Related
Hello Everyone!
Let me start off by reaching out to the XDA Administrative staff. I would like to thank you for keeping this awesome place in operation. Without you, and the XDA community, I'm not sure Android development would be as vibrant. Also, if this thread is in the wrong location, please shift it to where you would like it.
I am an Android user, not a developer, and I feel the future of the Android OS is not headed where I want it to. I'm writing this post to see if anyone has any further thoughts on the matter.
Google is marketing Android as an Open Source OS. You are able to download the source, modify it as you wish, and then build it. If you are running a vanilla build of Android (i.e. Nexus S) you are able to alter your experience as you see fit. The issue I foresee isn't the fragmentation of the Android versions (which is still debated as an issue), but rather the fragmentation of the user experience.
When an end-user purchases a handset from most major carriers, they receive an Android device. Between different handsets, and carriers, the features that are available to a single user can vary exponentially (i.e. the inability to install APK files, bypassing the market, on AT&T devices). This device is still based on Android, but is it still Android?
I have no problem with manufacturers adding their own code to the Android system, as long as the core functionality is kept the same. When you begin to alter the basic functionality of the system, at what point is it no longer Android? Linux Mint is derived from Ubuntu, but it is no longer Ubuntu. The system is a derivative of Ubuntu. If the base of the OS is going to be altered drastically (by manufacturer or by request of carrier) it needs to be known that the device is not Android.
As I am most familiar with HTC Android devices, I will use HTC SenseUI as an example (although, as I think about this more it may not be the best example). The core functionality of the HTC devices is similar, but not entirely the same. Most of the default applications (Browser, Contacts, Dialer) have been altered to what HTC feels is more atheistically pleasing. However, these features are additions. They are not removing functionality from the device.
With my HTC Evo (by default) there are core functionalities removed. Without rooting my device, I am unable to tether via WiFi. Even when rooting, if I want to keep the 4G experience, I need to install a third party application to tether instead of simply using the functionality that was supposed to be built in to Android. Why? Sprint has decided to bake their own hotspot functionality into the core of the OS. Yet to use it, I am required to pay an extra $30 fee on top of my [i/unlimited[/i] data plan. I am not knocking Sprint, here. As long as I have used their service, I’ve had nothing but stellar performance and the price point is perfect.
I feel with this core functionality removed, my Evo is no longer Android. It’s simply Android-based, an Android derived OS. The problem with these manufacturers, and their Android-derived operating system, is the lack-luster experience the consumers get with the product.
I started my Android experience on an HTC CDMA Hero. It took me eight months to get any major software upgrades (The device ran Android 1.5 from factory). Why? Because it was taking so long for manufacturers to bake their Features into the OS. If I was not a techie, I feel this experience would have pushed me away from the Android platform. I fear this fragmentation that is occurring could be the downfall of the Android platform.
I want to be able to buy a device. I want to be running the newest version of Android. If I do not like the ROM that came on the phone, I want to be able to change that. But I do not want to purchase a phone with all of this baked in garbage, or aesthetic features that require me to wait long periods of times for my device to be upgraded to the newest version of Android. And, I hope that I am not the only person to feel this way.
So here is my idea, pending input from the Android community of course: An open letter, with a petition, to all members of the OHA requesting for Android devices to be Android! Unadulterated Android OS from Google (With minor modifications to ensure specific hardware is working properly). Requesting that we are given access to the entire device, that we paid for, without having to exploit the operating system to obtain the ability to modify it as we see fit. If a manufacturer, or carrier, does not wish to comply with this, they will not be able to market the device as being Android. Rather, the device is based on Android.
Honestly, I’m not sure what I am looking to accomplish. Maybe, just so they know we are just as interested in Android as they are. And that we want nothing but for Android to succeed. Or maybe, that we support Android being open source, but not being heavily modified to the point where it’s a bastardized.
What do you think?
Tim, I support you in your belief that carriers, not manufacturers, are taking the wrong turn by messing with the full functionality that people pay a hefty price to OWN!
Do we truly OWN what we paid for, or are paying for? I don't believe so, for example, the SAMSUNG Vibrant t959, aka the Samsung Galaxy S i9000, same phone but the carriers decided to have certain features removed from the phone, not be MADE without these features, the FM radio HW and the FFC. Many people know these features were REMOVED, due to the leftover molding and other " skeletons"! Would anyone want to have a carrier when they know that they don't want there customers to have the FULLEST experience, like it was meant to be?
Sent from my HTC MyDesireHD 4G!
I would also like to share with you that MANUFACTURERS creating these "skins", I'm going to use HTC Sense for my example, is actually NOT a bad thing at all!
HTC Sense has opened a huge amount of rich content and functionality to there users immensely! HTC Hub, HTC Locations for example! All these add ons are very useful to users and does NOT restrict the full functionality but yet BOOSTS its functionality!
Unfortunately though, carriers decide to take these hearty and supreme names and totally rip it apart by taking away functionality, features, and the most...a good user experience! For example, my phone..the HTC MyTouch 4G aka the HTC Glacier. I received it with something called Sense on it, but any owner knows that is NOT Sense! That is not HTC Sense! After burying myself in the bowels of my new phone, I now have a HTC Desire HD Rom on it that will stay on it until I get the new HTC Sense 2.3 update! The full HTC Sense is a good thing and I strongly believe its worth waiting for!
Sent from my HTC Glacier
I agree, but believe Android is a growing mobile OS. If Google did not push their mobile OS (and let manufactures do what they want). Android probably would not have last against the competition. Its all a survival of the fittest situation. Some people are going to make use of their phones others aren't. Too bad bloatware has been the success for some Android phones. Glad someone else noticed this. Thank you for your thread.
The fact that Android is open source will inevitably have benefits and downfalls.
Benefits being that carriers and manufacturers can add cool stuff. Downfalls being that they can remove good or add awful stuff.
However Google can't have double standards. If it's open source, it's open source, for better or for worse.
An advantage of OEMs participating is that more parties are contributing to coding for android. More innovative ideas are potentially contributed.
For techies this is particularly awesome as we can port awesome features that perhaps weren't designed for our phone and disable lame restrictions. By this way we potentially can have all software benefits of more than one company brand etc.
Being an ordinary consumer in this context can suck.
Tim, while I understand your frustration (trust me, I've felt similar over the past few months), I don't fully agree.
The heart of Android is that it is Open. Open Source is a part of the openness that envelops Android, but what is meant by "Android is open" is so much more. OEM's skinning their devices is part of it; carriers stuffing devices full of their crapware is part of it; heck, even manufacturers/carriers limiting devices' use in one form or another is technically part of it. I think that Google's model with Android is that people can use in whatever way they see fit (except, you know, literally stealing it and claiming that they made and own it) and adapting it to be the OS that they want. Android gives people the freedom to do with it what they like.
I think that Google hopes that carriers, OEMs and everyone else will use it for the better and add to the functionality and maybe even contribute to the Open Source project and thus to the greater Android community and the vision thereof. Sadly, it is not always the case and then you get situations where a carrier or an OEM will limit a device in some way for a quick buck (your example of tethering on the EVO being a good one). I think that what AT&T did/does on their Android devices is as a final product a good example of what Android is not intended to be, but their actions are, technically, still in the spirit of Android.
The way I see Android, it is about the freedom to do whatever you like. Android is then also more for the thinking person as there are literally hundreds of devices to choose from and each one has strengths and weaknesses when compared to the rest. You as a user need to consider what it is that you want from your device and then select the device that is the most suited to your needs.
I want to be able to buy a device. I want to be running the newest version of Android. If I do not like the ROM that came on the phone, I want to be able to change that. But I do not want to purchase a phone with all of this baked in garbage, or aesthetic features that require me to wait long periods of times for my device to be upgraded to the newest version of Android. And, I hope that I am not the only person to feel this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not the only person that feels that way, I feel the same, which is why I've decided to get myself a Nexus S. It's tricky to get it to this country, but it'll be worth it. I realise that you're on Sprint which means that a Nexus device won't work, correct? A better petition IMO, would be to petition Google to release CDMA versions of their devices.
Sorry to say, but 4G is not derived from android. The phone itself will always support it, harware wise. So, what are you saying? /: Who are you complaining to? ROM chefs for not managing to make the 4G fully functional?
totally agree with you
he is complaining about gimped devices being marketed as android devices. to sum up what i think his messages is; a device should not be called an android device if it is not fully capable of all it's natively supported features, wireless tether, root access etc. but rather should be called android based device.
Good idea but never going to happen. This is driving me away from this platform...
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I'm curious as to what functionality we can get by simply rooting. I'm not seeing the huge deal I may be missing something so I'm asking
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
To me, they should just change the launcher and add their own apps in (NOT replacing) and not touch other stuffs already. If totally not changing the OS makes them look alike. To me, thinking about Windows phone 7 in the future. Imagine seeing so many people holding a phone that has the totally same UI, its like seeing a Sony Ericsson X10 and a HTC Desire totally same except that the casing is different.
Technically, the fact that its open source is supposed to help the majority of OEMs, and in turnfilter down to end users as price cuts/ feature enhancements.
But premium features are premium features. You want some kind of 4g? You wont be getting it from end users at xda - it will come from manufacturers who build the radios and APIs into the device.
Android is a very modular os... if you want something all you have to do is a bit of research and buy the device that fits you best. If you go with one of the other systems you will simply have less choice. That is why android is cool.
aint gonna happen guys, doesnt make good business sense to make a device that does everything, why sell one model when you can sell two!
you can pick up any device out there and say, "wouldnt it be cool if it had VGA out or HD camera or x y z", they wont do it, and the same goes for the OS as well.
Open source has an inherant flaw, and that is its fragmentation, everyone believes it should be going in a direction they would like (including yourself). at the moment its not suffered as much as its desktop cousins probably because of its market place keeping one common aspect through all devices but give it time and you will be right, it will lose its "android" identification
If you want an alternative and a device that keeps its personality then get an Iphone or a new WP7 device at least until they crack that wide open too. Its a bit ironic really that WM may well suck but its very customizable and has been consistant throughout the ages
evo4gnw said:
he is complaining about gimped devices being marketed as android devices. to sum up what i think his messages is; a device should not be called an android device if it is not fully capable of all it's natively supported features, wireless tether, root access etc. but rather should be called android based device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that's just the thing isn't it? Android can probably support ANYTHING. But because of that, you aren't supposed to release hardware that isn't as flexible? That to me.. is just looney.
Just wanted your opinions on which dev has the best Onskreen Cornerstone build right now. I have installed both CM9 and Eos i personally prefer Eos' build they are doing a great job with the dev so far. Great job on both roms though. And are there any other roms with OSCS built in these are the only two im aware of.
I can deal with the minor bugs I really couldn't see my TF without OSCS now im spoiled
I'd personally love a completely stock with cornerstone and stock buttons. I like the Asus quick panel and soundset
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
I like the Team EOS better.
After using Cornerstone for a day, you cannot imagine life without it. I know the feeling.
jinsoku3g said:
I'd personally love a completely stock with cornerstone and stock buttons. I like the Asus quick panel and soundset
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is pretty much what I'm holding out for, a nice stock rom with cornerstone.
st0nedpenguin said:
This is pretty much what I'm holding out for, a nice stock rom with cornerstone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which can't happen right now because we ain't got no source code yet.
i flashed back to ARHD to many bugs for me to use as daily (especially now with the dock) waiting for a good solid CS build screen swapping would be cool if they release the source for that (not likely soon)
Here is some important information from the CEO of Onskreen directly to Diane Hackborn of Google, I've not read this on this site, I was directed here after an email with consumer relations with Onskreen while asking if the window-swappng option was going to be re-implemented..their reply was basically "no, and here is why; read this comment" so here is what they said..
(my emphasis)
hansmeet sethi - I am the CEO of Onskreen and felt it was about time we weighed in on the public discussion. To start off with, we have been impressed by the level of discussion on this thread on the topic of compatibility. We take it very seriously and are glad that the rest of the community do as well.
+Dianne Hackborn - Thanks for sharing specific concerns and we can appreciate their gravity and the need for a dialogue. However, outside of the implementation details perhaps some background will help. Onskreen saw an obvious need in the UX of Android on larger screen devices (that is our business after all), and we worked to address that with Cornerstone. During the process, we have invested heavily to respect Android's intentions and compatibility of the Frameworks you helped build. When you get a chance to review the code, you will see that we went out of our way to not introduce app requirements, leverage the patterns already used, and treat running Applications in a way that they are oblivious to the Cornerstone experience. We rejected many features along the way to optimize for compatibility. The result is a product that we are proud of, respects the Android project, that the user and mod communities are excited about, and OEMs love. And frankly, once you use a tablet with multi-tasking there is no going back. We are the first to admit the product is not perfect, but was at a point where we felt comfortable sharing with the community to use, help improve and polish. We see the goal of this conversation as a way to come to an agreement on some of the aspects of Compatibility and deliver multi-tasking on Android.
Now - a few of your concerns:
- Orientation - Good points, and we spent a ton of time thinking through the UX here. Cornerstone adheres to the desired orientation of the Application running in the Main Panel (and rotation of the device). Cornerstone restricts the user from opening an app that won't support all orientations in the Cornerstone panel, so there is not a case where an app running there is forced into an orientation the app developer did not intend to run in (try opening Angry Birds in the Cornerstone and you will see this). There is more here but I will leave it at that for the time being.
- Screen size changes - You point out the complexity of a changing screen size on an app. We agree and this is the reason that swapping panels (applications moving from the main area to the cornerstone or vice versa) was removed from the product. Apps at this point just aren't enforced to consider this, so Cornerstone imposing it on them would be incompatible and we don't (although we all sorely miss the feature). One area we are still considering is the Config of the main app. Logically this should change when the user minimizes/maximizes the Cornerstone, however the implementation is not doing that because of compatibility issues it would introduce. To be fully compliant we are aware that we will may have to remove the ability to minimize/maximize the Cornerstone (we will miss that feature too). Perhaps you have some suggestions here?
- ProcessRecord/ActivityThread Configurations - As you mentioned, while the ActivityStack was refactored out during your exploration, other inherent dependencies on a static Configuration do still exist. Some interesting features could be enabled by expanding this, but we didn't make these changes so that the Cornerstone codebase could more easily be used in customized Android trees of OEMs and others, as well as perhaps in upcoming Android releases.
- CDD Compliance - We take this one very seriously and you bring up good points. However, our intention is that each area (the main panel and cornerstone panels) be designed as CDD compliant sizes. That is not fully the case in the .85 release that was open sourced. As we made the switch to v4.0.3_r1 and the 1280x800 reference device (Xoom), we haven't made all these changes yet. It may require that some of the panels in certain orientations run in a pseudo compatibility mode similar to how the Android OS supports legacy apps already so that their config is CDD compliant and the UX is optimized.
- CTS - One test in CTS calls for any Activity that doesn't have the focus to be moved to the paused state. This is obviously not the case in Cornerstone as Activities do stay resumed when not having the focus and still are visible on the screen. Google could ding Cornerstone for that and in truth they would be technically correct. However this would be silly considering the nature of the test when applied to a real multi-tasked environment. That is not our call however.
In short, we think about the same problems you do and we believe in the product as well as maintaining the integrity of Android applications and devices. You of all people can appreciate the complexity in working with the Android framework in the way we have to get Cornerstone built, and to call it a fork is doing the design and engineering effort that went into it a disservice. We see the point of AOSP and contributions like Cornerstone to create a dialogue, come to agreement and add great features to the platform. To that end, we are more than happy to continue this conversation. Some of us are in the bay area and happy to drop by Google if you prefer.
hansmeet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats pretty cool but i will miss having the features im sure the community will implement our own twist on it though. to bad for the screen swapping though .
on a different note CM9 with cornerstone is moving along quite well a lot more stable ROM can i vote again lol
Cornerstone is just a placeholder for me until Windows 8 is released for tablets.
Definitely switching to Windows 8 unless Google adds to Android a comparable multitasking capability.
Just stock, I like stock ICS on TF101 (after reboot and pc connection issue removed...) and don't see any pro's in any other ROM for me...
Pretty much all of the concessions that they have or are discussing making to cornerstone are quickly removing the reason for having it at all. There are plenty of apps that already are not compatible with many devices and resolutions. Crippling a feature because you "can't" create new app requirements is silly. This is the area where google(and cornerstone) have the potential to destroy apple. As these devices get faster and bigger, you can't stick with the one app at a time paradigm.
I understand google is trying to remove the "fragmentation" but your OS can't evolve if that outweighs everything else.
gottahavit said:
Pretty much all of the concessions that they have or are discussing making to cornerstone are quickly removing the reason for having it at all. There are plenty of apps that already are not compatible with many devices and resolutions. Crippling a feature because you "can't" create new app requirements is silly. This is the area where google(and cornerstone) have the potential to destroy apple. As these devices get faster and bigger, you can't stick with the one app at a time paradigm.
I understand google is trying to remove the "fragmentation" but your OS can't evolve if that outweighs everything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google will add better multitasking to Android. They have to or they will lose to Windows 8.
Cornerstone is just not Google's answer to multitasking on Android. I bet Google has something better.
horndroid said:
Google will add better multitasking to Android. They have to or they will lose to Windows 8.
Cornerstone is just not Google's answer to multitasking on Android. I bet Google has something better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem with windows 8 is that a windows tablet will always cost 100 dollars more than the same android tablet. Add to that the fact that you'll have to re-buy all your apps for ARM or Metro and they have a tough battle ahead in the consumer market.
Personally I Find Metro totally annoying on my 17" laptop, I think Microsoft is having an identity crisis with windows 8. The last thing I want on my laptop is forced full screen apps. Honestly Metro is a little to Android(ish) for what I would want on a tablet once they get a little more powerful and have better rez.
EDIT: I should qualify this with the fact that I am a die hard windows fan, I LOVE windows 7, prefer coding for windows over any other OS EVER, and absolutely hate MAC OS.
gottahavit said:
The problem with windows 8 is that a windows tablet will always cost 100 dollars more than the same android tablet. Add to that the fact that you'll have to re-buy all your apps for ARM or Metro and they have a tough battle ahead in the consumer market.
Personally I Find Metro totally annoying on my 17" laptop, I think Microsoft is having an identity crisis with windows 8. The last thing I want on my laptop is forced full screen apps. Honestly Metro is a little to Android(ish) for what I would want on a tablet once they get a little more powerful and have better rez.
EDIT: I should qualify this with the fact that I am a die hard windows fan, I LOVE windows 7, prefer coding for windows over any other OS EVER, and absolutely hate MAC OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't care. All that matters is that Windows 8 will motivate Google to add some real multitasking capability to its Android OS. We all know how competitive Google is. They will do it, and it won't be Cornerstone. It will be something better.
horndroid said:
I don't care. All that matters is that Windows 8 will motivate Google to add some real multitasking capability to its Android OS. We all know how competitive Google is. They will do it, and it won't be Cornerstone. It will be something better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kinda, my point. have you used Windows 8 Multitasking? it looks too much like Honeycomb except they keep apps actually running. This is of course Metro, native apps are still good old windows. This isn't Microsoft putting out something for google to steal or envy, it's Microsoft going "OHHH everybody love android and IOS, they must all want "one app at a time" style OS.
We may never get Android 5.0
Hi guys just sharing an opinion piece I wrote about the future of Android.
My current theory is that eventually Android could be replaced by Chrome OS, or merged and it could happen as soon as the next major update (5.0)
My article and reasons are here and I just wanted to get some input from you guys: my fellow Android Enthusiasts,
I have one word for you: grammar
there and their, you really should know the difference
I can't believe there is a Firefox OS coming. I mean, sigh... I was a big supporter of firefox for a long time, but finally got sick of the bloat. And I might add I can't stand chrome browser, desktop or mobile. Chrome on the XZ was the worst mobile browser I've ever used.
It's a nice opinion, but do you develop applications yourself?
Here's my opinion, as consumer, an Engineer and an App developer;
Mobile phones aren't about browsing, frankly, I could care less about web on my phone. Putting everything on the web would be a night mare. Further, no scripting language is going to run as fast as native code, yes most Android apps are written in Java, but are then compiled into DBC (Dalvik Byte Code), yes, this runs on a VM (Dalvik-VM), but it's a highly optimised one. Next, we have the NDK, developers can currently write native applications compiled directly into machine code and ran natively on the hardware, again, this can not be replicated in web scripting languages, nor will the speed be matched.
Further, integrating web technologies would rely on an abstraction layer that allowed the web languages to talk to the hardware, guess what, this won't be written in web technologies, and will be written in native.
Mobiles are powerful pocket computers, but they can't be expected to have internet access all the time. Yes, web apps can be stored locally, but shifting completely to the cloud doesn't work everywhere.
Finally, my thought on Chrome OS, I would never use it personally, it's a late entry into a dying breed of desktop computing, worse yet, it's aimed almost entirely at the casual desktop user. Web browsing, desktop publishing, it's the netbook of the 20-teens(2013+).
Firefox lost my interest as my number one browser when they said screw the companies that need test cycles in order to deploy our latest browsers by switching to rapid release cycles of poor quality updates, that came and went faster than any company get put it through their test process. Firefox OS for phone has no interest from me. Ubuntu OS also isn't quite the "full OS" they claimed it to be, in fact, the dev preview wasn't even Ubuntu and was a hypervisor on top of Cyanogenmod (Android).
Shifting to cloud based services is inevitable, but to have entirely web based OSs such as the ChromeOS is ridiculous currently.
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, feel free to disagree, but structure and debate please.
I cringed at the title.
alias_neo said:
It's a nice opinion, but do you develop applications yourself?
Here's my opinion, as consumer, an Engineer and an App developer;
Mobile phones aren't about browsing, frankly, I could care less about web on my phone. Putting everything on the web would be a night mare. Further, no scripting language is going to run as fast as native code, yes most Android apps are written in Java, but are then compiled into DBC (Dalvik Byte Code), yes, this runs on a VM (Dalvik-VM), but it's a highly optimised one. Next, we have the NDK, developers can currently write native applications compiled directly into machine code and ran natively on the hardware, again, this can not be replicated in web scripting languages, nor will the speed be matched.
Further, integrating web technologies would rely on an abstraction layer that allowed the web languages to talk to the hardware, guess what, this won't be written in web technologies, and will be written in native.
Mobiles are powerful pocket computers, but they can't be expected to have internet access all the time. Yes, web apps can be stored locally, but shifting completely to the cloud doesn't work everywhere.
Finally, my thought on Chrome OS, I would never use it personally, it's a late entry into a dying breed of desktop computing, worse yet, it's aimed almost entirely at the casual desktop user. Web browsing, desktop publishing, it's the netbook of the 20-teens(2013+).
Firefox lost my interest as my number one browser when they said screw the companies that need test cycles in order to deploy our latest browsers by switching to rapid release cycles of poor quality updates, that came and went faster than any company get put it through their test process. Firefox OS for phone has no interest from me. Ubuntu OS also isn't quite the "full OS" they claimed it to be, in fact, the dev preview wasn't even Ubuntu and was a hypervisor on top of Cyanogenmod (Android).
Shifting to cloud based services is inevitable, but to have entirely web based OSs such as the ChromeOS is ridiculous currently.
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, feel free to disagree, but structure and debate please.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree :good:
hebbe said:
agree :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nosebleed
Sent from my C6603 using xda app-developers app
alias_neo said:
It's a nice opinion, but do you develop applications yourself?
Here's my opinion, as consumer, an Engineer and an App developer;
Mobile phones aren't about browsing, frankly, I could care less about web on my phone. Putting everything on the web would be a night mare. Further, no scripting language is going to run as fast as native code, yes most Android apps are written in Java, but are then compiled into DBC (Dalvik Byte Code), yes, this runs on a VM (Dalvik-VM), but it's a highly optimised one. Next, we have the NDK, developers can currently write native applications compiled directly into machine code and ran natively on the hardware, again, this can not be replicated in web scripting languages, nor will the speed be matched.
Further, integrating web technologies would rely on an abstraction layer that allowed the web languages to talk to the hardware, guess what, this won't be written in web technologies, and will be written in native.
Mobiles are powerful pocket computers, but they can't be expected to have internet access all the time. Yes, web apps can be stored locally, but shifting completely to the cloud doesn't work everywhere.
Finally, my thought on Chrome OS, I would never use it personally, it's a late entry into a dying breed of desktop computing, worse yet, it's aimed almost entirely at the casual desktop user. Web browsing, desktop publishing, it's the netbook of the 20-teens(2013+).
Firefox lost my interest as my number one browser when they said screw the companies that need test cycles in order to deploy our latest browsers by switching to rapid release cycles of poor quality updates, that came and went faster than any company get put it through their test process. Firefox OS for phone has no interest from me. Ubuntu OS also isn't quite the "full OS" they claimed it to be, in fact, the dev preview wasn't even Ubuntu and was a hypervisor on top of Cyanogenmod (Android).
Shifting to cloud based services is inevitable, but to have entirely web based OSs such as the ChromeOS is ridiculous currently.
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, feel free to disagree, but structure and debate please.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good points. I mean why would they kill something which is already working well. Think what happened to Windows 8, it turned out to be
sort of like Vista. Companies need to innovate, but usually it doesn't go as what they desire, but understanding the perception of the user
is not a straight forward task.
Rchard said:
Very good points. I mean why would they kill something which is already working well. Think what happened to Windows 8, it turned out to be
sort of like Vista. Companies need to innovate, but usually it doesn't go as what they desire, but understanding the perception of the user
is not a straight forward task.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android is too mature to be killed, it would be like google want to commit suicide... And if i remember well there is a few more corp is involved in android like htc, samsung, sony, huawei , and a few others, and spooks as well , we probably don't know. Android is a perfect spying platform and more then half of the devices on internet constantly. Who would kill that info net??
IOS will die before android, until then it will continue to thrive just like Window OS on your laptop or desktop.
too bad for Apple, they never stay in the lead.
My pov as an marketer,
You cant pull something out of the market when its doing so well at this time or later. Maybe when android becomes crap then yes.
Currently android OS is dominating the global market share. Do you really think they would stop jewing money when they can still jew more? Thats completely suicidal. Android came a long way since it was launched and surpassing iOS or came to being recognized by everyone around the globe.
You know we're in 2013 and everything in business is about money money money, Android OS is definitely one of their major income.
Android will die, but not so soon. maybe a few more years till consumers are tired of it, or when something better takes over the market. How google will keep updating android is unknown, whether android 5.0 will come or not remains unknown, but one thing im sure of is that android wont die that early.
LitoNi said:
My pov as an marketer,
You cant pull something out of the market when its doing so well at this time or later. Maybe when android becomes crap then yes.
Currently android OS is dominating the global market share. Do you really think they would stop jewing money when they can still jew more? Thats completely suicidal. Android came a long way since it was launched and surpassing iOS or came to being recognized by everyone around the globe.
You know we're in 2013 and everything in business is about money money money, Android OS is definitely one of their major income.
Android will die, but not so soon. maybe a few more years till consumers are tired of it, or when something better takes over the market. How google will keep updating android is unknown, whether android 5.0 will come or not remains unknown, but one thing im sure of is that android wont die that early.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jewing?? Really?
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Gez77 said:
nosebleed
Sent from my C6603 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what does that mean
are you boring?
sahinz said:
are you boring?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks
I love Mozilla, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like there is really any point to Firefox OS.
Other than flaming me, could you please list some specifics as to why it's beneficial?
I've talked to a lot of people in person about it and they all seem to talk about potential to grow like Android. The main problem I see with this is that whereas Android filled an obvious gap in the market, Firefox OS is trying to carve a niche in now heavily fortified waters. The fact that Windows Mobile both says they'll be happy for 1% of the market, buys off Nokia and pays off devs to port apps, it should be a pretty clear sign this will be a major challenge for Mozilla when a company with a scrooge mcduck tower of cash is piling money on the issue and still getting limited results.
For the record, I'm going to install it on my of my old devices just to play around with it but in the meantime if anyone could pose a good argument for Firefox OS then I'd all ears. It'd be nice to know the time I'll spend setting it up is worth more than just curiosity and Mozilla sympathy.
Or just flame me and call me a noob
in my opinion, we definitely need firefox os. if it will be of any advantage for your user experience, is heavily dependent of its success. but it's the only smartphone os, that uses a really open approach. since most apps are shortcuts for browsing to a certain web page on your smartphone, basing the whole os on a browsing engine makes a lot of sense. and it makes lots of things easier for devs.
It seems promising to have a fully custoimizable and open source OS for low end phones. FOS could extend the lifetime of many phones which is a nice perspective instead of throwing away functional hardware.
FirefoxOS is:
Customisable, free
Hardware UN-requiring
This means that low end phones can use the fos because they don't need powerful hardware, and poorer people in countries like Brazil or Ghana can use modern phones for little price. It's not really meant for our newer phones high-end.
defender of the Open Web
Most important is that Firefox OS seems to be the most tangible defence to keep our Open Web environment from becoming closed. With Firefox OS, the millions of new users from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Central / South America who are now just starting to buy low cost smart-phones will enjoy using, coding and Creating in Java and HTML 5, and be free to ignore 5.1 with its restrictions such as DRM.
Right now, the Web, Free and Open as we know it seems to be dying! Here's what Danny Obrien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote on October 2 (link to full article after the quote):-
… where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can’t “Save As…” an image; where the “allowed” uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively “View Source” on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It’s a Web where user agents—browsers—must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards
I think why people should bother with B2G/Firefox OS is because it's not as complicated as Android - Android has a bunch of stuff that most of the time people won't even bother using so that's one benefit with B2G... Apart from the fact that it's not very hardware dependent, it's also simple and fast and aims at open source which Android seems to be lacking nowadays...
Because no Google there..
Sent from my GT-N5110 using xda app-developers app
Because we like to evolve, have choices and detest monopoly (imagineyou turning into an android ;p)
Becouse is extra
Sent from my GT-S5670 using xda app-developers app
No google, is the point!
I would love to see FireFox as an mobile /tablet platform, because it has given middleware which can run webapps. which i feel is far better than any other achievement unlike any other platform where middleware are heavy sometimes VM's to run app in UI. Firefox gives ability to run apps with PC like standards(HTML5, CSS3) etc.
i personally tested and best thing is there search is quite competing with google search for Android. try one .
Lot of other competeres try making webapps as there UI framework but fais may be because there inexperience, i am hoping Firefox with there vast knowledge can create a ecosystem where mobile ui/ PC ui will became synonyms. in that case nothing except a good webkit will solve all issues. till then we can wait.
~Amit
amorley said:
I love Mozilla, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like there is really any point to Firefox OS.
Other than flaming me, could you please list some specifics as to why it's beneficial?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In 2002 and 2003, the world was saying the same thing about Mozilla's browser. What's the point? IE 6 was pretty amazing (seriously!) when it came out and most Web developers I talked to were happy to have one target client. That sentiment was very different after 2005 when Firefox demonstrated to the world that the Web was stagnating. Most Web developers changed their tunes and started demanding Microsoft release newer versions with modern capabilities and erase IE 6 from the face of the Earth.
Mozilla is a non-profit dedicated to pushing the boundaries of what's possible with Web technology while putting users at the center of their computing experience. We are here with no other agenda. We're not trying to sell ads. We're not trying to sell hardware. We're not trying to grow subscribers. We're trying to put users in more control and to expand the possibilities for the best operating system ever created -- the Web.
That's enough reason for me.
- Asa
(15 year Mozilla veteran)
As a developer I love it because I don't need to code twice (at best) if I want my app to work on multiple devices, screen sizes, OSs, future OSs, etc. The WEB is the platform so my app can easily intercomunicate with other webapps regardless of their underlying technology, because the WEB has standards. This will result in better and rich apps with better and rich services WITHOUT being enslaved by any platform/SDK specifics.
FirefoxOS is the next common-sense step on mobile technology and I'm pretty sure we are going to see Boot2Webkit, Boot2Blink, from the other companies... and if we don't, we will see more companies following the same fate as Nokia, Microsoft...
amorley said:
I love Mozilla, but from what I've read it doesn't seem like there is really any point to Firefox OS.
Other than flaming me, could you please list some specifics as to why it's beneficial?
I've talked to a lot of people in person about it and they all seem to talk about potential to grow like Android. The main problem I see with this is that whereas Android filled an obvious gap in the market, Firefox OS is trying to carve a niche in now heavily fortified waters. The fact that Windows Mobile both says they'll be happy for 1% of the market, buys off Nokia and pays off devs to port apps, it should be a pretty clear sign this will be a major challenge for Mozilla when a company with a scrooge mcduck tower of cash is piling money on the issue and still getting limited results.
For the record, I'm going to install it on my of my old devices just to play around with it but in the meantime if anyone could pose a good argument for Firefox OS then I'd all ears. It'd be nice to know the time I'll spend setting it up is worth more than just curiosity and Mozilla sympathy.
Or just flame me and call me a noob
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because Mozilla is helping build a internet the world needs and has been for years. Mozilla is also the most privacy focused company making software and has won awards backing that.
I've been trying hard to get our teams to develop for it but there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for it in China...
I have the Mozilla Flame phone and currently it's stable version is Firefox OS 2.0 and honestly, the improvements they've made make FFOS more unique and beneficial for the user. It's almost up to scratch, just a one or two releases and the features will be there. The speed already is there.
to be free from the grasps of a company who spys on your every move
As a user since version 1.0 on a ZTE Open, I have to say that I don't see a single compelling reason for an end-user to buy a FFXOS device, other than possibly price (debatable: many Android handsets fall into nearly the same price point, and the Lumia 520 is basically the same price as the ZTE Open C and better in every possible regard).
I get that it is an incredibly important vision that Mozilla have for the future of HTML5 and apps, but that matters most on the back end for developers and those who provide apps and services. I also understand that Mozilla have made great efforts to ensure that Open WebAPI is as painless as possible for developers to use, and that using very few lines of code, you can write powerful solutions. These are all fantastic things, and the web and technology in general stand to benefit massively from this.
However, from a purely end-user point of view, I find the UI/UX to be lagging severely behind every other platform, not to mention the relatively poor functionality of the stock apps. They do nothing other platforms don't do better.
The performance is abysmal, even on the Flame, and the battery life fluctuates wildly and does not impress me at all given my usage pattern.
I've filed endless amounts of suggestions for expansion and improvements to UI/UX and 99% of the time am met with blind reticence.
The feel I get is not that this is a platform for everyone by everyone, but a platform for a very small subset of the population (which if you analyze what the platform ships with stock and how they market it, Mozilla seems to have no idea who this population is) controlled by a team with a death-grip on it, fingers in their ears, blindfolds on, chanting "This is perfect, this is perfect, you don't know what you're talking about!".
People's tepid response to the platform and its slow adoption rate should stand as testimony to the fact that the platform is far from perfect.
****, the keyboard STILL sucks complete ass even on v2.2 nightly. Something as fundamental as the primary ****ing input method still isn't even done half-assed correct, so what do you think the rest of the experience is like?
Such a frustrating platform... I really wanted this to be the Phoenix that takes the principles and ideals of webOS from the ashes and sets the world of technology on fire, but it looks more like a poof of smoke at this point.
I'll continue daily-driving the Flame, I'll continue filing bugs and suggestions, and I'll likely continue to pull my hair out in frustration. Hopefully at some point all of my frustration will amount to something positive and I'll be able to whole-heartedly endorse this platform to other end-users and evangelize for it. Currently, that is not even a remote possibility.
Because we should be more principled and not support companies that pay no tax.
I wonder how many people are actually using FFOS as their only phone.
I have a ZTE Open, I am downloading and compiling FFOS builds once every few weeks, hack around just for fun.
But I have an Android for my daily use.
So I read today that apparently it has been known for quite a while that Sailfish OS' "Alien Dalvik" feature will be unavailable on all non-Jolla phones which makes it impossible for those of us who want to install Sailfish on their own devices to use Android applications and need to be locked to the Sailfish native applications.
This is due to Alien Dalvik being proprietary and licensed software from the Myriad Group, thus cannot be bundled with ports of Sailfish OS (that includes the Nexus 4, i9305, Nexus 7 ports). As far as I can see it's sold as well, so installing it on the side like Gapps seems to be out of the question.
Has Jolla mentioned anything about this? All I can find are community members saying Alien Dalvik will be unavailable on ports due to the licensing of the product. Without it, Sailfish OS might suddenly becomes a much less interesting as a whole to many, as the ability to install and run Android applications were one of the key features of a otherwise very interesting OS. Any thoughts or more light to shed on this? Will Sailfish OS users that aren't using Jolla phones be stuck with native applications permanently? Or is this something Jolla will change as the product matures?
It's obviously a "pay to play" situation. To rectify it, Jolla would have to charge users a fee to install Sailfish on 3rd party handsets or violate their TOS with Myriad. I don't see that happening. Maybe if enough users come on board, Myriad will find it attractive to offer a license/apk directly to Sailfish users?
Consistant said:
Will Sailfish OS users that aren't using Jolla phones be stuck with native applications permanently? Or is this something Jolla will change as the product matures?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stuck? Really? I think it's a great opportunity for Android developers to start making applications for Sailfish instead of free riding on Android apps. It's open source, open to modifications, fast, smooth & capable. A true mobile Linux OS. There aren't much excuses not to develop for Sailfish.
Arty. said:
There aren't much excuses not to develop for Sailfish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, there is. The lack of a larger user base.
I'd love for developers to make apps for Sailfish, but the tiny user base will scare AAA developers away from the platform as they would rather develop for a bigger niche OS like Ubuntu Touch or Firefox OS, Sailfish is rather obscure compared to those. Plus the fact that the native apps are required to be free at this point in time with no form of paid transactions being possible. Most of these AAA developers won't have the same view on open source, especially considering how few applications are open on other platforms.
The alien dalvik was one of the main things that could make Sailfish triumph over other niche mobile operating systems. It was of the key selling points to get people to convert to Sailfish from Android once the porting really starts happening. Otherwise they'll simply ask how big the app store is and once they hear answer is a number with two digits where most of them which are most likely rather lacking in features compared to applications on other platforms will scare people off big time.
The Android VM was one of the huge advantages Sailfish had to attract the niche user base and thus developers to make native apps and now I can see most potential converters sticking with whatever they had making Sailfish DOA together with Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch. I'd really hate to see that happen.
Consistant said:
Yes, there is. The lack of a larger user base.
I'd love for developers to make apps for Sailfish, but the tiny user base will scare AAA developers away from the platform as they would rather develop for a bigger niche OS like Ubuntu Touch or Firefox OS, Sailfish is rather obscure compared to those. Plus the fact that the native apps are required to be free at this point in time with no form of paid transactions being possible. Most of these AAA developers won't have the same view on open source, especially considering how few applications are open on other platforms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And how is Ubuntu touch bigger than Sailfish? Jolla launched and started selling their Sailfish phone way before Canonical. They have a more finished OS than any of these guys. They have all the needed tools to develop. Heck they even made an emulator to test apps. I don't see this being more obscure than others. Unlike Ubuntu's marketting schemes, Sailfish is here & it's happening now.
I agree on the open source part though. I tried to refer to the developers here that mod Android by saying open source.
Consistant said:
The alien dalvik was one of the main things that could make Sailfish triumph over other niche mobile operating systems. It was of the key selling points to get people to convert to Sailfish from Android once the porting really starts happening. Otherwise they'll simply ask how big the app store is and once they hear answer is a number with two digits where most of them which are most likely rather lacking in features compared to applications on other platforms will scare people off big time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will any others have dalvik on their images? Don't think so.
Consistant said:
The Android VM was one of the huge advantages Sailfish had to attract the niche user base and thus developers to make native apps and now I can see most potential converters sticking with whatever they had making Sailfish DOA together with Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch. I'd really hate to see that happen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too so instead of saying there aren't any reasons to develop for these OS's we should show that there are.
And time is needed for the large user base. People are always skeptical about new and rather "different" things. Hopefully these players will get more tracktion by time.
Is this final? Without Android Apps no Sailfish for me and many others I guess...
Gesendet von meinem GT-N7100 mit Tapatalk
IceTe said:
Is this final? Without Android Apps no Sailfish for me and many others I guess...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has pretty much been set in stone. Jolla are paying Myriad for the licensing per Jolla phone, they can't distribute it for free as it would break their deal and be illegal. You won't be seeing any Alien Dalvik on non-Jolla phones unless a "fix" to make it happen comes around which certainly wouldn't be legal.
The only way I can see Jolla fixing this issue is by having licenses for the Alien Dalvik being sold in the Jolla Store or something similar and that it can be activated through the store. That doesn't seem to be happening soon, unfortunately. Especially considering nothing can be sold in the Jolla Store at this moment in time.
The lack of Alien Dalvik on 3rd party devices is actually a feature to many of us. Having Sailfish on this zooty LG Optimus G i have collecting dust, with no Google nonsense, would finally get me to retire my trusty Nokia N9.
croozah said:
The lack of Alien Dalvik on 3rd party devices is actually a feature to many of us. Having Sailfish on this zooty LG Optimus G i have collecting dust, with no Google nonsense, would finally get me to retire my trusty Nokia N9.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The lack of such a huge key feature should never be a feature in and of itself, rather having the freedom of choice would be.
Having the option to install the VM or not, just like Google Apps, would solve both the problems. Locking many of the potential converters down to using the current sloppy apps in the Jolla Store would not be an advantage for both sides as less people would convert, thus less developers will make quality native applications which will in turn affect both parties.
Even Carol Chen, one of the core Sailfish OS team members, mentioned in a recent Jolla blog post that over half of her apps on her Jolla smartphone were Android apps which means the native apps certainly aren't cutting it right now for many.
Just to clarify...
Alien dalvik allows sailfish OS users to also install android apps? But without it (licensed software only on jolla phones) it is not possible to install these apps on 3rd party phones. And only sailfish or native apps are available?
If this is the case, at least for me, I would be using sailfish as a secondary to my android. I wouldnt be jumping right in, which means that surely other people would be in the same boat. This is also assuming that a port will be fully functional without alien dalvik on a 3rd party phone?
Kesselaar said:
This is also assuming that a port will be fully functional without alien dalvik on a 3rd party phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'll be fully functional (although limited to just a handful of Android devices to ensure a relatively reliable/stable experience), there just won't be a compat. layer for Android apps/content. Such a compat. layer could ofc eventually be offered via the store, but that remains to be seen, people need to be pressing Jolla & Myriad about all of that.
It all depends what you use on Android, if its just the standard stuff plus a few big ones such as whatsapp (check out the port) you'll be fine. To me Alien Dalvik is mostly for those niche apps, that turn up and have everyone going crazy for a few days. Like flappy bird, etc etc
Consistant said:
The lack of such a huge key feature should never be a feature in and of itself, rather having the freedom of choice would be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your premise is fundamentally flawed. Alien Dalvik is a licensed, patent-encumbered, proprietary software, therefore having it is not a choice unless you somehow buy it; or steal it. The community cannot distribute it; there is no choice.
As I said, and it may be obtuse to some, but this is a feature. A true Linux-based OS that is mostly/completely F/OSS running on modern high-spec hardware is a huge draw. That there is no Android/Google stuff is an added bonus.
Too bad. I really liked the OS before I read this thread...
Oh well, staying on android untill someone figures out how to build an OS that is written in some kind of C for performance and has a VM to emulate existing apps untill they are developed for the OS natively...
ilans93 said:
Too bad. I really liked the OS before I read this thread...
Oh well, staying on android untill someone figures out how to build an OS that is written in some kind of C for performance and has a VM to emulate existing apps untill they are developed for the OS natively...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
buy a jolla phone?!
only the ports on android phones missing alien dalvik. The jolla phone is able to do that. Also it's a linux based mobile os. Many parts, like in android, are written in c. With QT5 they use a technology like kde desktop.
carepack said:
buy a jolla phone?!
only the ports on android phones missing alien dalvik. The jolla phone is able to do that. Also it's a linux based mobile os. Many parts, like in android, are written in c. With QT5 they use a technology like kde desktop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, and that's exactly what I like about it.
As for the android phones, I really don't feel the need to upgrade from my galaxy nexus.
I just don't want to see SailfishOS end up like maemo and meego. They were great, but only among us geeks so they didn't become mainstream enough and development stopped (in a way).
If Alien Dalvik could be exported to android hardware then the OS would have a sure future, this way it is uncertain...
ilans93 said:
...If Alien Dalvik could be exported to android hardware then the OS would have a sure future, this way it is uncertain...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If there are enough adopters of Sailfish on Nexus 4 and Galaxy S3, Myriad may offer a license of their Alien Dalvik to those users... For a few dollars you might be able to "have it all."
RumoredNow said:
If there are enough adopters of Sailfish on Nexus 4 and Galaxy S3, Myriad may offer a license of their Alien Dalvik to those users... For a few dollars you might be able to "have it all."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What if you can capture the Dalvik RPM from a Jolla phone when downloading from store?
n9 can capture deb from Nokia Store
RumoredNow said:
If there are enough adopters of Sailfish on Nexus 4 and Galaxy S3, Myriad may offer a license of their Alien Dalvik to those users... For a few dollars you might be able to "have it all."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be a dream come true!
flotron said:
What if you can capture the Dalvik RPM from a Jolla phone when downloading from store?
n9 can capture deb from Nokia Store
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could, but that's not exactly legal...
I think the answer may be more simple than you all have considered so far. The phone does not come with the Alien Dalvik included it has to be downloaded, no? Maybe Jolla pays based on downloads of the Alien Dalvik from the store and that's why (or one of the reasons why) the store is not enabled yet on this early Alpha release.
edit: OK I just asked if there will be a way for us to purchase a license in the future on IRC and stskeeps said they are not leaving it out as a possibility but basics are first.
So there is hope. I guess they will decide after they see how everything goes. I guess it's one of those company strategy things. Will letting us have Alien Dalvik lead to less apps being developed for Sailfish or more? I think more simply because it will excite developers to get in on the cover actions.