I agree with Paul. If Google can succeed in getting the big carriers to put the Android platform on their various families of devices, then the application developer wins.
2008/4/6 Paul Marrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I started my project in J2ME before Android was announced. Firstly > Android is designed for the next generation of phones - with more > power and more flexibility than J2ME will provide. By basing the > system on Linux in can continue to grow. Secondly all other platforms > are closed. I considered and rejected writing for mobiles a few years > ago because it was difficult and expensive. Even the latest offerings > like the iPhone leave developers with a limited closed environment. In > the end Android is about applications. The iPhone has taken the market > by storm with style. Windows Mobile has been around long enough to > gather a following. Android will provide a platform for applicaiton > development. In the end if it has 10 times as many applications as the > other platforms it will get a large market place. Being open source is > a feature not a benefit. The benefit to the phone buyer is what he or > she can do with Android they can't do with the others. > > On Apr 6, 10:03 am, "Dan U." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yeah, we've heard that. However, I'm still waiting to hear a rundown > of what > > > exactly the technical deficiencies of existing projects were that were > > > sufficient to convince Google that *everything *pretty much needed to > be > > > written from scratch (thus unquestionably adding to fragmentation, > whether > > > that was the goal or not.) > > > > I'm not a J2ME developer, but I've heard a lot of complaints about > > J2ME. That might have been a reason for Google to do this. > > > > As for what Jha said, it might have been taken out of context or maybe > > "fragmentation" was a poor word choice. It might be Googles intention > > to keep other companies from holding a monopoly in the mobile world. I > > really don't know if that's the intention, but in my mind it is a good > > reason. It gives consumers more choice. > > > > On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, "Stone Mirror" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 2008/4/5 Dan Morrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Jha is not a Google employee, and does not speak for Google; at > best, he > > > > might be speaking for his own company. His statements as quoted are > > > > obviously way out of step with the real objectives of Android, and > are his > > > > personal speculation insofar as they mention Google. > > > > > However, he _is_ the COO of Qualcomm, a member of the "Open Handset > > > Alliance". Presumably members of OHA have more insight into the > motivations > > > behind Android than those of us on the street do. > > > > > Or do the members of OHA other than Google have nothing to say about > > > Android...? > > > > > > The sole goal of the Android project is to produce a high-quality, > fully > > > > open platform designed from top to bottom for mobile. Google is > involved > > > > because we want to help build the kind of platform we want to use. > > > > > Yeah, we've heard that. However, I'm still waiting to hear a rundown > of what > > > exactly the technical deficiencies of existing projects were that were > > > sufficient to convince Google that *everything *pretty much needed to > be > > > written from scratch (thus unquestionably adding to fragmentation, > whether > > > that was the goal or not.) > > > > > I'm on the fence about this. It seems totally plausible in a > high-level > > > corporate strategy kind of way--particularly since Google's expertise > is a > > > lot more about web apps than cellphone platforms--but it reduces > Android to > > > nothing more than a stalking horse, a throwaway meant to confuse the > field > > > enough that they'll--like Michael > > > Mace< > http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2008/02/mobile-applications-rip.. > .>--become > > > convinced that web-based development is the only way to get things > done. > > > > > > 2008/4/5 Stone Mirror <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > According to Sanjay Jha, COO of Qualcomm's chipset division, as > quoted in this > > > > > article in *The Register*< > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/android_qualcomm/>, > > > > > it was Google's goal from the outset to *create, *not reduce, > > > > > fragmentation in the mobile software space with its introduction > of Android. > > > > > Qualcomm is, of course, a member of the Open Handset Alliance. > > > > > > > "Google *wants *fragmentation in the industry," according to Jha. > > > > > > > Why? Maybe there's a clue in Robert Love's presentation at last > summer's > > > > > GUADEC in Birmingham, where he extolled a vision of the future > where all > > > > > data would be web-based and accessed through web-based > applications > > > > > (incidentally an area that Google has been pushing for a couple of > years > > > > > now.) This raised some significant objections, around areas like > > > > > accessibility (Robert suggested that Google Gears could address > this, which > > > > > really begs the question of why one would base stuff on the web > in the > > > > > first place) but more significantly, on grounds relating to > privacy and > > > > > security (a pretty sketchy area for Google, to begin with). There > was > > > > > general agreement that putting corporate data on a Google-owned > web-based > > > > > resource would be not only foolish, but completely legitimate > grounds for a > > > > > quick sacking. Robert had no real response to this criticism. > > > > > > > So, I'd love to hear from someone at Google about this. Was > Android > > > > > cynically intended from the outset to make life easier for Google > by trying > > > > > to marginalize the legitimate community-based efforts that it > derided as > > > > > being "not good enough" to meet its needs when it first started to > think > > > > > about the direction it wanted to take in mobile? Was it more that > they > > > > > weren't "Google-controlled enough" rather than "good enough"? Is > Android > > > > > mainly intended to be a stumbling block for the rest of the > industry? > > > > > > > What happened to "Don't be evil"...? > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 鏡石 > > > > > -- > > > 鏡石 > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
