...With devices built on the Android Platform, users are able to fully tailor the phone to their interests. They can swap out the phone's homescreen, the style of the dialer, or any of the applications..
Not with the G1 ( and rc30 ) there's no official root access, eg: we cannot uninstall t-mobile's MyFaves application ( and it zillions of 453 sms messages ) etc etc. I guess t-mobile is the G1 'user' not us G1 consumers... I find it interesting to keep seeing google saying 'speak to the carrier/vendor' about software for the devices and the carrier (t- mobile) says 'google writes the software'... I now see, with hindsight, that I should have waited for the Dev Phone 1 and not jumped in and bought a G1. regards On Jan 8, 2:21 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. > > I haven't clean fetched "Master".. may be that's the issue. > > take care, > Muthu Ramadoss. > > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914http://mobeegal.in- mobile > search. redefined. > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > > FYI Master builds right now, even for actual hardware. (It doesn't run so > > well due to a bunch of closed-source libraries they can't release.. but > > thats just more of the "we'll worry about licensing later" mess.) > > > At a minimum, whats out there now is: > > Master - cutting edge, community tree (although so far only googs can > > commit) - currently (as of a couple days ago) builds fine for g1/adp1 using > > the directions on android.com > > Master w/ tag "release-1.0" - the tree as it was kinda sorta when rc29/rc30 > > were peeled off, but not really. Doesn't build. > > Cupcake - laggy internal cutting edge, synced from perforce. still broken > > build, and behind master. > > Perforce - cutting edge private tree, occasionally synced to cupcake > > Product - adp1/g1 tree, stable, tested, running, never to see the light of > > day other than as blob updates ('open source' or not..) > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Muthu Ramadoss > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> Google has their own internal repo which they haven't synced it up with > >> the public repo. Its all a bit confusing now since both master and the > >> cupcake branch seems to be broken now. > > >> take care, > >> Muthu Ramadoss. > > >>http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 > >>http://androidrocks.googlecode.com > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> Its apache-licensed. Just pretend that the upstream is 'equal' and they > >>> created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, thats what > >>> happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they merged it to > >>> their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making it forever > >>> unreachable.) > > >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> But a group of OHA members made the first deployment where a number of > >>>> apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd party > >>>> diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.). > > >>>> So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, why are the OHA > >>>> claiming it's one of features of an Android system? > > >>>> Al. > > >>>> Muthu Ramadoss wrote: > >>>> > "All Applications are created Equal" > > >>>> > holds true for all applications created on top of Application > >>>> Framework. > > >>>> > It does not mean that the applications created will be open or free! > > >>>> > take care, > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss. > > >>>> >http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 > >>>> >http://mobeegal.in- mobile search. redefined. > > >>>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush <[email protected] > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>> > The adage that all applications are created equal cannot hold true > >>>> in > >>>> > a real commercial rollout by a carrier. > > >>>> > Carriers would want to achieve service differentiation and a > >>>> > competitive edge over their peers. So they would always want to > >>>> lock > >>>> > down some apps to provide them to only their customers. > >>>> > If all applications would be equal, what value proposition will > >>>> they > >>>> > show to their customers ? > > >>>> > So i think, that this statement of application equality does not > >>>> hold > >>>> > good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the carriers > >>>> wont > >>>> > tolerate it ! > > >>>> > Aayush > > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss wrote: > >>>> > > I guess "All applications are created equal" will hold true when > >>>> > you roll > >>>> > > out your own custom Android implementation. If we consider the > >>>> G1 > >>>> > > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is going to > >>>> > lock down a lot > >>>> > > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important enough to be > >>>> > locked down for > >>>> > > various reasons. > > >>>> > > take care, > >>>> > > Muthu Ramadoss. > > >>>> > >http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz+91-9840348914 > >>>> > >http://androidrocks.googlecode.com- Android Tutorial. > > >>>> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected] > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>>> > > > Debate on the policy is another (probably lengthy) discussion, > >>>> > the fact > >>>> > > > is that the policy exists and because of that all apps are not > >>>> > equal as > >>>> > > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are created equal" > >>>> > doesn't > >>>> > > > hold up. > > >>>> > > > Al. > > >>>> > > > Shane Isbell wrote: > > >>>> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton > >>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>>> > > > > <mailto:[email protected] > >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > >>>> > wrote: > > >>>> > > > > They would need stretch that somewhat and define the > >>>> dialler > >>>> > > > > application > >>>> > > > > as non-core for that to work in relation to the block on > >>>> > third party > >>>> > > > > diallers calling emergency services. > > >>>> > > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If there is a > >>>> > hostile app, > >>>> > > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging the system, > >>>> > people > >>>> > > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the other crap you > >>>> > give > >>>> > > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will fall out. > > >>>> > > > > Shane > > >>>> > > > -- > >>>> > > > ====== > >>>> > > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with > >>>> the > >>>> > > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp > >>>> House, > >>>> > > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > >>>> > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and > >>>> not > >>>> > > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, > >>>> > or it's > >>>> > > > subsidiaries. > > >>>> -- > >>>> ====== > >>>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > >>>> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > >>>> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > >>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > >>>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > >>>> subsidiaries. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
