As long as "developers" follow the license terms for the various aspects, nothing stops anyone from doing so.
JBQ On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > If the plan is to let the vendors just take a random piece of code and call > it "1.5" and release it (say, maybe next month?) what is to stop developers > from doing the same thing with the SDK? > > (Other than the fact that the vendors - unlike the community/developers - > have actual info about upcoming releases, deadlines and so forth..) > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Understood. >> >> Like I said, cupcake is not ready yet (and in fact I'm pretty sure >> that there are still changes to be made specifically in the area of >> the virtual keyboard). >> >> JBQ >> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > JBQ, >> > >> > We've already had someone highlight potential issues with Uis and the >> > Cupcake virtual keyboard. >> > >> > It's not necessarily writing apps *for* Cupcake that's the problem, it's >> > changes in cupcake which raise user interface issues in UIs which work >> > well >> > under 1.0 & 1.1. >> > >> > Al. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] >> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jean-Baptiste >> > Queru >> > Sent: 25 March 2009 16:10 >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Freedom cuts both ways (Re: >> > [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK?) >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > > > -- 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. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
