On Jul 12, 7:26 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JBQ, > > We hear you. Thanks for taking your time and communicating with the android > developer community. This I hope is the first step in bridging the gap that > was created between Google and the Android development community after the > public SDK stopped coming. > > Hats off. Keep posting. > > Thanks.
Same here, thank for sharing. It's not like we could (seriously) expect answers to big picture question. The Android team cannot control some considerable aspects in the first place. But at least keep the channels open about the aspects you can. And if for one reason or another, some things cannot be shared at one point, it's perfectly fine to state that that's the case and if possible explain that. Like we've seen there's a pretty bad impact when you cut off. I am miffed for example (to inject a grief I've had recently) that the 1800- number (number of entries to the Challenge I) is leveraged in the press when on the other side we see treatment like we have. Guy's.... don't do stuff like that, especially considering that you'll need all hands on deck when you need leverage to fight for *your* (and ours: open source) interest when things are getting tight; and they will. When someone ends up with bad compromises, at least one can go to sleep at night and tell him or herself: you've done everything possible. I've been sloppy working out that Android licensing thought. What I probably should have said was that carriers will likely go out and (evil-)brand their product/service based on an Android derivative, call it whatever their legal advisers will endorse, what they can train their marketeers to pitch and what will provide maximum leverage of the Google brand name (in the bigger picture: does the "Android" name mean much anyhow). If things play out that way... *that's* going to be pain for the Android team and it has been a bit of a shocker to see how you guys cut off communications on a relatively easy set of stakeholders like us. You all's have credit 'round here, but immediately it raises doubt whether you are prepared to fight a fight with the carriers when the Android team can't get the seemingly simple things done. Let me also say that one of the darker side aspects to me is unceremoniously cutting off the developer advocates. Unless I've gotten the wrong impression: This has torched Dan M. and others who have been busting their tails off just a few months ago. A good time to recognize their efforts, now that we know (not just suspect) that they've been gagged. Seriously I hope they're not getting a heart attack; there's been a bunch including myself who have been turning on the heat... For my personal entertainment I'll say I suppose they did not expect something like this to happen when they walked by expecting mother parking signs on their way to their first job interview. (;->) Re: chasing SDK's: It's about what poison to chose. There's no right answer. If we can't get visibility where the SDK goes, the concerns with every piece of code we implement and every design decision we take on an "old" release is that we might paint ourselves into a corner. Lessons learned about focusing on design and architecture are all valuable, but in the end it's code that actually runs on a platform, not concepts, and that's what keeps us (or at least me) going. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
