Every time I cross the needs of my target customers, Google's architecture supports meeting those needs, specifically background processes. Just because a child is using their phone, does not mean you don't need to find them.
Sometimes I wonder if Google has struck through the 'accessible' part of their mantra. In every successful step I am aware of the incremental cost to the user was negligible, or an actual savings (free email with storage, etc). I have not seen an android capable device that the people I know could afford. ... some Google guy hinted [joked?] that an android phone does not even need a screen at all. ...They are working with a voice company. Anyway, I have not seen an android capable device that the people I know could afford. On Jun 25, 5:56 am, YA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shane: > > you can do what these guys did. > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9976405-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&t... > > YA > > On Jun 24, 9:19 pm, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If we are still sitting with an alpha SDK, it's increasingly unlikely > > that the Android platform is close to being certified on devices; the > > news that handsets may be delayed until next year doesn't surprise me. > > > As for individual developers being squeezed out of the market, that is > > exactly what is happening. Google is not releasing their SDK to the > > general community and has chosen a select group of software vendors. > > This hurts acceptance by the general mobile developer community, after > > all if we are going to be on the outside, shouldn't we be on the > > outside of a market that already exists. We know that carriers and > > other players are not going to change their behavior based on > > technology alone, so Google was the best hope of being an agent of > > change but in the end they fell back on the established, insider way > > of doing things in mobile. > > > With the industry endorsing LBS applications through the results of > > ADC I (while still saying that the Android location API is optional > > and subject to be locked), we are left knowing the dangers that await > > the individual developers. > > > I can say that this SDK decision has hurt development of SAM, the > > SlideME application manager, as we wait to see what security surrounds > > application installs. This will give a very good indication about the > > openness of the platform and whether independent parties are going to > > be able to freely do application installation or whether the carriers > > will be able to lock down this functionality. Our original intention > > was to build a large enough community that carriers wouldn't want to > > ignore SAM. > > > The entire Android developer community has not exterted anywhere near > > that type of muscle and have even been sheepish when it comes to > > insider access to the Android SDK. I can assure you that carriers are > > not being quiet about what they want, even forceful, and it is human > > nature to listen to the person crying the loudest. > > > Shane > > > On Jun 23, 7:01 pm, JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The WSJ has an article today about the state of the affairs in the > > > Android > > > empire.http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121418837707895947.html?mod=2_... > > > Looks like the journalists made a number of phone calls and did not > > > just regurgitate some blogs - some solid insights into carriers and > > > developers' current situation, it seems. I have the following > > > takeaways from the article: > > > - For app developers, there is a world of two speeds. If you got "in" > > > through the Challenge or some other relationship, you already have > > > access to information about the next SDK, draft release notes at the > > > minimum, probably the SDK itself. Nothing in sight to the public > > > though. Or did I miss something? The WeatherChannel developer anyways > > > indirectly confirms this, which means they are getting a headstart to > > > implement the necessary changes to their apps, while everybody else > > > has to sit and wait. > > > - Carriers are busy branding "their" Android. Worst case, we can > > > expect subsidized-only phones a la iPhone, which only include apps > > > which made it on the inside track, while independent developers cannot > > > load and test theirs (superficial carrier explanation here: copy Steve > > > Jobs excuses of yore). The first batches of Android phones will > > > certainly come with aggressive SIM locks - no question in my mind, but > > > I might be proven wrong. > > > It'll be interesting to see however if enthusiasts can flash these > > > suckers from clean Android images without too much trouble. Sans SIM > > > lock, sans branding, but I suspect special service cables will be > > > needed which are not available to the public. Needless to say that > > > we'll be told we'll burn in hell (or worse) if we choose to pursue > > > this. > > > > Overall... question marks keep piling up for independent developers. > > > Looks like we are getting squeezed out of the race to market? Perhaps > > > some clarifying words by the developer advocates at Google might give > > > us some pointers (wink, wink)? > > > > JP --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
