Yes, I have two apps that are waiting on Cupcake's features. I am sorry, I thought that would be obvious.
On Mar 25, 10:09 am, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> wrote: > Nobody is asking you to write for cupcake. > > If your app doesn't need features from cupcake, write it for 1.0 (or > 1.1 in the very unlikely even that you need an API from 1.1). > > If your app needs features from cupcake, it's not ready to turn into a > release. > > JBQ > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Sundog <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree... not much interested in the details and excuses; you want me > > to write for Cupcake, gimme an SDK. Until then, I'm spending my > > resources SOMEWHERE where there's not this constant Amateur Hour feel > > to everything. > > > On Mar 24, 12:37 pm, "Al Sutton" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The a/b choice isn't HTCs, it's Googles. > > >> I'm not after an SDK for a specific piece of hardware such as the Magic or > >> Dream. What I'm after is an SDK for what's labelled in the Google > >> controlled > >> repository as CupCake. > > >> If Google think code is good enough to pass on to an OEM then it should > >> include an SDK which is good enough for developers to test their code > >> against and highlight potential compatibility issues, and at the moment > >> that > >> doesn't seem to be the case which is why we could be looking at users > >> holding an HTC-Magic running cupcake before developers can even compile > >> their code in a cupcake SDK. > > >> Al. > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Murphy > >> Sent: 24 March 2009 17:35 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [android-discuss] Freedom cuts both ways (Re: [android-developers] > >> Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK?) > > >> Moving this branch of the thread to [android-discuss]... > > >> Al Sutton wrote: > >> > This is a no-brainer and in order to not appear like a piece of > >> > half-thought out technology the answer has to be a. > > >> And since the choice between a) and b) is HTC's, why are you ranting here? > > >> If HTC (or any manufacturer) wishes to release an updated device out to > >> market before the ecosystem has had an opportunity to adjust their apps to > >> match the firmware, that is HTC's decision to make. This is particularly > >> true since even with an SDK, there is no clear timetable in which apps will > >> have been updated to make use of it. > > >> The reason this isn't a problem for Apple and RIM (and Palm, who you didn't > >> mention) is because they make their own devices. The reason this isn't a > >> problem for Microsoft is the fact that AFAIK they haven't done OTA updates, > >> so the problem is more manageable. And this could easily become a problem > >> for Symbian when they go open source. > > >> If you want people to have the freedom to use the Android bits as they see > >> fit, you have to give people the freedom to screw up. If HTC or other > >> manufacturers put a too-tight deadline between firmware release and its > >> distribution (on devices or OTA), to the detriment of app developers, > >> that's > >> their mistake to make. > > >> -- > >> Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > >> Warescription: Three Android Books, Plus Updates, $35/Year- Hide quoted > >> text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru > Android Engineer, Google. > > Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private > will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further > warning.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
