Ed wrote: > Our message, as G1 users, is to ask that we address the shortcomings > for the phone we have now--that we paid money for and have signed > contracts for.
Ah, and there you used the key word: "we". There's already been a bit of discussion on this over in [android-platform]: http://tinyurl.com/5b46sd Upshot of this thread, and others, is that while desirable, adding support for apps on the SD card isn't exactly easy. Combine that with the eventuality that only a percentage of devices will really need the capability (i.e., have "paltry on-board flash"), and it's not too hard to see why this isn't exactly at the top of the list for the core Android team itself. > I think that the G1 could > be an extremely strong competitor, but it will take an approach beyond > that of "let's just wait until the really good Android phone shows > up." True. However, at the same time, threads like this one aren't going to get you very far. Face it: it's going to take an engineer -- perhaps a few -- a fair chunk of time to implement what you want. It's possible this is a 3-3-3 project (three guys, three days, three cases of Red Bull), but I'm skeptical. Besides, beyond actually getting it to work on the emulator, there are the twin challenges of getting it tested on hardware and getting it approved as a patch by the core Android team. Of course, I'm not a low-level systems developer. The closer we get to the kernel, the louder I go "eek!" in terms of my skill set. It could be this isn't all that tough. Again, though, I'm skeptical. So, if you want this implemented, somehow we gotta get the engineering talent together to implement it. There are basically three models for this, that I can see: 1. People build it because they're scratching an itch, plus ancillary benefits (a grateful community, a useful item for a resume or project portfolio, legions of adoring fans chanting their name at public appearances, etc.) 2. People build it because there's money involved 3. Google builds it The default, of course, is door #3, and we've already been told, in the above-linked thread, that "it is not on the immediate roadmap". That means to me that the race is on for whether it will be implemented by the time the limitation itself isn't a very big deal. While I personally don't care a ton about this specific issue, I do care a great deal about us having a smooth-running mechanism for getting features like this added...albeit probably not by Google themselves. My arms are too short to box with Larry and Sergey, so to speak. > Unfortunately, you may be right. T-Mobile users like me could have > just waited to see who else would offer an Android phone, and we > wouldn't have to be beta testers for the really good gear coming > later. The Palm Pilot 1000 owners probably thought the same thing. It's somewhere between the French expression "c'est la vie" and the Latin expression "caveat emptor". What you're dancing around, though, is the bigger issue: now that we have this lovely open source mobile OS, how do we convert user interest in features and enhancements into actual working code that gets into a future OS update? Otherwise, all this open sourcing won't amount to much, and we're pretty much stuck with watching the race between Google's engineering team and Apple's from the sidelines. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 1.4 Published! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
