Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Dec 2011 20:11 UTC
Google Once upon a time, in a land, far, far away, there were two mobile operating systems. One of them was designed for mobile from the ground up; the other was trying really hard to copy its older, desktop brother. One was limited in functionality, inflexible and lacked multitasking, but was very efficient, fast, and easy to use. The other had everything and the kitchen sink, was very flexible and could multitask, but had a steep learning curve, was inconsistent, and not particularly pretty.
Thread beginning with comment 500558
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Overscroll
by kllrnohj on Mon 19th Dec 2011 20:44 UTC
kllrnohj
Member since:
2011-12-19

"As a final example: some applications use proper bounce-back when scrolling, while others just come to a dead stop. I have no idea why some applications decide this is a good idea; heck, even several Google applications do not implement bounce-back! There's no excuse for not implementing bounce-back scrolling in your Android application when Android itself clearly supports it. The fact that Android even gives you the option is bad enough as it is."

This is actually not true. Bounce-back scrolling is not in Android, which instead uses an edge glow. That is something Samsung bolted on, which is why it doesn't work everywhere. The inconsistency you are seeing is the result of TouchWiz.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Overscroll
by MechR on Tue 20th Dec 2011 14:24 in reply to "Overscroll"
MechR Member since:
2006-01-11

Bounce-back scrolling is not in Android, which instead uses an edge glow. That is something Samsung bolted on, which is why it doesn't work everywhere.

Ohhh! And here I thought edge-glow was a Gingerbread thing, since my phone's 2.3 update ditched all the bouncebacks. I happen to prefer the edge-glow since it's less eye-boggling.

The other reason Samsung ditched bounceback is because Apple successfully sued them over it:

The court did agree that Apple's list-scrolling "bounce-back" patent (US Patent 7,469,381) was valid and that past Samsung devices likely infringed. Samsung devices with newer firmware have a workaround, but since Apple had previously licensed the patent to Nokia and IBM, and even offered a license to Samsung during negotiations in 2010, Judge Koh ruled that a monetary award should suffice as relief.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/12/us-court-denies-prelimina...

Edited 2011-12-20 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2