Username or EmailPassword
The topic is definitely getting stale. Obviously, the iPhone had a big influence on Android development. And no doubt, the iPhone took inspiration from devices that had gone before it, and has itself 'borrowed' features introduced in Android. Basically, everybody is copying everybody. And that's all cool.
Now, can we stop the pointless flame wars about who copied what from who, and who did/didn't innovate? These types of conversations always degenerate to Apple copying the GUI concept from Xerox, and it just goes 'round and 'round.
Enough already. Edited 2012-04-26 22:21 UTC
The problem here is that this stupid patent war going is fuelling this absolutely stupid flamewar. Kill the patents, that's how to stop it.
Big winners from software patents:
1) patent trolls
2) patent lawyers
3) computer industry is at a net loss for software patents. More claims have been paid out of the industry than royalty revenues are bringing in.
Top group blocking patent reform in Washington - patent lawyers.
I surprised myself yesterday when I decided on the spot to bid on a refurbished Motorola Admiral on eBay. I've always felt the BlackBerry Curve/Bold form factor was the superior one for smartphones, though I've never loved the software on RIM's devices.
I've since been outbid and it's now out of my budget range, but I am really considering an early switch to that phone if I can find one third-party at an affordable price. I don't particularly care for MotoBlur based on my experience with it on the Cliq, but from what I've read it is much improved on modern devices, to the point of actually being usable.
There's just something about the marriage of a Qwerty keyboard with a touch screen on a candybar form factor that just feels right. No more having to slide out the keyboard, and the Admiral is rugged enough to withstand the typical hard life I condemn my phones to.
So yes, I'm glad Android experimented with all the different form factors back in the day! It leaves us with even more choice when we decide on that software platform.
The Apple side proponents state is that GUI and interaction patterns are genuine intellectual property that a company can own. From that point of view these are Apple major inventions and contributions to the sate of art (more important than core OS technology) and any producers that featured big buttons, kinetic scrolling, pinch to zoom and swipe after Apple have simply stolen them. The fact they didn't share any core technologies, algorithms is irrelevant. So the crux of argument is that Android deprived Apple of design IP more that any classical computer related stuff. The fact that apple has created the first successfully touch only hand-held device (asserting it's true) is thought to prove their ingenuity. Edited 2012-04-27 16:31 UTC
I think what is obvious from here is: Android design was simple enough to adapt to the new landscape better and faster, while everyone else struggled to release anything that would address finger touch orientation.
The fact that Android essentially had no legacy code base to try to move to a touch platform made it much easier. Microsoft was worried about keeping the PocketPC / CE apps going, RIM had their Blackberry users, and Nokia had their base. Adding fundamental touch support without screwing over existing apps where UI interactions were designed totally differently (interface elements too small to touch effectively) because of the working assumption of a keyboard, buttons or stylus - not as easy to respond to. Look at Microsoft's final answer: drop the old mobile OS entirely.
From Thom's original article: "In other words, unlike iOS, Android was built to be flexible, and run on many sorts of devices, with different screen sizes and form factors."
The fact that Apple optimized their specific UI for a more controlled set of sizes and touch input certainly doesn't mean the OS is somehow less flexible. If you mean the UIKit framework, sure, that assumes a touch interface - but the core of the OS has made it from NeXT workstations to current desktop machines, laptops, and phones and across quite a few CPU types to boot, and the lack of multitude of screen sizes had more to do with Apple not making 15 product variants because they didn't think it made sense.
Apple TV runs iOS. iOS handles non-touch input just fine.
iOS - UIKit specifically - doesn't have event processing at the SDK level for mouse or key events, which makes perfect sense since it's designed for a touch interface - mouse movement/clicking and key handling isn't the same as multi-touch.
I'd encourage you to take a look at how the iCade SDK has to work around the missing key events to get joystick and button events into games that support it. (Start with a hidden text field's delegate and go a bit downhill from there since that delegate doesn't know about 'key down' or 'key up' either...)
Again, that in no way makes iOS less flexible since it's a UIKit design question, and having mouse events - or in 99.9% of the time keyboard events - in UIKit would needlessly complicate event handling, but it's a stretch to claim it handles all kinds of input equally well.
If you weren't working for Android at the time, its pretty difficult to jump inside their heads.
I'm not at all surprised that they focused on more conventional designs at the time. Because, for years, the rumor was that the google phone would be free and advertisement supported. Free phones wouldn't have the most expensive parts.
This is all I can find dating to that period, but its typical of what I remember.
So, how is Cyanogenmod 9 in the end ? Would you say that it's worth an upgrade from 7.2 already, or are the stability or the feature set not yet there ?
You did write about it earlier, but you had only been using it for two days at the time. You also said you were working on a review at the time. Edited 2012-04-27 07:23 UTC
Which phone and ROM ? Galaxy SII & CM9 ?
FM Radio is working on that combination now with my app "Spirit FM".
See my XDA thread for a link to the free version, and all the info & Q&A you can handle.
If you Google "Rests me to say that" you'll find that the phrase is mostly used by Dutch people -- just saying...
Considering I'm Dutch, that might make sense .
I don't think this phrase makes sense to people who don't speak Dutch though...
I understood it just fine, and I'm a dumb American, as the sentiment goes here. It doesn't take much in the way of reading comprehension to decipher an idiom from another language, given proper context.
Apparently when we sold New York (Nieuw Amsterdam) there was a vote what the official language was going to be. English edged out Dutch despite most people over there speaking Dutch.
Imagine if Dutch had become the official language of the States. All those cool sounding names (at least to us) would have become silly sounding ones. That silliness causes me to set all my devices to English.
Firstly, this is actually a common myth. Secondly, the common myth states it was German (Deutsch), not Dutch (which is actually a misappropriated name anyway.) - though looking at Wikipedia, is seems there is a Dutch version also:
Edit: and the "Dutch" spoken in Pennsylvania is actually German, just so that we are all clear :-) Edited 2012-04-27 09:43 UTC
German would have been even worse anyway!
Despite it being a myth it did make some sense, as I assume a lot of Dutch lived in New York as it was Dutch before we got rid of it.
There is even a farm that bears my family name, although my family name isn't Dutch while I am.
It's always romantic to believe that your language or culture drove some bigger picture. We English like to cling to that - though the US cherry-picked the best parts of our language and culture (as well as any other culture they could) and then made the rest up on their own.
To us Dutch English words sound very cool. Should you translate them, for example movie titles, to Dutch it sounds very silly.
When I grew up all computers were English. Later localized versions of operating systems appeared, but this made computers less cool, so I stuck with English which I was used to.
Translating English to German makes it sounds even worse than Dutch worse for us, translate it to French almost nobody knows what is means.
Belgians do seem to like to pronounce English worse as Dutch words, which is very funny to us.
Ha, you Dutch find the way we pronounce Dutch words funny anyway, doesn't matter if they're English from origin, ps the relationship is reciprocal :-P.
It's just a PITA to change pronounciation style when using a word from another language. When speaking French I pronounce the technically English words as French words (as French do as well), when speaking Dutch I pronounce them as Dutch words. Usually it's the 'R' that's intervening with changing pronounciation, considering the Dutch 'R' from the Netherlands is more similar to the English one than the Flemish 'R' is, it's not that illogical you prefer keeping the original pronounciation while we don't ;-).
And we're darn proud of that fact, too! :-D
Y'all didn't cherry-pick the best parts of the language, Y'all just trippin'
From what I remember from my grade school us history, there wasn't a purchase of New Amsterdam as much as the English just sailed in one day and were welcomed as heros by the residents that were tired of the rule of their peg-legged mayor.
Wikipedia, seems to think there were wars fought over it.
From the Wikipedia article:
"After the signing of the Treaty of Westminster in November 1674, the city was relinquished to the English and the name reverted to "New York". Suriname became an official Dutch possession in return."
How I, and most people I know, learned it we traded New York for Surinam. From the quoted piece it turns out it was not really a straight trade, but part of a peace treaty.
It does make you wonder why 2 neighbors who have an argument fight it out on the other side of the world.
Better to export your violence rather than inflict it at home so that people who don't matter can die instead. Cf. Crusades. #westfail Edited 2012-04-28 07:12 UTC
Thom, I think the biggest thing you need to hold on to is this: Software is all about subterfuge. Software is all about playing a game of poker. I can point out numerous times in my career as a Software Engineer where sales and marketing sold a fictitious feature or exaggerated how complete as aspect of the software was. I have coded a feature in a weekend to meet a deadline created by deceitful managers trying to win contracts or business. It's just the way the industry works. Create a spec, throw in vague claims and sweeping statements that can be twisted and manipulated, just remember the ultimate goal - success.
This is too funny for words.
Now that its a proven fact what pundits have been saying all along, the subject suddenly has become 'stale'. How quaintly convenient.
The argument that 'Android is a versatile platform that is meant to adopt a range of form factors' is just a cheap scapegoat argument for not having to say "we really don't have a clue what works and what doesn't, so we'll let someone else figure that out for us, and when they do, we'll make sure we can adapt our tools to play in that space too".
Is it a coincidence that the Android prototypes looked like a Blackberries in 2007? It sure isn't. Blackberies were considered top of the hill before the iPhone came along. Nokia and Samsung also copied the blackberry format.