Google Android
- Thread starter westmeadboy
- Start date
At the risk of starting a flame war, here are some comments from Steve Jobs during Apple's earning announcement conference call. I thought his comments on the 7-inch tablet was interesting. He might be right that that size doesn't offer enough of an advantage over the mobile phone. I use a 6-inch Kindle and that works well, but the Kindle is more of a replacement for paperback books. A general application tablet would have to address different concerns.
radioman
状元
No war for me. The iPad I can grab and go to Starbux or McDonald's and REALLY do work http://goo.gl/qoiD:
1) Real email sessions that are usable (I can touchtype on an iPad).
2) I can read real PDFs. So anyone A4 docs or lettersize, its just much more easy than trying to work with a smaller screen to read those docs.
3) Real web pages can be read - in a normal fashion - arguably BETTER than a regular browser.
4) I even now take my bluetooth keyboard and most of the time leave the MacBook Pro at home. This allows me to type with no restrictions at all, with all the benefits of iPad portability, decent sized screen, and battery life that is relatively endless.
http://goo.gl/vSw7
1) Real email sessions that are usable (I can touchtype on an iPad).
2) I can read real PDFs. So anyone A4 docs or lettersize, its just much more easy than trying to work with a smaller screen to read those docs.
3) Real web pages can be read - in a normal fashion - arguably BETTER than a regular browser.
4) I even now take my bluetooth keyboard and most of the time leave the MacBook Pro at home. This allows me to type with no restrictions at all, with all the benefits of iPad portability, decent sized screen, and battery life that is relatively endless.
http://goo.gl/vSw7
westmeadboy
榜眼
Except for Flash content, of courseradioman said:
westmeadboy
榜眼
It's not perfect but it's not that bad either, unless you're using something like an outdated original Droidmikelove said:westmeadboy said:
Right, because on Android Flash runs so smoothly and error-free that you scarcely even need downloadable apps
It runs pretty well on my Nexus One. Still, not as good as on the desktop.Let's see - is it better to have an imperfect optionally-on-demand flash player or nothing at all?
Anyway, point remains. If I'm browsing the internet on my desktop and I come across a great website with flash content - will I get a better experience switching over to an iPad???
westmeadboy said:
Doesn't work too well on my similarly-specced HTC Desire - then again, after the iPhone 4 my tolerance for stutter is extremely low (even my still-OS3-powered iPhone 3G feels poky).
No tablet's going to offer a desktop-class web browsing experience - heck, even if you put desktop Windows with a better-than-Atom processor in an iPad-style form factor the lower-res screen and limited input methods would still make it worse. There are still a ton of websites out there that don't load correctly in any WebKit-based browser, for example - you've got to try your luck with Opera or Firefox (or IE if you're running Windows).
Flash at the level it currently runs on mobiles simply doesn't add enough to the browser experience to justify picking one platform over another, especially since most of the big Flash-based websites you'd want to access have their own iPad (and Android) apps anyway - I rarely encounter Flash-related roadblocks on iPad except on obscure things like restaurant websites (which rarely have any content you can't get in a dedicated and iPad-friendly restaurant review site anyway). And as someone who routinely pushes up against whatever bandwidth limit he's working under on his mobile plan, I appreciate not wasting hundreds of MBs a month downloading Flash advertisements and other crap I don't need to get at the actual information I'm looking for.
People accepted lower quality audio for the convenience of loading songs onto MP3 players, and I think they'll accept a slightly less "rich" web-browsing experience on tablets (Apple, Google, and RIM) for the sake of responsiveness and portability. The era of cartoon animals dancing across the tops of pages is past, nowadays it's all about clean elegant design and efficient access to information; a decade from now Flash is going to seem as outdated as <blink> tags.
sui.generis
探花
Fixed it for ya.
I have flashblock on chrome for reasons not entirely dissimilar. My appreciation for being able to block bad flash would never outwiegh my inability to access it where I'd like to. It's a false dilemma, basically, that access to flash requires wasting bandwidth on annoying flash ads. WMB describes android flash as "optionally on demand", which was certainly my understanding of how it worked, so bandwidth waste shouldn't be an issue. No one need enable what they don't want to see.
Right, because on Android Flash runs so smoothly and error-free that you scarcely even need downloadable apps
Well that's absurd. Apps and flash serve different purposes, and while one can decrease demand for the other, the idea that either would make you scarcely need the other (unless your needs are ridiculously small) doesn't make sense.
People still make apps of flash-less websites in order to optimize the interface therein. That isn't a meaningful argument in favor of getting rid of mobile web browsers.
You're also picking on a brand new feature. I'm really glad people didn't respond to mobile browsers this way. Poor early results weren't seen as a reason to get rid of mobile web browsing. It was exciting and cutting edge, and improvements came over time. If you don't want to be a beta tester of mobile flash, I totally understand that. That's no reason to pretend the feature should be thought useless to everyone else, which is basically the argument you've made above.
Flash is no less capable of elegance than HTML5. Recent testing indicates that at this moment, it's more efficient and perhaps more capable of quick clean interfacing as well. You really think people are going to design less annoying sites based on the language they program in? Sure, the web is moving towards cleaner interfaces, but that's completely irrelevant to what language underlies the interface.
And now we're off to the races...
Well then I'm curious - how often does that happen, and on which sorts of sites? Because I use my iPad for web browsing a lot and I honestly can't remember a time when the lack of Flash presented a significant roadblock... then again, when I switch to a new computer it'll routinely be several weeks before I get around to installing Flash, so maybe I am an anomaly in that respect (though judging by Apple's latest quarterly report there are (some number with an awful lot of 0's) people who are similar un-bothered by it).
Hence the, though maybe not entirely depending on how much of a performance gain AIR offers over web-based Flash apps. Though I routinely encounter people who literally have no third-party apps on their iPads and iPhones, so there are certainly a significant population of users out there whose needs are modest enough to be covered by web-based stuff alone. (heck, lots of people rely solely on web-based Chinese dictionaries)
So you complain that I'm picking on a brand new feature and then in the very next paragraph you go after the similarly-new HTML5... The parallels to mobile web browsing aren't quite there, though; mobile web browsing did benefit as browsers improved, but those browsers improved in no small part as a result of competition, which doesn't exist for Flash engines. Everybody runs the same Flash, and Adobe's in an incredibly powerful position if they get to decide which platforms to work hardest to optimize on; they can play kingmaker in Google versus Microsoft now and can potentially give a major boost to some future all-Flash-based Adobe mobile OS if Flash-on-devices takes off.
Plus, while some of the boost to mobile web browsing came from browsers, a lot of it came from websites being mobile-optimized - standard forum / CMS / store / etc packages added mobile skins, companies like Usablenet showed up to start mobile-skinning more proprietary sites... I don't see media sites going through that much trouble to keep Flash working mobiles when it's limited and has to be actively invoked by the user. Particular without Apple supporting it...
sui.generis said:
Well then I'm curious - how often does that happen, and on which sorts of sites? Because I use my iPad for web browsing a lot and I honestly can't remember a time when the lack of Flash presented a significant roadblock... then again, when I switch to a new computer it'll routinely be several weeks before I get around to installing Flash, so maybe I am an anomaly in that respect (though judging by Apple's latest quarterly report there are (some number with an awful lot of 0's) people who are similar un-bothered by it).
sui.generis said:
Hence the
, though maybe not entirely depending on how much of a performance gain AIR offers over web-based Flash apps. Though I routinely encounter people who literally have no third-party apps on their iPads and iPhones, so there are certainly a significant population of users out there whose needs are modest enough to be covered by web-based stuff alone. (heck, lots of people rely solely on web-based Chinese dictionaries)sui.generis said:
sui.generis said:
So you complain that I'm picking on a brand new feature and then in the very next paragraph you go after the similarly-new HTML5... The parallels to mobile web browsing aren't quite there, though; mobile web browsing did benefit as browsers improved, but those browsers improved in no small part as a result of competition, which doesn't exist for Flash engines. Everybody runs the same Flash, and Adobe's in an incredibly powerful position if they get to decide which platforms to work hardest to optimize on; they can play kingmaker in Google versus Microsoft now and can potentially give a major boost to some future all-Flash-based Adobe mobile OS if Flash-on-devices takes off.
Plus, while some of the boost to mobile web browsing came from browsers, a lot of it came from websites being mobile-optimized - standard forum / CMS / store / etc packages added mobile skins, companies like Usablenet showed up to start mobile-skinning more proprietary sites... I don't see media sites going through that much trouble to keep Flash working mobiles when it's limited and has to be actively invoked by the user. Particular without Apple supporting it...
sui.generis
探花
mikelove said:
I don't claim HTML5 is worthless or that it should be abandoned or banned by devices for any reason. I do consider it to be cutting edge and hope it will continue to be developed and adopted just as I considered mobile browsers. Care to explain how noting one comparative upside that flash has to it (at the moment) is the same as supporting a tech blackout and banning the HTML5 language from mobiles? Otherwise your sentence doesn't makes sense.
HTML5 is a competitor. Adobe is incentivized to improve performance if HTML5 does to avoid content producers from abandoning them. I see very little difference in the competition incentive.
Often enough for me to value. I wouldn't suggest that everyone should value it as much as I do, merely that the notion that it isn't valuable enough to warrant a platform choice is a pretty narrow-minded statement.
I don't doubt for a second that they represent a near if not a wide majority. The smartphone market has expanded and brought in tons of people who don't even understand everything their smartphone has to offer. To a lot of people, a smartphone is just a browser. This doesn't occur as much because the web replaced their app needs, but more because they never had any app needs in the first place.
sui.generis said:
I'm not saying Flash should be banned from mobiles, I'm saying that Apple banning Flash from their mobiles isn't necessarily a bad thing for consumers and agreeing with Gruber's suggestion that it's probably a very good thing for Apple.
Personally, as a potential future web application developer I'd rather have one consumer web application standard than three, and I'd like that one standard to be as open as possible, and I don't see any real advantage to doing the sort of things we'd want to do in Flash over HTML5, so if Apple can use their influence to reduce the prominence of Flash I view that as a good thing both for web openness and the quality of my future HTML5-based software (more sites built on HTML5 -> better HTML5 implementations).
sui.generis said:
Unless other incentives override it - what's to stop Microsoft from paying Adobe huge amounts of money to make sure that Flash keeps working better on their OS than anyone else's? HTML5 is neutral, OS makers have the quality of their HTML support pretty much entirely in their own hands.
sui.generis said:
I stand by it for the vast majority of consumers. Pleco's success has had a lot to do with consumers' willingness to pick one platform over another because of its support for our software, so I certainly wouldn't deny or criticize that impulse in general, but nobody's writing articles saying that Android is at a disadvantage over iOS because it doesn't have Pleco. (well OK, maybe one, but John's more of a Chinese pundit than a tech pundit)
The TweetDeck blog post on which Jobs apparently based his comment.
http://blog.tweetdeck.com/android-ecosystem
October 12, 2010
Android Ecosystem Infoporn Overload
Some responses to Jobs' comments. It's all good techie fun.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthre ... did=113942
Google VP, TweetDeck CEO refute comments from Apple's Steve Jobs
Iain Dodsworth, CEO of TweetDeck, quickly responded to Jobs' comments via Twitter, and said he believes Android fragmentation is actually a "small" issue.
"Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android?" Dodsworth wrote on his Twitter account. "Err nope, no we didn't. It wasn't."
He later followed up: "WE only have 2 guys developing on Android TweetDeck so that shows how small an issue fragmentation is."
http://blog.tweetdeck.com/android-ecosystem
October 12, 2010
Android Ecosystem Infoporn Overload
Some responses to Jobs' comments. It's all good techie fun.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthre ... did=113942
Google VP, TweetDeck CEO refute comments from Apple's Steve Jobs
Iain Dodsworth, CEO of TweetDeck, quickly responded to Jobs' comments via Twitter, and said he believes Android fragmentation is actually a "small" issue.
"Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android?" Dodsworth wrote on his Twitter account. "Err nope, no we didn't. It wasn't."
He later followed up: "WE only have 2 guys developing on Android TweetDeck so that shows how small an issue fragmentation is."
sui.generis
探花
mikelove said:
I don't disagree. I like the idea of HTML5, but universal standards rarely become universal (hai java!). HTML is an exception (mostly), but HTML5 seems so much bigger than hypertext, I doubt it will really take over flash in the next few years. Whatever my next handset is, I want it to be relevant to my personal needs today as well as compliant with future standards.
I doubt Apple's commitment to open standards. We certainly have them to thank for un-DRM'd mp3s, but it was a turn they only took after reaching absolute dominance with iTunes. They were happy to use DRM to tie people to their ecosphere so closely most couldn't conceive of shopping elsewhere, and they'll do the same thing with books if they can manage. Ironically more competition in books might actually make the consumer experience worse, because all the competitors are still trying to cement some dominant lead so they no longer need DRM to tie their customers down. So long as there is a split market, whoever goes DRM-free first has to take the double-edged sword of, yes, offering a less restrictive experience (that matters more to the most sophisticated consumers than the average ones), but also risk making it easier for their customers to convert to viable competitors on a one-way street.
I trust companies being self-serving, because I don't believe there's any other kind of company and I'd rather know exactly what a company is thinking than have to guess at the real interest behind their purported benevolence. I'm just not sure Apple's commitment to this open standard will survive Flash's death. Mp3s were viable right then, and already a standard. The gap between now and whenever HTML5 is a fully fleshed out, fully supported standard with ubiquitous content gives them plenty of time to introduce their own proprietary standard. And let's face it. Apple isn't really promoting HTML5 -- they're promoting the app store. Flash wouldn't eliminate it, but if every iphone supported flash, flash developers would fall all over themselves to ensure free ad-based gaming was available with a finger-friendly interface, and it would hurt itunes profits because iPhone users are exactly the type of mass market that plays tons of free flash games.
radioman
状元
Just some comments about tight, closed systems.
In one of my previous lives, they had a ton of PHDs working open standards driving an Operations and Maintenance Platform - there was like 100 people on the development/deployment team. The product was open, wide range of options, integrated on some level with all the major components of the network - and in the end, was the most terrible piece of hardware ever deployed. Ultimately ripped out.
They did not factor in usability and mega tight integration, with real on-the-ground field experience, all that had to be taken into account to get a great user experience that did not tolerate lags, delays or anything else - it had to provide the right visualization, and just be a joy to use, or else no one was going to use it. I with the help of some others, made such a platform in a more skunkworks fashion, and we as well as the customer could finally do their job.
My point to all this is that I personally believe there is something to be said about deploying something that is radically tightly integrated from beginning to end. So when drawing up requirements for what really needs to be done for the user experience, I am all about quality (i.e. "meeting the need, not exceeding it"). But if tight integration, 10 hours of battery life, no lag in swiping, etc, are all of what is needed for the application because the user wants it, then ... thats what the user wants. I see HTML5 in this boat. it will likely do most of the things necessary, but with regard to speed, HW, etc., I am speculating that it will be quite some time, if ever that it supplants an approach like that for which Apple is currently employing.
For applications that don't require radically tight integration and performance, perhaps there will be lots of other alternative approaches that will be cheaper and allow greater distribution.
In one of my previous lives, they had a ton of PHDs working open standards driving an Operations and Maintenance Platform - there was like 100 people on the development/deployment team. The product was open, wide range of options, integrated on some level with all the major components of the network - and in the end, was the most terrible piece of hardware ever deployed. Ultimately ripped out.
They did not factor in usability and mega tight integration, with real on-the-ground field experience, all that had to be taken into account to get a great user experience that did not tolerate lags, delays or anything else - it had to provide the right visualization, and just be a joy to use, or else no one was going to use it. I with the help of some others, made such a platform in a more skunkworks fashion, and we as well as the customer could finally do their job.
My point to all this is that I personally believe there is something to be said about deploying something that is radically tightly integrated from beginning to end. So when drawing up requirements for what really needs to be done for the user experience, I am all about quality (i.e. "meeting the need, not exceeding it"). But if tight integration, 10 hours of battery life, no lag in swiping, etc, are all of what is needed for the application because the user wants it, then ... thats what the user wants. I see HTML5 in this boat. it will likely do most of the things necessary, but with regard to speed, HW, etc., I am speculating that it will be quite some time, if ever that it supplants an approach like that for which Apple is currently employing.
For applications that don't require radically tight integration and performance, perhaps there will be lots of other alternative approaches that will be cheaper and allow greater distribution.
I don't read Jobs' posts, too much propaganda [called also BS]. Well, everyone does that, but I don't read other companies' announcements either
He may be right about 7" though. Too big to easily fit and too small to do anything. 10-12" sounds like the best solution.
It's hard to call Apple innovative, they just do less mistakes. Or rather they face opponents that do lots of tremendously stupid mistakes [Nokia is best example, also Microsoft with Kin and how they lost with WM]. And most companies still don't get it. But it's probably true for almost every business - screw your customers, ignore them, think only about money. And somewhere in the middle they forget that it's customers that bring money.
So I really hope that Notion Ink can really deliver and bring us Adam at promised price, without delays and problems. And then I hope they take even more from Apple. And maybe more companies like that will appear.
He may be right about 7" though. Too big to easily fit and too small to do anything. 10-12" sounds like the best solution.
It's hard to call Apple innovative, they just do less mistakes. Or rather they face opponents that do lots of tremendously stupid mistakes [Nokia is best example, also Microsoft with Kin and how they lost with WM]. And most companies still don't get it. But it's probably true for almost every business - screw your customers, ignore them, think only about money. And somewhere in the middle they forget that it's customers that bring money.
So I really hope that Notion Ink can really deliver and bring us Adam at promised price, without delays and problems. And then I hope they take even more from Apple. And maybe more companies like that will appear.
radioman
状元
Not sure how you cannot call them innovative. Everyone is chasing them. But setting that aside for a second, to my earlier point. Getting the system from purchase experience to download to installation to utilization is just not easy - not so that millions and millions of people can do it, people untrained in using computers.
I guess I would offer that their "innovation" is the ability to tightly integrate the entire value chain, as highlighted by their latest quarterly announcement.
"... 14.1 million iPhones sold in those three months, and record $20 billion in revenue, and $4.3 billion in profit. ... "
EDIT - but I will say that Android is great for everyone - Apple needs competition and I hope that trend will continue.
I guess I would offer that their "innovation" is the ability to tightly integrate the entire value chain, as highlighted by their latest quarterly announcement.
"... 14.1 million iPhones sold in those three months, and record $20 billion in revenue, and $4.3 billion in profit. ... "
EDIT - but I will say that Android is great for everyone - Apple needs competition and I hope that trend will continue.
sui.generis
探花
gato said:
The latter is probably true. Originality is the art of concealing your sources (twain?).
The most innovative companies (idea beta testers) typically don't last long. The ones that thrive, like Apple and Microsoft and Google, are the ones that learn from (steal) the numerous unavoidable mistakes the beta testers makes and adapt a bunch of other people's innovations into one coherent package. That is in fact, a very valuable talent, but calling it 'innovative' strikes me as a misunderstanding of what innovation is.