Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Sep 2010 23:20 UTC
Google A few days ago I dove into the lawsuit filed by Skyhook against Google, and came to the conclusion that Skyhook's case - while an entirely plausible sequence of events considering Google is a big company and hence prone to abuse - simply wasn't a very good one. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has given a rather generic-looking statement on the matter, but however generic it may be, there's a hint in there.
Thread beginning with comment 442647
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: good thing
by kovos on Sat 25th Sep 2010 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE: good thing"
kovos
Member since:
2010-07-20

"I have twice now installed an app that gave no warning about compatible OS versions, but when I try to run it, it says "This app is compatible with 2.x and above""

As an Android developer i have to tell you that this happened just because the developer is a beginner.
Android DOES have an option to specify the minimum os version (Among other things like hardware requirements). If your device doesn't match those requirements it won't show in the market.
Source: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/uses-sdk-element...

Regarding Apple i have to disagree with you because Android allows BOTH uncontrolled and controlled app stores. VCAST and the Lenovo app store are examples of Android app stores with strict application approval.
And this choice is what makes Android great in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: good thing
by Morgan on Sat 25th Sep 2010 11:31 in reply to "RE[2]: good thing"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Thank you for the well-informed input! It's nice to know that there is version-limiting support in the Market. Shame on those developers for not researching and using this feature. Having said that, I think the video player developer did the right thing in allowing the app to download to 1.x devices so the user could at least make use of the codecs included. That was pretty cool of them.

In the 18 hours I've owned this phone -- six of which I've been asleep -- I've already found it to be the right combination of hardware and OS for me for the foreseeable future. I was holding out for the Nokia N900 but I just can't justify spending that much on hardware alone. It's the same conundrum I face as a low-income Apple fan; I love OS X but I can't afford a real Mac so I make do with commodity hardware. In the mobile space, I take advantage of on-contract discounts to get a phone I'm able to enjoy using, yet still afford those little luxuries like food and shelter. (For those without a sense of humor, that last bit was sarcastic.)

For all I know, Maemo could be a thousand times better than Android for someone like me, but I won't know because Android so far is an excellent fit for me. By the time I can afford the N900, the N910 (or whatever they decide to call it) will be out with MeeGo. I may dip into those waters in the future but I'm satisfied with what I have right now.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: good thing
by kovos on Sat 25th Sep 2010 12:35 in reply to "RE[3]: good thing"
kovos Member since:
2010-07-20

From what i know the N900 won't get an official Meego update. Guess the best choice would be to wait for the first Meego device.
Anyways i find Nokias strategy a bit confusing after the announcement to support WP7.
Since Symbian owns the low-end this means direct competition for Meego which is high-end only just like WP7.
Any thoughts how this is a good idea? As a developer you really don't know which to support which means supporting iOS and Android only and waiting how the others work out.

Reply Parent Score: 0