nospam

In article <jet5uf$268$1@dont-email.me>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> > > > android is not developer friendly.
> > >
> > > Depends on your POV, I guess. It uses Java, which means a lot of
> > > developers are already experienced in the core tools, apps can be
> > > built on virtually any platform, unlike iOS, which requires a Mac*,
> > > and there are no restrictions on how apps can be distributed (no
> > > requirement to use an official exclusive OS-maker sanctioned
> > > storefront and split revenues.
> >
> > the problem is not java or app distribution, it's that there are
> > zillions of android devices and android versions to support, including
> > 'pure android' and carrier tweaks such as htc sense ui...
>
> How is that different from what PC devs out up with every day? You just
> target a minimum OS level and set of hardware to support, and sacrifice
> the niceties higher-end devices offer. For the vast majority of apps,
> other than perhaps games, it isn't a problem.

for some apps it doesn't matter, but for some it definitely does. i
remember reading about an android developer and an opengl app where it
worked slightly differently on different android devices because of
hardware differences. the api calls were the same, but the results not
so much.

if your app is not graphics intensive and doesn't use opengl, then that
particular issue won't matter, but for some developers, it definitely
will.

> iOS is now in the same boat,
> but not as extreme. There are devices with two different screen
> resolutions, and multiple maximum iOS revisions. If your app is simple,
> you target everything, if it's complex, you sacrifice 1st- and maybe 2nd-
> gen hardware, in favor of additional APIs higher OS revisions offer.

there are only two display resolutions, ipad and iphone. retina display
is just double the standard iphone resolution, so although it's
technically a third size, it's easy to support.

> > and if that's
> > not enough, the android development environment is eclipse, which makes
> > apple's xcode look good.
>
> I only know one Android dev, and he says it isn't bad. Not the best, but
> not bad. It doesn't seem to be too big a problem, considering the number
> of Android apps out there. (Ditto for iOS.)

eclipse is 'not bad', but it's not that good either. as i said, eclipse
makes xcode look good (i hate xcode, if that's not obvious).

> > > (*I realize that buying a Mac isn't a significant barrier to entry
> > > for pros, but for an amateur starting out, sold on the "gold rush"
> > > idea that writing mobile apps is a sure-fire path to riches and fame,
> > > Android has a cheaper entry path, and less of a learning curve for
> > > many, although not applicable to Mac owners or OS X devs.)
> >
> > buying a mac is not an obstacle for anyone who is serious about
> > developing ios apps and cocoa touch is a *lot* more mature than
> > android. its roots go back over 20 years, whereas android is just a few
> > years old.
>
> You're still hamstrung by limitations of the SDK, (and in iOS' case, the
> whims of the app approval process,) regardless of how evolved the tools
> are. The freedom Android offers has value to some developers. Entire
> classes of apps are impossible to produce for iOS, like system-wide
> replacement input panels (keyboards, voice input, etc.), apps that can
> modify the media library, etc.

the issue is developer friendly, not what apps are possible. someone
new to either platform can produce a working app in less time on ios
because it's a more mature platform.

Todd Allcock

At 15 Jan 2012 13:31:01 -0500 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>
> > We all have our own notions as to what defines a smartphone, I suspect,

> > but mine has always been (even before the iPhone's debut) a phone that
> > makes carrying a computer unnecessary, or darn near it. Today's
iPhone
> > fits that definition, but the original iPhone running OS 1.x didn't
come
> > close.
>
> I'd argue that the closest thing to making that true is not
> a phone at all, but an iPad. And even then it's limited.
> I carry an iPad almost all the time and it's great for some
> reading, web browsing, etc. But entirely unusable if I want
> to do any "real work" (ie. write reports, work on spreadsheets).
> It's a great complement to my notebook, but again, like all
> of this, it's a matter of personal interpretation.

Fair enough. Personally, I've never been put off by the small screen, and
I used PDAs (tethered to cellphones) as laptop replacements long before
the smartphone existed. For me, the awkwardness of entering data into a
smartphone is preferable to lugging around a netbook or an even an iPad-
sized device.


> If
> "smartphone" means "no need for computer" then there isn't
> such a thing yet in my opinion -- which is why I think that's
> a useless definition. I'd argue that if anything, smartphone
> means you can do at least limited e-mail, web browsing, manage
> contacts and calendar, sync with desktops.

I think the interesting point that makes is that most people don't
actually need computers for all that much. I still remember my high
school computer teacher calling computers "solutions looking for a
problem" back in the early 80s. Web browsing, email and Facebook are
probably enough for such a large percentage of users that the iPad's (and
smartphones') limitations hardly seem very limiting.


> Which means that
> there were certainly many smartphones before the iPhone - I
> owned several. But there's a subjective line somewhere about
> how much pain one can tolerate in trying to actually do some
> of this stuff on the device and the iPhone was the first one
> which made most of that painless enough for the masses. I
> was willing to put up with some of the really annoying quirks
> pre-iPhone, but not that many folks really would outside of
> either hobbyists or folks who had to for work.


True, but that also begs the question if the early success of the iPhone
was because of the limited feature set and its concentration on doing a
few things very well. If web browsing was a user's main objective, iOS
was the obvious choice. I still prefer using the "mobile web" on
mobiles, even the iPhone.

> In fact, that last - the "had to for work" is what really
> made the blackberry into the "crackberry" - it was the first
> one which really was usable for sync with e-mail and
> contacts and calendars, though at the early point where
> that broke out and changed the world (and I'd argue
> that it really did), most of the users had companies
> with IT depts making the "magic" work for them. That's
> where it took off outside of the geeky subset of users.


True. As a long time Windows Mobile user I used to often joke WinMo was
an OS I only recommended to my closest friends and worst enemies. It was
as complicated and buggy as it was powerful, but pre-iPhone, it had the
widest selection of software, and the best integration with both MS and
third-party software and services. WinMo handled inventory control, CRM,
mobile commerce, and more for my retail business, and was a jack-of-all-
trades entertainment device for personal use, despite MS' intentional or
unintentional attempts to sabotage the platform. (One of my favorite and
often used features- direct sync to a PC over the internet without a
cloud intermediary- was removed in 2005 for "security reasons" leaving MS
Exchange as the only remaining native method for wireless sync.)
Although iOS finally had enough apps to replicate most of the business
uses I used my WinMo devices for, the limitations (mostly around sync and
importing data into our desktop systems) made it too painful to switch
ecosystems and desktop software just for a prettier UI.

Michelle Steiner

In article <jf0dja$ndl$1@dont-email.me>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> For me, the awkwardness of entering data into a smartphone is preferable
> to lugging around a netbook or an even an iPad- sized device.

That's what I thought too until I started using an iPad. Of course,
lugging around the iPad merely means a slightly heavier purse in my case.

--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Howard Brazee

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:31:01 -0500, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

>But there's a subjective line somewhere about
>how much pain one can tolerate in trying to actually do some
>of this stuff on the device and the iPhone was the first one
>which made most of that painless enough for the masses. I
>was willing to put up with some of the really annoying quirks
>pre-iPhone, but not that many folks really would outside of
>either hobbyists or folks who had to for work.


There are a lot of things I'm willing to do on an iPad, but not on an
iPhone. I have to carefully look at the letters as I type on an
iPhone, and I still miss often. I wanted to use a Starbucks' Wi-Fi,
and it took me a while to see that there was a button I needed to
press to OK the connection. I just couldn't see it on my iPhone - it
was easily available on my iPad.

The big thing the iPhone has is it's a phone. It also has a better
camera (infinitely better than my iPad 1 ). Because it's a phone, I
have it with me in places where I can't normally use it (movie
theatres, bridge club, golf, etc), which might be useful in an
emergency. The iPad is out in the car though. I can wait to browse
until the golf round is done.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Todd Allcock

At 16 Jan 2012 11:03:45 -0700 Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <jf0dja$ndl$1@dont-email.me>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > For me, the awkwardness of entering data into a smartphone is
preferable
> > to lugging around a netbook or an even an iPad- sized device.
>
> That's what I thought too until I started using an iPad. Of course,
> lugging around the iPad merely means a slightly heavier purse in my case.

>

I just can't manage to pull off carrying a purse for some reason, at
least aesthetically.

Kidding aside, I bought a cheap 7" Android tablet to see if I'd carry a
tablet, and after a few months of non-use I got rid of it. There was
little I could accomplish on it that I couldn't already manage on a 4"
phone.