capable just compile the SDK and post it online for > >> >>> > everyone? Someone from Google? I dont really care if it's not > >> >>> > official, i just dont want to download the source tree just to > >> >>> > build the SDK, plus i need to do the tricks you mentioned to > >> >>> > make it work on windows. > > >> >>> > On Mar 23, 1:11 pm, Marco Nelissen <marc...@android.com> wrote: > >> >>> > > I certainly hope there aren't "a lot" of applications that > >> >>> > > use reflection and private APIs. > > >> >>> > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:59 AM, zl25drexel > >> >>> > > <zl25dre...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > wrote: > > >> >>> > > > Cupcake is coming, and as you know it will break a lot of > >> >>> > > > apps in the market, those that use reflection & private > >> >>> > > > api. So where is the Cupcake SDK/emulator for us to try our > apps? > > >> >>> > > > I know we can download the source codes and build it, and I > >> >>> > > > know apps wont break if they dont use undocumented api, > >> >>> > > > blah blah blah, but we should get an official SDK/emulator > >> >>> > > > for cupcake, dont you think, google? > > >> -- > >> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru > >> Android Engineer, Google. > > >> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private > >> will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further > warning. > > -- > Romain Guy > Android framework engineer > romain...@android.com > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > provide private support. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
