Anil, I don't agree with your assessment that "Android is dead". Android is alive and kicking for top 50 winners and OHA.
I was sharing the sentiments of fellow developers who were not in top 50. Hope the public SDK release comes out soon. On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Anil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I stand by my assessment that it is effectively dead - I believe > they have relegated it to > lower priority. > Have you noticed that there has been no post from the bosses in a long > while - Dan Morill, David McLaughlin? > Have you noticed that in the past they would swarm over the board to > clear away any rumors or misconceptions. Why the deathly silence? > I would suggest you watch Marissa Meyer's short video lecture on how > to kill off a project. > She is one of the top execs at Google - perhaps COO (?). > She says they regularly do it at Google, and they later on morph it > into something else. > > > On Jul 3, 6:53 pm, Mark Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anil wrote: > > > But the truth is, Android is effectively dead. > > > > Your attitude is reminiscent of slimy Wall Street analysts who nail > > businesses to the wall for "missing" a quarter's "projections". Any > > business or open source endeavor worth pursuing, like Android, is a > > marathon, not a sprint. Saying Android is "dead" before devices are even > > available is so premature it's sad. > > > > Look at it this way: At this time in the iPhone's development, few > > people outside One Infinite Loop even knew of its existence, since they > > didn't announce the project until the device was ready for sale. > > Compared to Apple, OHA has been a case study in transparency. > > > > And Apple has seemed to do OK, at least on hardware sales, despite their > > clammed-up nature. Hence, keeping one's mouth shut does not seem to > > preclude success in the mobile marketplace. Therefore, the fact that OHA > > is "running silent" right now is not necessarily a death knell. > > > > Does it suck, from our standpoint? Sure. We were wowed by the early > > transparency and open-source-ness and have therefore raised our > > expectations. But by the standards of the mobile world, our expectations > > are downright loony. The fact that our expectations are even conceivable > > is a testament to the transparency we do have, not a tombstone atop the > > transparency we don't. > > > > Now, compared to other open source projects, even corporate-backed ones, > > the level of transparency since the early days has been dreadful. But > > Eclipse, OpenOffice.org, and even Mozilla had rocky beginnings, with > > large quantities of code tossed over the wall with little structured > > support. They eventually turned the corner and have become solid open > > source citizens, if not better. > > > > In other words: patience, grasshopper. > > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > > _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ -- Available Now! > > > -- take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://cookingcapsules.com - nourish your droid. http://mobeegal.in - find stuff closer. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
