Steve Jobs posts his thoughts on Flash

[Pliablemoose]

Fragmentation is a non issue. Android is not a phone, it's an operating system. Anyone who mentions fragmentation as a problem does not fully grasp this very significant difference.

There have never been issues with Windows fragmentation just like there have never been issues with Android fragmentation. Windows XP, Vista, and 7 run all kinds of the same applications just like Android 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, and 2.1 do.

The fact is, old devices running old software will not always get to run the latest and greatest. Just like how people with old and slow Windows 98 PCs won't be able to run the latest and most demanding applications and games, this applies to smartphones as well. The difference between the latest smartphones and the first ones is absolutely gigantic.

That said, every Android device ever made so far including the G1 will eventually get at least up to Android 2.1.

I'm not following your logic, no one has said Android is a phone. The difference between a phone and an OS is pretty obvious.

The problem comes with all of the devices being available now. TMobile is still selling brand new G1's, so you have the G1, rocking 1.6 alongside the N1 with Android 2.1.

The average consumer can buy a G1 (or numerous other new phones with 1.6, 2.0, etc) and get seriously pissed that the new Twitter app won't run on their brand new phone.

Saying fragmentation isn't an issue and comparing Android 2.1 to Windows versions isn't reflective of what's going on in the consumer market right now...

Quoted from Google:

This page provides data about the relative number of active devices running a given version of the Android platform. This can help you understand the landscape of device distribution and decide how to prioritize the development of your application features for the devices currently in the hands of users

http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

Are you going to argue with Google about their own OS and advice it gives to developers?

 

[dguy6789]

Ever heard of system requirements? There is no such thing as one size fits all in the computer world. You can only be top of the line for so long. Smartphones are evolving at an extremely rapid pace. They are going to end up being a larger market than desktop and laptop computers combined. Current smartphones are full featured portable computers that can make phone calls, they aren't simple phones. With that status comes all of the pros and cons of being a complex device.

If your computer doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run an application either because of operating system version or hardware, do you go and complain to Microsoft about how there are too many different kinds of computers? That's exactly what people complaining about Android fragmentation are doing(Funny that I've never heard an actual Android user complain about it). Microsoft even charges for new versions of their OS, new versions of Android are free.

Where in any of my posts did I say anything that resembles contradicting something Google has said? What you quoted from the Android site in no way at all supports the argument that fragmentation is a problem. All that link says is that different versions of the OS exist in the wild, which has never been contested . Obviously, someone who wants to design software for Android would not want to leave out a large market segment. Just like no one in their right mind today would develop Windows software that wouldn't work on XP.

 

[Qbah]

Really?

Which smartphones are you thinking of? The N1, the Droid, Blackberries?

They're Flash capable?

Really?

Looks like I was off here. Apologies. Right now Nokia smartphones support Flash Lite. And WM6 phones. The Android platform is getting Flash 10 sooner rather than later. As is RIM. And Symbian. So it will be there.

And listen, I don't care about Flash, really. If it would run like shit on my phone (or slow it down) I would want an option to block it or turn it off in general. I was just writing about principle here (though I was off on the support). I really like browsing stuff on my iPhone. Everything's fast and smooth - it can't be said about a lot of other smartphones. I'm just tired of the recent crap Apple seems to spew (that and iTunes is a giant frustration on Windows). So a few things can hit a sensitive spot in me.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Ever heard of system requirements? There is no such thing as one size fits all in the computer world. You can only be top of the line for so long. Smartphones are evolving at an extremely rapid pace. They are going to end up being a larger market than desktop and laptop computers combined. Current smartphones are full featured portable computers that can make phone calls, they aren't simple phones. With that status comes all of the pros and cons of being a complex device.

If your computer doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run an application either because of operating system version or hardware, do you go and complain to Microsoft about how there are too many different kinds of computers? That's exactly what people complaining about Android fragmentation are doing(Funny that I've never heard an actual Android user complain about it). Microsoft even charges for new versions of their OS, new versions of Android are free.

Where in any of my posts did I say anywhere that I am or wanted to argue with Google? What you quoted from the Android site in no way at all supports the argument that fragmentation is a problem. (1) All that link says is that different versions of the OS exist in the wild, which has never been contested . Obviously, someone who wants to design software for Android would not want to leave out a large market segment (2). Just like no one in their right mind today would develop Windows software that wouldn't work on XP.

1.) Actually, it does, read it again, and use some critical thinking.

2.) You need to discuss your opinion with Twitter, because they did just that. http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/only-27-3-of-android-phones-can-use-the-official-twitter-client/

3.) Show me on Dell's/Lenovo's/Toshiba/ASUS's website where they sell new consumer oriented PC's with Windows 98 or Windows 286, I can find dozens of new devices running Android 1.6.

 

[dguy6789]

1.) Actually, it does, read it again, and use some critical thinking.

2.) You need to discuss your opinion with Twitter, because they did just that.

3.) Show me on Dell's/Lenovo's/Toshiba/ASUS's website where they sell new consumer oriented PC's with Windows 98 or Windows 286, I can find dozens of new devices running Android 1.6.

I don't see the problem. Nobody is going around saying Windows is in trouble because lots of people still haven't moved on to Windows 7 yet. There's no reason to believe there is a problem.

Maybe you are forgetting, but every single Android device ever made is either able to run that Twitter app or will be able to in the future(which is probably why they went ahead and designed it to utilize 2.1). 2.1 is completely guaranteed to come out on every single Android device. The future of older devices after that is unclear however.

There are lots of netbooks sold today with processors comparable to Pentium 3s. There are also lots of new desktops and laptops sold today that lack the graphics power to run games from 2006.

 

[TheWart]

Ever heard of system requirements? There is no such thing as one size fits all in the computer world. You can only be top of the line for so long. Smartphones are evolving at an extremely rapid pace. They are going to end up being a larger market than desktop and laptop computers combined. Current smartphones are full featured portable computers that can make phone calls, they aren't simple phones. With that status comes all of the pros and cons of being a complex device.

If your computer doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run an application either because of operating system version or hardware, do you go and complain to Microsoft about how there are too many different kinds of computers? That's exactly what people complaining about Android fragmentation are doing(Funny that I've never heard an actual Android user complain about it). Microsoft even charges for new versions of their OS, new versions of Android are free.

Where in any of my posts did I say anything that resembles contradicting something Google has said? What you quoted from the Android site in no way at all supports the argument that fragmentation is a problem. All that link says is that different versions of the OS exist in the wild, which has never been contested . Obviously, someone who wants to design software for Android would not want to leave out a large market segment. Just like no one in their right mind today would develop Windows software that wouldn't work on XP.

Really? You think Windows with its multi-year release cycles is the same as Android where we have phones running 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, etc etc within 18 months?

Fragmentation is an issue that is only going to get bigger as more and more people buy Android phones. Sure, tech-savvy people can root and upgrade themselves with custom roms, but users should not have to do that. Unfortunately, Google's hands are a little tied cause they can't force the carriers to push out upgrades. Then there is the issue of security patches/upgrades...

 

[dguy6789]

Technology is no stranger to very rapid obsolescence. Be it software or hardware or both(both apply in the smartphone world), nothing is really future proof. Are you suggesting they slow down or even stop innovation in an attempt to get every device to be as similar as possible? Google isn't Apple.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Technology is no stranger to very rapid obsolescence. Be it software or hardware or both(both apply in the smartphone world), nothing is really future proof. Are you suggesting they slow down or even stop innovation in an attempt to get every device to be as similar as possible? Google isn't Apple.

Actually, they sort of are...

And what happened to your "fragmentation isn't an issue" argument?

Now it's "well technology changes?"

The fragmentation is confusing to the consumer and holds back the OS from better adoption and a smoother consumer experience.

I'm not saying Android is crap or anything like that, I am pointing out that the fragmentation is an issue.

Telling a soccer mom (and Google's goal is to get Android OS'd phones in the hands of soccer moms, because consumer data collected on consumers that spend money rather than basement dwelling phone geeks is a hell of a lot more lucrative) her new phone won't/can't/might at some point in the future get the new Twitter app isn't a good way to do business.

 

[TheStu]

Technology is no stranger to very rapid obsolescence. Be it software or hardware or both(both apply in the smartphone world), nothing is really future proof. Are you suggesting they slow down or even stop innovation in an attempt to get every device to be as similar as possible? Google isn't Apple.

I am not saying that at all, and it isn't like Apple is slowing down or anything, they have tried to get as many features from each release onto as many models as they can, but the 1st gen iPhone has already been left behind in terms of all the features that the 3GS got with 3.0.

My point was that 2.1 came out, and then, quite some time later, the Droid got access to it. Don't slow down, but also users have to have an easy way to update their devices when the updates come out. It is no good if Google is releasing version 3.8 of Android in 6 months if;
A: half the devices cannot run it because fragmentation is a huge problem with Android
B: Those that can run it, can't have it because the carrier is holding it back.

So no, don't slow down the dev cycle, but instead of this mad rush to get Android onto as many handsets on as many carriers as possible, I think they should have put down a set of requirements, like WP7, to ensure that the experience was consistent.

 

[dguy6789]

Actually, they sort of are...

And what happened to your "fragmentation isn't an issue" argument?

Now it's "well technology changes?"

The fragmentation is confusing to the consumer and holds back the OS from better adoption and a smoother consumer experience.

I'm not saying Android is crap or anything like that, I am pointing out that the fragmentation is an issue.

Telling a soccer mom (and Google's goal is to get Android OS'd phones in the hands of soccer moms, because consumer data collected on consumers that spend money rather than basement dwelling phone geeks is a hell of a lot more lucrative) her new phone won't/can't/might at some point in the future get the new Twitter app isn't a good way to do business.

My argument never changed. I'm saying fragmentation isn't an issue now because it has existed on other platforms for a very, very long time and it has never been a problem. I'm not fragmentation does not exist.

It's little more than a buzzword Android critics have come up with for bashing the platform.

I don't believe there are very many people who would buy a computer or smartphone and believe it will run anything and everything and be top of the line forever.

 

[Pliablemoose]

My argument never changed. I'm saying fragmentation isn't an issue now because it has existed on other platforms for a very, very long time and it has never been a problem. I'm not fragmentation does not exist.

It's little more than a buzzword Android critics have come up with for bashing the platform.

I don't believe there are very many people who would buy a computer or smartphone and believe it will run anything and everything and be top of the line forever.

You're still arguing apples and oranges, brand new devices are being sold that are incompatible with apps in the app store.

Saying it's unreasonable to expect your phone to be future proof is one thing, but saying a new phone that doesn't run apps today is another.

And it's going to get a lot worse, wait till the tablet/MID versions of Android with custom skins/UI's crop up...

Manufacturers are modding Android to try to appeal to consumers and making the OS more problematic to upgrade, and leaving consumers dependent on the manufacturers to release the custom updates.

No technology is future proof, but today proof would be nice...

 

[dguy6789]

Android Market is more like a virtual retail store than the Apple App store. The Android Market is a place to find software that runs on the Android operating system. The Apple App store is a place to find software that runs on iphones, ipods, or ipads. Having an Android phone doesn't mean you can run all Android software any more than having a Windows computer means you can run all Windows software. No one buying a low end phone should expect to run the most recent software any more than someone buying the cheapest Netbook they can find should.

 

[dwell]

It's little more than a buzzword Android critics have come up with for bashing the platform.

Yeah right.

Only 27.3% Of Android Phones Can Use The Official Twitter Client

It's a mess right now and not looking to improve, like ever, with companies like AT&T doing custom ROMs, and all.

 

[dguy6789]

Yeah right.

Only 27.3% Of Android Phones Can Use The Official Twitter Client

It's a mess right now and not looking to improve, like ever, with companies like AT&T doing custom ROMs, and all.

Either you didn't read the thread at all or you have difficulty with reading comprehension. You didn't bring up anything that wasn't already addressed.

 

[TheStu]

Android Market is more like a virtual retail store than the Apple App store. The Android Market is a place to find software that runs on the Android operating system. The Apple App store is a place to find software that runs on iphones, ipods, or ipads. Having an Android phone doesn't mean you can run all Android software any more than having a Windows computer means you can run all Windows software. No one buying a low end phone should expect to run the most recent software any more than someone buying the cheapest Netbook they can find should.

That is a copout, pure and simple. If they bought the low-end device, they almost certainly didn't realize its' low-end-ness compared to the N1, Incredible and Droid. If they had known they would have purchased something else. Just like how quite a few consumers were duped into buying netbooks because if their low prices. Your analogy is accurate, but it does change the fact that it shouldn't exist. Netbooks were not getting sold with Linux, so they had to put something familiar on there like XP. But it isn't like Motorola tried selling a low end phone plain, found that it wasn't selling, and then they slapped Android on it.

Google SHOULD have implemented a minimum requirements list. They should insist on a certain level of performance. And I don't think that a phone I buy today should be supported ad infinitum, just like I don't think that a Packard Bell should be able to run 7. But, comparing to the iPhone, there are some apps that run better on the iPhone 3GS due to its faster CPU and additional RAM, but to the best of my knowledge, all apps will run on all iPhones. They may officially cut off support of the 1st gen in the next year or so, but they will be official about it. They will say, 'Developers, with this OS Version, the 1st gen is no longer supported, so, crazy go nuts.' 'Users, your device is no longer supported, so sad too bad.' They will be more clear about it than google/carriers are being now.

I mean, look at Verizon's lineup, they have the Devour, which is running 1.6 and I do not know when if even Verizon will offer the update to 2.1 since I don't think the MotoBlur software works on 2.1. The Droid which runs 2.0 and finally has an OtA update for 2.1 and the Incredible which ships with 2.1.

 

[dwell]

Either you didn't read the thread at all or you have difficulty with reading comprehension. You didn't bring up anything that wasn't already addressed.

Yeah, you defended the Android business model, which requires referencing a compatibly matrix before buying an app. A totally flawed approach. Less than two years old and fragmented.

 

[dguy6789]

That is a copout, pure and simple. If they bought the low-end device, they almost certainly didn't realize its' low-end-ness compared to the N1, Incredible and Droid. If they had known they would have purchased something else. Just like how quite a few consumers were duped into buying netbooks because if their low prices. Your analogy is accurate, but it does change the fact that it shouldn't exist. Netbooks were not getting sold with Linux, so they had to put something familiar on there like XP. But it isn't like Motorola tried selling a low end phone plain, found that it wasn't selling, and then they slapped Android on it.

Google SHOULD have implemented a minimum requirements list. They should insist on a certain level of performance. And I don't think that a phone I buy today should be supported ad infinitum, just like I don't think that a Packard Bell should be able to run 7. But, comparing to the iPhone, there are some apps that run better on the iPhone 3GS due to its faster CPU and additional RAM, but to the best of my knowledge, all apps will run on all iPhones. They may officially cut off support of the 1st gen in the next year or so, but they will be official about it. They will say, 'Developers, with this OS Version, the 1st gen is no longer supported, so, crazy go nuts.' 'Users, your device is no longer supported, so sad too bad.' They will be more clear about it than google/carriers are being now.

I mean, look at Verizon's lineup, they have the Devour, which is running 1.6 and I do not know when if even Verizon will offer the update to 2.1 since I don't think the MotoBlur software works on 2.1. The Droid which runs 2.0 and finally has an OtA update for 2.1 and the Incredible which ships with 2.1.

First of all, the difference in performance and hardware between the lowest and highest end Android phones is in the hundreds of percent range, much larger than the difference between the iPhone 1 and the 3GS. Android devices don't have to be even remotely similar to one another, while all iPhones are extremely similar. I don't understand how anyone seriously expects the low end ones to run stuff designed for the latest devices. I suppose you guys expect Crysis to run on your 2005 computers in all of its glory?

Do you really think everyone would buy high end technology if they realized it was better? Hate to use a car analogy but you're basically saying people would have not bought their Toyota if they realized at the time how much faster a Ferrari was. People buy what they want/need/can afford. There are many reasons for buying a low or mid range device instead of a state of the art one.

Yeah, you defended the Android business model, which requires referencing a compatibly matrix before buying an app. A totally flawed approach. Less than two years old and fragmented.

So the concept of specs and system requirements is a totally flawed approach?. You must be new to computers. It works like this: As time goes on, better and better technology gets developed. New devices with better processors, more RAM, and more storage get developed. New software also gets developed to take better advantage of this new hardware. New software is usually more demanding on hardware than older software. As a result of this, new software can sometimes run poorly or even not at all on older hardware. This is why software usually has some sort of compatibility matrix as you put it; so that you know if your device is up to the task.

Your "totally flawed approach" is one that has worked for Windows for over a decade and continues to do so without issue. It's also working out quite well for Android at the moment. If you buy an Android app and it doesn't work or run as well as you like, you just return it for a full refund. It's not rocket science. You don't have that luxury in the PC market.

 

[TheStu]

First of all, the difference in performance and hardware between the lowest and highest end Android phones is in the hundreds of percent range, much larger than the difference between the iPhone 1 and the 3GS. Android devices don't have to be even remotely similar to one another, while all iPhones are extremely similar. I don't understand how anyone seriously expects the low end ones to run stuff designed for the latest devices. I suppose you guys expect Crysis to run on your 2005 computers in all of its glory?

Do you really think everyone would buy high end technology if they realized it was better? Hate to use a car analogy but you're basically saying people would have not bought their Toyota if they realized at the time how much faster a Ferrari was. People buy what they want/need/can afford. There are many reasons for buying a low or mid range device instead of a state of the art one.



So the concept of specs and system requirements is a totally flawed approach?. You must be new to computers. It works like this: As time goes on, better and better technology gets developed. New devices with better processors, more RAM, and more storage get developed. New software also gets developed to take better advantage of this new hardware. New software is usually more demanding on hardware than older software. As a result of this, new software can sometimes run poorly or even not at all on older hardware. This is why software usually has some sort of compatibility matrix as you put it; so that you know if your device is up to the task.

Your "totally flawed approach" is one that has worked for Windows for over a decade and continues to do so without issue. It's also working out quite well for Android at the moment. If you buy an Android app and it doesn't work or run as well as you like, you just return it for a full refund. It's not rocket science. You don't have that luxury in the PC market.

The problem is that no one knows what those system requirements are, nor do they often know what the system specs are of the phone in question. What exactly is the point of having system requirements if it isn't going to make it easier on the consumer? And yes, people buy what they can afford, but your car analogy is flawed as almost all car analogies to technology are.

It is like this. You are at Best Buy, you see a netbook sitting there and it is $300. Right next to it is a regular laptop for $400.

Now, they both look similar, and the salesman says that the $300 system can do everything a regular laptop can, but a little slower and a little less. But the consumer's concept of a little is different from your and my concept of a little is different from the salesman's pitch of a little. Now, I have a G1 and a Droid to choose from. They are not that drastically different in price since i can get the Droid for $100 at WalMart or online. However, what most people wouldn't know is that the Droid is a much better device that is much more capable than the G1. They don't know any better, they get the G1, their friends have a Droid/Incredible. 'Ooh, look at those shiny apps!' 'Oh, I can't get those apps my phone doesn't support it, turbo-lame'.

Fragmentation (or whatever the hell you want to call it) IS a problem with android. Not all the phones are running the same OS, not all the apps work with all the OSes, it is a problem. One that needs to be solved sooner rather than later. Google and Apple are both setting serious precedents in the mobile world by releasing these major OS updates that have drastically changed how your device operated. You now can expect that by the end of your 2 year contract that you will still be getting updates and your phone will still be usable with the App Store. As someone else pointed out, right now you can't even guarantee that a just purchased Android phone is completely compatible with the App Store and that is the problem.

 

[zerocool84]

Android already has addressed the fragmentation issue a while ago.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/29/exclusive-android-froyo-to-take-a-serious-shot-at-stemming-plat/

Two more phones are getting 2.1, the Hero and Moment this month. The G1 won't get updated cus they said they hardware can't support it.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Android already has addressed the fragmentation issue a while ago.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/29/exclusive-android-froyo-to-take-a-serious-shot-at-stemming-plat/

Two more phones are getting 2.1, the Hero and Moment this month. The G1 won't get updated cus they said they hardware can't support it.

Well, technically, they haven't addressed it, and they haven't officially announced that's how they're going to do it, that's an anonymous tip that hasn't been proven true or implemented yet.

After using the Sense UI on the HD2, non standard apps are difficult to get to and not integrated well that aren't intended for HTC's skin.

 

[ViRGE]

We've had a lot of conduct complaints about this specific thread (and in general, other Apple threads in here lately) so here's a not so gentle reminder for everyone: GG&P is a Technical forum, not a Social forum. We have much higher expectations of your actions in a technical forum, and if you feel the need to flame, troll, name-call, etc, then you will quickly be removed. If you can't make a well-reasoned argument while not attacking others, this isn't the forum for you.

-Thanks
ViRGE

 

[theeedude]

I think this is going to be a moot discussion in a couple years:
http://www.slashgear.com/wow-streamed-to-ipad-makes-fans-all-excited-0384076/

I think by then, computation intensive tasks/apps will be run in the cloud on server side with display streamed to the phone's vnc style app and inputs sent back to a server farm. Server farm can then be running whatever OS it wants, with apps written in whatever, with the client side app being just a dumb terminal, like vnc client that can be written in the client specific language. I think Google sees this coming, which is why they are looking into scalable ARM server designs.

 

[TheWart]

I think this is going to be a moot discussion in a couple years:
http://www.slashgear.com/wow-streamed-to-ipad-makes-fans-all-excited-0384076/

I think by then, computation intensive tasks/apps will be run in the cloud on server side with display streamed to the phone's vnc style app and inputs sent back to a server farm. Server farm can then be running whatever OS it wants, with apps written in whatever, with the client side app being just a dumb terminal, like vnc client that can be written in the client specific language. I think Google sees this coming, which is why they are looking into scalable ARM server designs.

Perhaps, but how many companies are really capable of providing that sort of processing back-end? Google? Akami? I can't really see all other companies (Apple included) being like "oh ok, we won't have our proprietary software on the phones, let's just make it a dumb terminal and let Google make the money."

 

[GaryJohnson]

Perhaps, but how many companies are really capable of providing that sort of processing back-end? Google? Akami? I can't really see all other companies (Apple included) being like "oh ok, we won't have our proprietary software on the phones, let's just make it a dumb terminal and let Google make the money."

They won't have a choice but to let the cloud providers make the money if that's the only way to get the level of performance needed to run the killer apps that cloud computing is going to bring.

But I think you also underestimate the number of companies capable of providing high performance cloud computing. If Apple wanted to run their own cloud, I think they could (they probably will, it's Apple after all).

 

[TheWart]

They won't have a choice but to let the cloud providers make the money if that's the only way to get the level of performance needed to run the killer apps that cloud computing is going to bring.

But I think you also underestimate the number of companies capable of providing high performance cloud computing. If Apple wanted to run their own cloud, I think they could (they probably will, it's Apple after all).

True on both counts - although I don't think there is the bandwidth available for a huge shift to intensive mobile cloud computing over 3G, and 4G is not even in its infancy really.