Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Apr 2012 22:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless As I already said yesterday - a bit colourful to get me point across - this older article of mine has proven not to be as accurate as I thought it was, in light of a heap of new information. I want to offer some more background to all this.
Permalink for comment 515859
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Android's pivot
by mrstep on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:32 UTC in reply to "Android's pivot"
mrstep
Member since:
2009-07-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 4