On Mar 3, 5:55 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that Android needs a few (I'm saying a few, not a lot of) > high-profile apps in this area that probably aren't the ones that single > developers or small companies can do. I think that Google is doing that, > see some recent job ads. But for competing to products such as > GarageBand, I think they should rather ask for the support of a > specialized software producer, for instance Steinberg, that has got > Sequel 2. This is just an example, just replicate it for other areas.
This reminds me of the chicken-and-egg problem that desktop Java always had... we were always waiting for a great real-world example of AWT / Swing / SWT / JavaFX for everyone to rally behind, and it never happened. In fact, the fact that major early efforts crashed and burned (Netscape Navigator in Java, Corel Office in Java) or the realization that it took world-class Swing engineers like Romain and Joshy months to put together Aerith was, in hindsight, severely discrediting. [Mental exercise: imagine if, in 2005, YouTube had chosen Java applets and JMF as their enabling technology, rather than Flash. People today forget just how much YouTube legitimized Flash for a lot of people, and not just for video.] The problem with trying to jump-start technologies by seeding applications is that creative works meant as propaganda are almost never satisfying. An app meant to prove how great Android is will probably turn out like those "happy singing soviets riding their tractors" propaganda movies that the USSR turned out, or worse, "Captain Planet and the Planeteers". What's going to work for Android is when third parties with no stake in a particular technology pick Android because it's the best solution to their problem. This is entirely possible. I had a client who I'd worked with on some QuickTime for Java stuff come to me with an idea to do a device that does on-the-spot translation of medical advice for non-English- speaking patients in US hospitals. We agreed the iPhone wasn't a good choice - this was in the iPhone 2.0 when the dock connector was completely off limits, and even today, getting into the "Made for iPod" / "Works with iPhone" program and using the External Accessory API is a matter of "Apple's lawyers will call your lawyers". We concluded that building his product around the iPhone would be expensive and unduly risky, if it were even permitted at all. He took a look at Android and found a hardware manufacturer able to make a custom device (rather than just bolting hardware onto a stock iPhone or iPod), and while he had a lot of trouble finding capable Android developers in 2008, the product (the Geacom Phrazer) is out now and getting a lot of attention in the medical community and the mainstream media (it even got a story on Slashdot, where it was torn down in the comments, which I'm sure is right and good because software developers know everything about everything, ever). So that's a case where, competing on the merits, Android wins, and wins because of its distinctive traits (ie, that it's not controlled by censorious Apple). I don't buy the "open always wins" hyperbole, but in this case, open was clearly essential to the product's existence. So I think Android can win some, but it won't be from Google or partisan developers evangelizing for the platform, it'll be where the intrinsic traits of Android are superior to the competition. --Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
