Does google ever intend to treat the developers (who, arguably, will make or break the platform) as first class citizens?
You can't expect anyone here to believe that right now, Vodofone is working with the same 1.1 sdk everyone else is (and will therefor hit the same problems as everyone else when -their device- ships..) Its great the google looked around and decided they could get the carriers to give them a bunch of money. Clearly it worked, and the platform got built. But if this is anything more than a quick, short-term gain, it is time to be nice to the community (app and platform both) that can make this thing fly. Apple understands that, Palm understands that, even symbian+nokia gets it. (And before you pull that one again, comparisons with apple are perfectly appropriate, at least until such time as google stops writing most/all of the code that goes on these things. You don't get to handwave that "oh htc made the magic but apple made their own".. when tmobile or vodo or htc releases a phone -without- your help, then you can try that excuse out again..) Sure, its arguable that it takes a lot longer to design (or modify) a core OS load than to port an app to a new device. But that time has passed already, and realistically even the porting time is gone. (The new iPhone sdk has been available for about 2 weeks now, and the first unit to use it is rumoured for "summer" - at least 2 months away, even in California..) So even if you want to ignore the "android is community" marketing spiel, you're STILL behind in releasing a beta, alpha, whatever. And you're - by their own statements - losing apps because of it. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]>wrote: > > I mean, it's not advisable, as it'd create fragmentation, and > therefore confusion and compatibility issues, but it's not forbidden. > > JBQ > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
