**From m-w.com/dictionary/swap*:* to make an exchange I can -exchange- my home app (or browser) for an alternate application. I can make that exchange permanent (or at least, automatic) by checking "always use this application".
Sorry, but that one isn't gonna fly.. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Every english dictionary I've seen defines "Swap" as "replacing", not > "put alongside the original and bug people with a 'which one'? dialogue". > > Al. > > Disconnect wrote: > > "Swap out" doesn't mean "uninstall carrier-provided services". > > > > Lets look at their examples, under rc30 g1: > > - homescreen. Yep. thats a standard app, with a standard interface. > > Feel free to write a different one and install it, when the user hits > > 'home' they will see the "which app to use?" prompt. > > - dialer. OK so this one is a little magic (emergency calls) but can > > still be done. Same as above. > > - "any applications" .. ok, lets see. How about sms. I installed > > k9sms and when I went to send a text message, it asks whether to use > > "Messaging" or "K9SMS". Looks swapped out to me. > > browser? I installed steel, and when I type a search into the google > > widget I get asked about 'browser', 'steel' and a couple of search > > apps. Neat. Looks -very- swapped out. > > > > I haven't replaced any others (at least that come to mind off the top > > of my head), but I can't imagine they are any different. It does sound > > like you are using a phone outside it's supported network and then > > bitching that its not behaving as expected. Funny, that. > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:34 AM, gjs <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > ...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] > > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <http://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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]> > > > >>>> > <mailto:[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]> > > > >>>> > <mailto:[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]>> > > > >>>> > > > > <mailto:[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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ====== > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
