On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:05:04 -0700 "Skarpness, Mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:13:43 -0700 > > "Skarpness, Mark" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Otherwise we will miss > >> the primary objective of compliance: every compliant app will run > >> on every compliant device. > >>> > > > > This is not going to be realized, if MeeGo is widely used. There > > will be very different specialized devices and very general ones. > > > > Why should, for example, a MeeGo sailboat navigation+weather > > management device support the same set of apps as a MeeGo > > Jazz+Mozart club entertainment center, and the IVI used to shut up > > the kids in the back of the Van? > Cross-category compliance is an interesting question. Our goal is to > make it possible to do this - but of course different screen sizes, > input devices, etc. will lead to differences in app UI design. > > Right, but it's not only the app UI design. It is the funcitonality of the app that makes sense for some categories and not for others. Requiring that one device supports a bunch of non-suitable apps just because they are built on compliant libraries doesn't make sense. > > And why should the device manufacturer have control over what runs > > on a device 3 years after the customer has paid for it in full? > Not sure how this relates to compliance? This came up in the discussion today, I don't recall if it was in the TDG meeting or on this list. The statement was that device manufacturers require this kind of control, and that this was one of the reasons very strict compliance determination is necessary. Bernd -- Bernd Stramm [email protected] _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
