Android 3.0 Is Trickling In, But Are the Apps?

jhernik writes "As tablets based on the new Honeycomb version of Android appear, critics have questioned Google's moves to enforce a standard Android platform, and said there may be as few as 20 'real' apps for the devices. Motorola's Xoom tablet is due to appear in the UK next week, along with the Eee Transformer, but their ability to compete with the recently-launched Apple iPad 2 may be hurt by the shortage of tablet-optimised Android apps. Meanwhile, reports that Google wants to standardise Android hardware are causing alarm."

Comments

What's different

[Compaqt]

What's different this version as opposed to others that only 20 apps are considered 'real'?

And what about Apple's trick of just doubling the pixel usage for iPad vs iPhone apps to repurpose the latter for the former?

Does that work on Android?

Re:What's different

[brunes69]

The Android platform automatically scales apps like that already. It has to because Android supports lots of resolutions (unlike iOS).

Have never understood all these "lack of tablet-optimized apps" BS... it all seems like FUD to me. Most iOS apps I have seen are identical between their tablet and phone versions.

Re:What's different

[werdnapk]

Android 3.0 (Honeycomb) was developed with tablet type computers in mind and is not meant for smartphones. Android 2.x apps will still work, they just won't be optimized for the interface.

Re:What's different

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not BS. There can be a huge benefit when the developer actually customizes their layout to account for more screen real estate with lower DPI. Automatically scaling apps usually results in odd looking UI and wasted space.

Re:What's different

[Haedrian]

That's true.

However, there are certain new features that 3.0 brings, such as fragments, and action bars and stuff like that.

There's really no cause for alarm, if it works in pre-3.0 it'll work, it just won't be as polished as it should be.

Re:What's different

[gstoddart]

Most iOS apps I have seen are identical between their tablet and phone versions.

It's when they don't have a version for the iPad that you really see the difference.

You can zoom it so it fills the screen, but it ends up being an app that only works in portrait mode, has clunky, poorly rendered buttons, and generally feels different to use. You can usually see the big jaggies around the edges of things and sometimes a button ends up being ginormous as it was sized for a small, hand-held.

If someone doesn't include the higher-res graphics, it's quite obviously an app meant for a phone.

Can't speak to Android, but I can say that an app meant for a phone doesn't always work as well as you'd like on a tablet.

Re:What's different

[iluvcapra]

What's different this version as opposed to others that only 20 apps are considered 'real'?

A "real" Honeycomb tablet app would use Fragments and rely on all of those fancy tablet features that are keeping Honeycomb from being open-sourced (or so we are informed).

Android apps rescale more intelligently than "2x" mode on an iPad but a lot of them don't do the "right thing" in terms of layout, for example the pre-Honeycomb Facebook app on a tablet will expand its view to the entire size of the screen and scale its fonts appropriately, but the icons in the window retain the same smartphone-optimized size and matrix. The developer can account for these things but it's something they have to do on their own; developing for Android doesn't automatically provide this for free.

There are 300,000 iPhone/iOS apps, and 65,000 of those apps target the iPad screen size. The platform requires devs do actually make two separate versions but this doesn't seem to be a significant speed bump for people. The fact that there are exactly two screen sizes actually seems to make their lives easier.

Re:What's different

[Anonymous Coward]

"However, there are certain new features that 3.0 brings, such as fragments, and action bars and stuff like that."

Check it out, Google's trying to redefine "fragment" in Android as a *good thing*.

Re:What's different

[Anonymous Coward]

That’s a flat-out lie.

Re:What's different

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

When designing an app there can be a huge (and beneficial) difference in layout , UI, and control mechanisms between a 3.7" screen and a 7, 10, or 11" screen. The same apps will often work (if looking a bit pixelated) but it will offer far from the best user experience.

Re:What's different

[Americano]

The platform requires devs do actually make two separate versions

Just to clarify, for the people who will say "What, they make you buy two copies of the same app?!?!?!1111!!!" You can embed the UI information for both iPad and iPhone apps into a single application bundle, so that the same app will display the properly-optimized UI for whatever screen size it's running on. Other apps are designed exclusively for the iPad and can't be loaded on the iPhone, and some apps only have an iPhone-sized UI, and so look like shit when pixel-doubled on the iPad - even if they could make the elements smooth instead of jagged and pixelated, they still are *immense* on the iPad compared to the UI elements you're used to, and look like giant-sized toy versions of themselves.

Re:What's different

[syntap]

You obviously don't own a Xoom. Many apps are just tiny rectangles taking the top-half of the screen or so. Some apps scale, most I have tried are not scaling.

Re:What's different

[errandum]

The difference is, Android apps are already made to support multiple resolutions in a multitude of devices (unlike the original iPhone apps that were done for a 320x240 screen). You were streching your 76800px to 786432. That's 10x more pixels. Most High end android phones already do 800x480 (half the number of px). So yes, they stretch, but never as much

So no, it's not the same situation. What Honeycomb specific apps will bring is the ability to have more stuff on the screen at the same time, I think. But it's a new platform, people have to wait and see.

Re:What's different

[DdJ]

Have never understood all these "lack of tablet-optimized apps" BS... it all seems like FUD to me

Want to see the reality of the issue?

Go get a Nook Color and either jailbreak it or make a Honeycomb SD card to boot off or something. Make it so you can install non-tablet Android apps on it.

Now get the official "Google Reader" app for Android and run it.

On a phone-sized device, it's completely fine, because you can hold the device with one hand, and all the controls are within reach of the thumb of that hand. On the tablet-sized device, the UI goes from "nice enough that it gets out of your way and can be ignored" to "pretty darned annoying".

It's not just a matter of resolution or scaling -- UI design for something phone-sized is not the same as UI design for something bigger than phone-sized.

(Under iOS, what you're supposed to do is query the system about which UI paradigm is in effect, or specify for which UI paradigm your software is designed -- that's the "UIDeviceFamily" stuff. That way you don't have to make the decision based on checking pixel counts, leaving the door open for both phone-sized and tablet-sized devices with different pixel counts.)

Re:What's different

[Petron]

I have a Xoom.

So far every app I've used worked perfectly and scaled well. This really looks like a FUD attack... And I have only one (that I know of) app made for the tablet platform (Weatherbug).

Re:What's different

[bemymonkey]

Yes, the apps aren't as pretty or functional as they could be if they were fully optimized for the form factor.

However, saying that only 20 apps are available for the $500-1000 device someone is about to buy is just plain untrue... You can already use what you've got, and it'll get prettier and more functional over time.

Re:What's different

[poetmatt]

Apple's double pixel trick is a horrible thing to do, in all honesty. There are better ways to do it. the whole article means nothing though, as it's not google that dictates that developers program their apps for 3.0 among other things such as the apps not needing to be programmed for honeycomb ever, even.

Re:What's different

[crazycheetah]

I do own a Xoom and I don't have the problem to the degree that you're stating. Mind you, I probably use more apps that just use Android's normal UI drawing mechanisms, which is what scales just fine. There's no pixelation or anything. It is a little weird to have a list that fits on a phone screen taking up the whole tablet screen, but it doesn't look horrible.

There are apps that are ridiculous and won't scale. Some of those are for better reason (Pandora, for example, I can understand, as that's a little more challenging to make scale up to the larger screen without further work), but some of them are just stupid. Dictionary.com app has a clunky interface that takes twice or more longer to load and interact with anyway, and that probably looks like shit on the Xoom--I haven't tried, because I've honestly avoided apps like that on the Xoom and have tried to stick to apps that I know should have reasonable expectation of working without problems, and those apps work great.

In my opinion, except for some that the developers just need to get on top of, the problem of apps looking shitty on the Xoom is mostly the fault of the developers who think they have to use their own shiny UI or try to make it look exactly like it looks on the iPhone (which is the only one that I can see their point, as the same interface across multiple platforms is a nice idea, but in my opinion, it's an idea that leads to more bad than good) and therefore run slow on Android and not allow Android to scale it automatically. I despise Apple's control over the App Store, but that's a very clear and obvious advantage to that control and disadvantage to Android's openness.

Re:What's different

[monopole]

Pretty much FUD or worse. I own several tablets w/ 1024x600, 800x600 and 800x480 resolutions running 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. All the apps scale fine (w/ the exception of ACV which has pretty much been obsoleted by PerfectView). To tell the truth, the cellphone style interfaces are fine particularly if you have fat fingers and bad eyes.

This is mainly a game by which Apple defines what are "real" tablets to continue the perception of the tablet as an expensive luxury item.

Re:What's different

[Applekid]

There's really no cause for alarm, if it works in pre-3.0 it'll work, it just won't be as polished as it should be.

But who could resist spreading FUD instead?

OMG only 20 apps! Android really sucks after all... better go get an iPad instead!

Re:What's different

[GooberToo]

That would be an application bug. Any application which fails to scale is either extremely purpose centric addressing a specific niche or flatly not even trying to comply with developer guidelines.

Re:What's different

[Svartalf]

Heh... Angry Birds works on Honeycomb, most other apps seem to do "okay" as well. The phone stuff moves well to tablets, but you can do things slightly different if you know you've got the real estate on the screen- which when combined with the lack of UI scalability on iOS is where the presumption you "need" 'tablet-optimized' stuff in the first place.

Re:What's different

[Svartalf]

And the opposite reality is the Browser or something like Angry Birds. Works FINE without any optimization needed. If written without some assumptions it works well in both environments (If you don't "optimize" it for phones, you'll have much, much less issues.). Yes, your example's a good one- but most of the apps are actually fully functional and non-problematic on the Nook Color with Honeycomb- I know, I'm running in that configuration right now.

Re:What's different

[Sonny Yatsen]

I have a Nook Color and I also have the Google Reader app on it. I don't see the annoying factor you see. Then again, I also don't expect to use a tablet one-handed.

Re:What's different

[ThinkWeak]

Of the apps I've used so far on my tablets, a Galaxy Tab and an Archos 70 (both running Android 2.2), I haven't encountered an issue when using an app written for the phone. That's not to say I probably wouldn't run into one if I looked for awhile, but the games and productivity apps I've used seem to scale very well between the two.

I can't compare to the iPad scaling, I assumed it worked the same way. Reading your comment above, I guess it doesn't.

Re:What's different

[gilesjuk]

Rubbish. Many iPad versions are much improved. There is space on the left side of the mail application to show a list of all your mails (landscape mode), on the iPhone you have to move back and forth. Same applies to the settings screen on the iPad.

The iPad has extra GUI controls. A tweaked version of Cocoa touch which suits a tablet size device more. It is up to the developer to produce an application that uses them well.

Scaling is not the same as an improved layout and being able to show more things on screen.

Re:What's different

[SoftwareArtist]

There also are lots of apps that don't benefit from changing the layout, and simply scaling the UI up to the larger screen is exactly what you want. A lot of games, for example, are in this category. So those apps are already "optimized" for tablets, but because that optimization doesn't require any 3.0 specific features, they somehow don't count. That's just silly. In truth, a lot fewer Android apps than iOS apps need to be customized for tablets, because Android has supported resolution independence a lot longer and lots of apps already use it.

Re:What's different

[DdJ]

Yup, you're correct, there are certainly plenty of apps that work just as well at the big form factor as the small. I can't comment on "most" apps, but there are certainly more than a few.

You mention not "optimizing" for phones though... the thing is, when you do that, you often get a better experience on phones. Most times, I'll take a UI optimized for a particular use over a generic UI, and "phone" and "tablet" are different uses, and often benefit from different UIs. But yeah, "Angry Birds" is an example of an app where it just doesn't matter.

Perhaps surprisingly, ebook readers aren't. On a phone you can hold with one hand and touch both the left and right sides of the screen, so that's a fine way to navigate -- keeps your thumbs from obscuring the text. On a tablet, that requires much more movement, and your thumb/finger is smaller relative to the reading area, so it's better to make sure you can page in both directions from within a small area of the screen (so "swipe, anywhere on the screen, in the direction you want to go" can be better than "tap the edge of the screen in the direction you want to go").

This does come up in games too. Some UI elements you want to scale, other UI elements (like a d-pad) you want to keep a relatively constant size. But absolutely, for stuff like Angry Birds or World of Goo, where you just touch stuff instead of using a separate control UI, that issue isn't there.

(My Nook does run Honeycomb by default, but it's frustrating for me often enough that I'm looking forward to the B&N update next month that brings more apps and a Nook-specific app store to the base platform. I may end up switching back from Honeycomb to what they provide, until Honeycomb catches up further in usability. One thing we'll be able to say about the B&N Nook app store is that every app in it is going to be there with the tablet form factor in mind, since it'll only run on one specific tablet. Which is not to say it'll all be well done...)

Re:What's different

[DdJ]

The problem is the navigation. On a phone, it doesn't take a lot of movement to move between the "go to previous article" button, the "go to next article" button, or to navigate back up a folder level. The two buttons at the bottom each take up half of the width of the screen, and on a phone that's not a lot of width.

On a tablet, better design would have been for the controls to be either sized or arranged differently. Heck, in landscape mode they could rip the UI off of Honeycomb's GMail app, that'd be much better.

(It's possible that I'm more aware of this than a lot of folks because of how long I've been using handhelds and how many different ones I've used and developed for, going back to Newton, MagicCap, PalmOS, studying the old Pen APIs for Windows 3.1 tablets, using a wide variety of WinCE devices... my oldest "tablet" is probably a Vadem Clio, when its transformer powers put it into tablet mode. I've also got an iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad, and I see how the apps end up customized for the specific usage paradigms. So I'm comparing what Android does to a lot of other things.)

As for using a tablet one-handed, for simple tasks like reading I certainly do expect to. I did it with my eMate (which didn't have a tablet-sized display, but did have tablet-sized bulk), my Vadem Clio (amazing physical form factor, this thing), and my iPad, and the Nook is significantly smaller and lighter than any of those. I want to be able to pull it out and read while I'm standing on a bus holding onto something with my other hand so I don't fall down. With a different UI design, I could do that with my Nook more pleasantly. Proof: with some other apps on it, I can.

Re:What's different

[Old97]

You don't have much experience with iPad and iPhone apps, do you? First of all there are a number of apps that only run on the iPad and secondly, quality apps that have been optimized for the iPad - which includes those that have code for both the phone and the pad - work much differently. I've evaluated about 120 serious iPad applications now for my company and a larger number of iPhone apps. Screen size and form factor does matter. An iPhone app that just zooms to fill an iPad screen doesn't take advantage of the larger screen. On an iPad you typically see side menus (in landscape) and other handy navigation features. There is more and more useful multi-media content included in the news apps. I have apps that I can use to design or decorate houses and apartments, do mind maps, UML, spreadsheets (serious ones), documents, etc., analytics, graphics and data visualization and more. None of these apps make sense on phone form factor. You can't put enough content and UI on the screen at one time to satisfy anyone. With a 9 or 10 inch screen you can.

People who think that an iPad is a bigger iPod touch are too clueless to be allowed to work in IT, unfortunately a number of them seem to be working in desktop services. Android tablets seriously need apps like what is available on the iPad if they are to compete. Without the apps, no one cares about the operating system or the hardware.

Re:What's different

[Coren22]

Do you have a link for a honeycomb image for the nook? I would be interested in running that.

Re:What's different

[ArsonSmith]

you need to subscribe to playboy then.

Re:What's different

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone was 320x480 ;) But the rest of your post stands - iPhones at that point only had one resolution and form factor (essentially they still do), so apps were tailored to that. Meanwhile, Android already supported a variety of different resolutions and aspect ratios, so good authors already supported changing the interface as appropriate.

Amusingly, the iOS interface tools are just as flexible and powerful, and good authors were already using the layout tools - but I dare say not many set everything up properly.

That said, even well-designed 2.2 applications which scale up look pretty stupid and sparse at Honeycomb resolutions...

Re:What's different

[nedwidek]

It is BS because they've put a lot of thought into it. If the app looks like crap it's probably because the developer did everything they say not to do on this page:
http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html

iOS apps can look like crap too when the developer doesn't do what you need to do there for screen independence.

Re:What's different

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that Honeycomb has a lot of new features, and significantly higher res+larger screens than the 7" Tab and the Archos 70 - it's quite a different situation on the Xoom and larger Tabs :)

Re:What's different

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics

Most apps actually do quite well between my 3.5", 4.3" and 7" devices.

Re:What's different

[DdJ]

Do you have a link for a honeycomb image for the nook? I would be interested in running that.

Here's the best starting point I'm aware of:

http://nookdevs.com/Portal:NookColor

If you go with the option I picked, you'll need a microSD card that's at least 4GB (you're going to "dd" a disk image complete with partition map to it), and the higher speed class you can get, the better, since you actually run off the flash card and ignore the Nook's internal storage (which actually lets you do this without rooting/jailbreaking the Nook at all, which is Fucking Awesome -- power down, take out the card, power back up, and you're restored to factory condition).

Re:What's different

[Svartalf]

Hopefully the games I've ported from Windows to Linux will move over nicely enough. (Main reason I've a Nook and about to get a Xoom... I've got a few other Android devices, but the tablets are going to be important to make it not matter either way over... :-D)

Re:What's different

[Man Eating Duck]

There can be a huge benefit when the developer actually customizes their layout to account for more screen real estate with lower DPI. Automatically scaling apps usually results in odd looking UI and wasted space.

I agree. Just ask any WinXP user with a vertical screen resolution of less than 800 px, in some system windows the 'Ok' and 'Cancel' buttons will not be visible due to fixed layout.

Re:What's different

[Karlt1]

Have never understood all these "lack of tablet-optimized apps" BS... it all seems like FUD to me. Most iOS apps I have seen are identical between their tablet and phone versions.

Well you haven't seen many iPad apps. Even if you look no further than the standard apps like Mail, Calendar, Settings, YouTube, etc., you will see a huge difference between the interfaces on the iPad and the iPhone.

Not to even mention apps like Hulu, Netflix, Vevo, Pandora etc. that let you view the video non-full screen while browsing other content.

Re:What's different

[thegarbz]

On a phone-sized device, it's completely fine, because you can hold the device with one hand, and all the controls are within reach of the thumb of that hand. On the tablet-sized device, the UI goes from "nice enough that it gets out of your way and can be ignored" to "pretty darned annoying".

So you bought something the size of a folded tabloid and you expect to control the entire thing with your thumb? Here's a flip side. Why would I as a developer want to create a different app for every different screen size out there just so you don't need to move your fat fingers? If you bought something expecting to hold it with one hand and control it with the same hand, maybe you should have bought a phone to begin with.

I'm sure many would agree that the biggest selling points of tablets is that the larger screen allows for better two handed UI interaction.

Re:What's different

[hitmark]

Yep, the most likely place to run into problems are those programs that use a custom ui based on bitmaps in an an attempt to be noticed and remembered from a marketing perspective.

Re:What's different

[hitmark]

And for big media, news division, to get more people over to the most locked up platform so that they can push their "enhanced" reading experiences for a fee...

I wonder what would happen if one lined up the hardest critics of honeycomb in media and the media corp news apps on ipad...

Re:What's different

[hey!]

What's different this version as opposed to others that only 20 apps are considered 'real'?

What's different is that it scares some people who'd prefer that you buy an iPad.

Re:What's different

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

What's different this version as opposed to others that only 20 apps are considered 'real'?

The biggest difference is that until now you were able to blame the lacking sales of Android tablets on the fact "that they didn't run Honeycomb, which actually supports the tablet paradigm", but instead have to find a better excuse. Hey, you could try "Apple forces developers not to develop Honeycomb apps - with money!"

Re:What's different

[Dog-Cow]

If you had any reading comprehension skill, you wouldn't come across as a complete moron.

Re:What's different

[AndrewStephens]

Pixel Doubling looks terrible but for a lot of apps it can actually be better unless the app is designed to be resolution independent right from the start. Sure you can just scaling any vector drawing and fonts to full the larger screen, but some programs rely on drawing over bitmaps (for instance) in a pixel perfect way. Trying to do any kind of intelligent scaling is going to ruin the look of these apps. I can understand why Apple did it this way.

Re:What's different

[gig]

If you just run the mini-apps, then why even buy the larger screen device? You buy the device to run the apps, so big apps cause users to want to buy the big device.

With the iPad, one of the surprises was that users basically don't run the mini-apps, even though they run great. When the iPad first came out, it was the fastest iOS device ever, it ran the existing app catalog really, really well. But I have an iPhone and iPad and run 2 completely different sets of apps on each device. You run the full-size browser, full-size email, and other full-size apps and when you switch to a mini-app, it's a context switch. You go from a PC context to a phone context.

iPad launched with 500 full-size apps, had 1000 within a month, and it has scaled up quickly from there to 65,000. These are not mini-apps like on a phone, they are full-size apps like on a PC. Many are directly ported from Mac or PC or game consoles. In many cases, you stop running the app on a Mac and start running it on an iPad.

So Honeycomb having only 20 full-size apps after a month is a drag. Android only supporting Java apps, which are mini-apps by nature, is also a drag. With a full-size device, you want a PC class native C app that takes full advantage of every pixel of the PC class 10-inch 1024x768 screen, you don't want a widget-sized app scaled up 2x.

Re:What's different

[gig]

> There also are lots of apps that don't benefit from changing the layout, and simply scaling the UI up to the larger
> screen is exactly what you want. A lot of games, for example, are in this category.

No, that is not true. It is never true. We don't have to guess at this, we've already seen the iOS app platform transition from small devices only to a mix of small and large devices.

Why am I buying a PC size screen to run the same exact app from my phone just scaled up? I am not. That does not sell tablets. What sells you a tablet is you get to run scaled-down PC apps, not scaled-up phone apps. The benefit is you get a PC class app in a device that is half the size and weight and double the battery life of even the smallest PC. The browser in the iPad is not a scaled up mini-browser, it's a full-size browser. It's not the iPhone browser scaled-up a bunch, it's the Mac browser scaled-down a little bit. With games, it is the same. You want the game to be a slightly scaled-down version of the PC or console game, not a scaled-up version of the phone game. You want richer textures, wider open vistas, and you want the game to work like it's full-size version, not its mini-version.

Layouts have to change dramatically on the larger screen. A 3-4 inch app is a widget, while a 10 inch app is a PC app. Widgets do all kinds of tricks to get around being so small, showing you long scrolling menus that then disappear to show the chosen item in a small view. A full-size app can show you the menu in 1/4 of the screen and the items you're choosing in a large 3/4 view. A widget can show you just a few buttons, sized for fingers. A full-size app can show you many more buttons, still sized for fingers.

What you're missing is that iPad is not a big iPhone, it is a small Mac/PC. It doesn't seem that way because iOS and touch are coming from the phone, but the full-size 10 inch screen is the defining feature of iPad, and that is coming from the Mac. And the OS X underneath is a PC class OS, the app platform is PC class native C. People are buying iPad to be a small Mac/PC, not to be a big phone. The apps have to be actual full-size apps, that is what not only attracts the users, but that is just what users end up running. Even if you already have a large collection of iPhone apps, you end up using the ones that have iPad interfaces and buying new ones that have iPad interfaces, even when they are replacing the functionality of iPhone apps you already own, even when you continue to use the iPhone apps on an iPhone.

Re:What's different

[gig]

> iOS apps can look like crap too when the developer doesn't do what you need to do there for screen independence.

iOS developers don't have to do anything for screen independence. There is still essentially only 1 screen size on iOS: 3.5 inch, 320x480. An app that size will look great on any device. You can optionally enhance your app for Retina iPhone, and you can optionally enhance your app for iPad. But that is totally optional.

The exception is a developer can specifically choose not to run on iPhone at all. In which case, they still have only 1 screen size, but it is 10 inch, 1024x768. Again, nothing to do for screen independence.

Resolution is not the only factor. These are not just screens, they are touch screens. There is also the fingers to consider, which means you have to size the buttons and other elements correctly.

Re:What's different

[shutdown -p now]

The difference between iOS and Android is huge in that respect. On iOS, it does pixel-scaling (simply doubling them) for non-retina-display apps. The result is that 1) you get huge pixels, and 2) you get a huge black border around the app because you can't get from iPhone to iPad screen size by multiplying by a whole number.

On Android, UI is generally designed fluid, and that's because there are many possible screen sizes. When running on tablets, the apps just reflow their UI. Worst case, you get a lot of wasted whitespace between controls, but still no pixellation. In many cases (e.g. file managers) it actually works surprisingly good.

Re:What's different

[shutdown -p now]

I own a Xoom, and the only application which didn't scale for me (out of about three dozen) was one particular game (Majesty), and even then only in the main menu. It got updated to fix this bug in, oh, a week or so? But I wonder, does it count as a "tablet app" now?

Re:What's different

[shutdown -p now]

so "swipe, anywhere on the screen, in the direction you want to go" can be better than "tap the edge of the screen in the direction you want to go"

Are there any readers on Android which don't flip pages in the direction of the swipe (in addition to the ability to flip by tapping on margins)? I've tried five or so before settling on Aldiko and Kindle, and all of them could do it. And that was way before the first Android tablet even came out.

Re:What's different

[exomondo]

No, that is not true. It is never true.

So none of the ipad-specific apps are just scaled up versions of iphone apps?

What you're missing is that iPad is not a big iPhone, it is a small Mac/PC. It doesn't seem that way because iOS and touch are coming from the phone, but the full-size 10 inch screen is the defining feature of iPad, and that is coming from the Mac.

The 10" screen doesn't come from the Mac any more than it comes from the iPhone and every other thing - aside from a couple of tablet-specific layouts - is the same as the iphone. Even the hardware (on the first ipad) is the same as the iphone.

And the OS X underneath is a PC class OS, the app platform is PC class native C.

The app platform is objective-c and the tablet version of iOS is certainly closer to iOS on the iphone than MacOS on the Mac.

Re:What's different

[jrumney]

That's because iOS does its scaling at the bitmap level, assuming the developer has designed their app down to the pixel. Android does scaling at the layout level, and developers have been encouraged to produce scalable layouts from the outset. The quality of phone targeted apps on an Android tablet will not be anywhere near as bad as what iPad owners have experienced with iPhone apps.

Re:What's different

[smash]

If you RTFA, the apple "pixel doubling" of iphone apps are not included in the 65,000 figure.

Re:What's different

[smash]

Because Windows XP, that came out in 2002, was not designed with resolution independence in mind, and has a UI that is not passed through 3d hardware for nice scaling to any size (unlike all of the recent smartphones with their 3d hardware) is worthy of comparison/

Re:What's different

[SilentMobius]

No it doesn't. iOS literally doubles the phone app pixels, it's a terrible way of doing things due to the fact that iOS was not built for resolution independence. Android have been allowing for variable screen sizes and dpi since 1.6. Android apps don't "re-scale" they simply conform to the available space (assuming they are written well)

Re:What's different

[SilentMobius]

Odd, I use Google reader on my Vega, it's first release was pretty poor but it really nice now.
Additionally you don't check "pixel counts" on android you allocate assets depending on device categories

http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html

And helped

[Anonymous Coward]

by the shortage of iPad 2's

Breaking news!

[zill]

While Apple’s iPad 2 has 65,000 applications, excluding those designed for the iPhone. Honeycomb has far fewer, and commentators have been competing to offer lower numbers.

This just in: New tablet has no apps. New cars have no mileage. New bank accounts have a $0 balance. Film at 11.

Re:Breaking news!

[Angostura]

You'll need to nack and see how many iPad-specific apps were ready when the iPad 1 launched, a fair few, I seem to recall, including Apple's iWork stuff.

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

iPad had over 2000 apps at launch

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Android apps just work on 3.0, no need to shell out more to "upgrade" the same app to a new device...

Re:Breaking news!

[by (1706743)]

New bank accounts have a $0 balance.

No I just opened a new bank account with $5,000 in it because a Nigerian prince needs my help for transferring $500M USD. He will leave me with $100M USD for my trouble!

Re:Breaking news!

[rajeevrk]

You'll need to nack and see how many iPad-specific apps were ready when the iPad 1 launched, a fair few, I seem to recall, including Apple's iWork stuff.

Hmmm.... now i wonder, if apple gets to count the apple provided and or sponsored apps at launch time, why dont we do the same for google? Obviously, outside apps wont be ready as fast as the google apps. Also, correct me if i am wrong, but isnt honeycomb still in the final stages before official release, and most manufacturers are able to get it onto devices only because the development is happening out in the open?

Just my 2 cents here....

RkR

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Xoom, which is already on the market, is running Honeycomb, isn't it?

Android is open - if somebody's running it on the market, then surely the source code has been released as well, and we can expect dozens - nay, hundreds! - nay thousands! - of tablet-optimized versions of software in a matter of days, right?

I mean, since it's so open, I figured that devs would have been furiously hacking away at their Honeycomb apps before the Xoom even hit the market. There must be a way that Apple is at fault for this.

Re:Breaking news!

[ronin510]

BREAKING NEWS: Original iPad launches with 2,000 apps.

Shocking, I know, but Apple announced the iPad project in January 2010. They actually gave developers 4 months to prepare for the April launch. Google could have released the SDK months before the Android 3.0 launch (instead of 2 days), but even they admit Android 3.0 isn't fully finished/polished.

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/02/best-ipad-apps-launch/

Re:Breaking news!

[pseudonomous]

Development is not happenning in the open, only google partners like motorola and samsung have access to honeycomb source.

Re:Breaking news!

[PNutts]

You'll need to nack and see how many iPad-specific apps were ready when the iPad 1 launched, a fair few, I seem to recall, including Apple's iWork stuff.

Over 2000 the day before launch and over 3100 the day after launch.

Re:Breaking news!

[LoganDzwon]

Um, you need to stop watching fuax news... -There were apps for iPad when it first came out, (the dev kit included a simulator before launch so some apps had full iPad compatibility launch day.) -If you bought a new car the obometer would not read 0. It would a couple miles on it. (they need to drive it from the factory onto a train, from the train to the truck, from the truck to it's space on the lot. Usually you'd want to test drive it before buying too. 7 miles is not 0. -You can not open a bank account with $0. Most banks require at lest $100 to start a new account.

Re:Breaking news!

[rsborg]

While Apple’s iPad 2 has 65,000 applications, excluding those designed for the iPhone. Honeycomb has far fewer, and commentators have been competing to offer lower numbers.

This just in: New tablet has no apps. New cars have no mileage. New bank accounts have a $0 balance. Film at 11.

Seriously? You're comparing Apps to mileage? At least the iPad came with over 1000 pre-launch.

Its in question now if even little ol' Palm WebOS 3.0 will have more Touchpad apps by the time of it's release than Honeycomb.

Re:Breaking news!

[Altus]

To some extent you are right, but the iPad had a lot of third party applications available at launch. Apple provided the development tools necessary well before the actual launch of the iPad while Google only released theirs just before the Xoom came out.

What I think it comes down to is that the Xoom came out before the OS was really ready and they are suffering for it. Hopefully by the time another Honeycomb tablet comes out there will be more apps available, but I think this was a mistake on the part of Motorola and to some extent, Google.

Of course another big part of this is that Apple designed iOS for a tablet first, before they started designing an iPhone (tablet hardware was not available or cheep enough to build the iPad) so the OS and UI was already designed to scale up to tablet size. Google started from a phone and had to change a lot to take advantage of the tablet form factor.

Re:Breaking news!

[Altus]

That number is native apps, not scaled up iPhone apps, there were way more than 2000 iPhone apps when the iPad came out and they all scaled up to run on the iPad... but who pays money to buy a tablet to run phone apps. Its the native apps that are interesting.

Re:Breaking news!

[Karlt1]

This just in: New tablet has no apps. New cars have no mileage. New bank accounts have a $0 balance. Film at 11.

The iPad had 500+ apps on day 1. Including NetFlix.

Re:Breaking news!

[exomondo]

Android is open - if somebody's running it on the market, then surely the source code has been released as well, and we can expect dozens - nay, hundreds! - nay thousands! - of tablet-optimized versions of software in a matter of days, right?

Wrong. Android is not licensed under a model that requires the release of the source code with the binary or upon request.

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Andy Rubin himself provide us with a definition of open, that went a little something like this:

the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”

I guess maybe Android's new definition of open is:

"Pay us if you want to see the source code, otherwise, tough shit, hippies. TANSTAAFL."

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

But we've been told all about how open it is here, and why that makes it a far superior choice to all its closed competitors... are you saying it's... NOT open?

How can this be?! Somebody say it ain't so - I'm getting close to believing that Google are a bunch of opportunistic hypocritical bastards, and we know how poorly that stance is looked on here on Slashdot!

Re:Breaking news!

[exomondo]

But we've been told all about how open it is here, and why that makes it a far superior choice to all its closed competitors... are you saying it's... NOT open?

I think you're confusing 'open' with GPL. When Android code is released it is released under an open source license.

Re:Breaking news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. Android is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, isn't it? FSF tells us that the Apache 2.0 license is a free software license, and fully compatible with GPLv3. We're told that this is a major strength of Android - its open source nature, it's community spirit, the fact that no single vendor can control its destiny.

And then Google takes a big steaming turd on the concept, and says "Yeah, we're going to ship a bunch of software, but... not so much the code."

Little hypocritical of them to slam other players for being "closed" when they've made it clear that they're going to start playing favorites among the android vendors, who must now please Google with their plans before they'll be allowed to play. Yeah, Google is a great big steaming pile of "open," that much is clear.

Re:Breaking news!

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Hmmm.... now i wonder, if apple gets to count the apple provided and or sponsored apps at launch time, why dont we do the same for google? Obviously, outside apps wont be ready as fast as the google apps. Also, correct me if i am wrong, but isnt honeycomb still in the final stages before official release, and most manufacturers are able to get it onto devices only because the development is happening out in the open?

1) Honeycomb has already been released, binary only. Get a Xoom.
2) Apple-provided apps for the iPad on launch? 3. Pages, Numbers, and Keynote.
3) Apple-sponsored apps for iPad on launch? Dunno. Most apps were developed quickly by independent developers as soon as the SDK was available, which was before the iPad itself was available. A few game developers might have contacted Apple for some assistance, but none that I know were actually sponsored.

The outlook for Honeycomb looks pretty bad.

Google wants to standardize hardware

[hsmith]

Whoever didnt see that coming a mile away was a fool. Google has the perfect bait and switch. Give them a popular OS for free they can do whatever with - let adoption soar. Now, google can start to dictate terms. Hopefully they can get manufactures pushing updates sooner, stop the stupid look and feel customization, etc.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[sunking2]

Google needs to start setting some standards. Real time low latency audio is one example. Android will have a hard time getting applications like audio mixers ala amplitube/garageband because of this. iOS has a 4-5ms latency, Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet. No company is ever going to invest money in creating an application where there is no real guarantee of knowing what hardware will be available to even run it.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[gstoddart]

Hopefully they can get manufactures pushing updates sooner, stop the stupid look and feel customization, etc.

Then, carriers will stop carrying that device.

From what I've seen, cell carriers have a very strong interest in branding the phones and tweaking them. In fact, I've even seen some native abilities disabled/crippled, so that you'd have to go through the carrier for everything ... in one case, a friend determined that they'd removed the ability of his Motorolla to directly visit a URL. Instead, you had to go through a customization by the carrier ... which, oddly enough, seems to have been designed to use twice as much bandwidth. Pretty handy when you're selling metered usage.

I think if Google tried to force too much on the carriers and manufacturers, they'd just go someplace else.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[GooberToo]

Real time low latency audio is one example.

Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.

iOS has a 4-5ms latency, Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet.

That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements. The problem is, its not guaranteed by the OS and the hardware and associated drivers never made any effort to meet such requirements. Samsung hardware in particular is known to have absolutely horrible drivers and/or hardware with extremely high latency. Thusly, what people blame on Android is actually driver and hardware issues. Some Android devices actually can compete with iOS' latency but they are few and far between.

With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[iluvcapra]

Setting standards is fine, but the question is who sets those standards, and wether those standards will be set in the best interests of the community of developers and hardware vendors, in the interests of Google, or in the interest of users. Using access to Android source as a club to force OEMs to use Google search, to hamstring Facebook and other service providers, or to only provide the kind of phone Google sees fit isn't standardization in the interests of consumers.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Altus]

I suspect that, in the mid term, selling tablets through networks will not be the way to go. I know some people who have the 3G iPad, but honestly its hard to justify the cost when Wifi is pretty damn available and you can even use your phone as a hot spot. Its hard to justify a second contract ( the iPad month by month model is better, but still why bother if your phone can be a hotspot). In the long run I think less expensive WiFi only tablets will be the way to go and they will be sold at best buy rather than at AT&T.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[sunking2]

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking. At no point do I say it's a problem with Android. The problem is with not being able to enforce strict hardware requirements on a plethora of different hardware. It's a general flaw in the business model. You can't win every fight and when it comes to ensuring that the platform you are targeting will do what you want hardware wise the Apple model simply wins here.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[gstoddart]

In the long run I think less expensive WiFi only tablets will be the way to go and they will be sold at best buy rather than at AT&T.

Couldn't agree more ... I have the wifi-only version of the iPad ... pretty much most places that I go have free wifi. I can't imagine paying for a cellular data plan for something that 90% of the time I'm connected to a wireless network.

About the only scenario I need to cover is that some hotels only have wired internet. But, that can be solved by bringing a wireless router with me that my iPad is already able to connect to.

I'd like a smart phone, but I just can't justify what it would cost to have one ... my wife and I figure if we changed our current cell phones for smart phones, we'd be paying at least $100/month more. And we're already paying for a crapload of stuff from our provider.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[GooberToo]

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking.

WTF? You're attacking a sincere, neutral, informative, contextual post?

You said:

Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet.

Honeycomb is a specific version of Android. Furthermore, you attributed a specific latency to Honeycomb which simply doesn't exist. Thusly me pointing out the common confusion which you now seem to be compounding. So factually, your statement is completely wrong. To address your factually incorrect statement, I said:

That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements.

So since factually your statement is wrong and my statement is correct and I specifically corrected your statement with additional details which explains why your statement is wrong and your complaint is being addressed, I fail to see why my comprehension skills are the least bit questioned. Perhaps its not my comprehension skills which require correction?

From here, you then take a completely unrelated turn in the same paragraph...which is not to say I'm a grammar Nazi - believe me, I'm not - its just that its confusing since it has absolutely nothing to do with your original assertion that my factually accurate and completely topical statements somehow prove a comprehension issue. This is especially true since you then continue to make an issue of something which I specifically address and yet insist its an issue when clearly its not. Which seemingly further suggests the comprehension issue is squarely between your monitor and chair.

You said:

The problem is with not being able to enforce strict hardware requirements on a plethora of different hardware.

To which I had previously said:

Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.

Perhaps, "comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking", doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[empty mind]

So these guys at https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3434 are complaining for, well, nothing?

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[shmlco]

The very idea of "standardization" could backfire. Badly.

We have precedent for this, because Microsoft did the same thing with Windows, dictating ever stricter hardware standards and forbidding OS changes (though you were apparently free to install as much bloatware as you liked).

And the result? Hardware among vendors was effectively identical. The software WAS identical. And manufacturers well left with little to differentiate a Dell PC from an HP PC from an Acer PC. Change the beige plastic to black plastic? Add some trim? Dell and Gateway tried to make a go of it via the customization route, but faced increased competition from manufacturers who were left with just a single weapon in their toolkit.

What happens when dozens of companies are producing identical products? You end up with a commodity. And how are commodities traded and sold?

On price.

And so manufacturers did the only thing they could do: undercut each other on price, to the point where PC profit margins were things best measured in dimes, not dollars.

I predict the same thing happening to Android. With no significant differentiation, the majority of Android devices will end up being heavily discounted, or even given away as loss leaders by carriers and others attempting to lock subscribers into subscription plans. (Think Amazon and B&N.)

But look at it this way. Finally, Android will be "free".

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the above definitions, device implementations SHOULD exhibit each of these properties:
  cold output latency of 100 milliseconds or less
  warm output latency of 10 milliseconds or less
  continuous output latency of 45 milliseconds or less
  cold input latency of 100 milliseconds or less
  continuous input latency of 50 milliseconds or less

Notice the SHOULD.
These are what companies should meet. The main problem is...they don't have to, and even when that becomes a MUST meet these requirements, they are still rather high. So making an audio app that requires lower latencies seems like a huge PITA when it comes to informing what kind of device the customer would need to get the XAUDIOAPPHERE experience.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[sglewis100]

Real time low latency audio is one example.

Those standards have already been set and are being met. They are on par with what Apple offers and likely will be offering for some time to come. The next generation of Android hardware will all meet the required specifications.

More good news for purchasers of today's tablets. You're only one hardware generation away from something you might want one day.

That's a misrepresentation and a common misconception. The truth is, all 2.x and 3x, versions of Android are capable of competing with iOS's latency measurements. The problem is, its not guaranteed by the OS and the hardware and associated drivers never made any effort to meet such requirements. Samsung hardware in particular is known to have absolutely horrible drivers and/or hardware with extremely high latency. Thusly, what people blame on Android is actually driver and hardware issues. Some Android devices actually can compete with iOS' latency but they are few and far between.

With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.

Do people really care WHY something doesn't work?

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

they are still rather high

Only if you consider Apple's specifications to be "rather high." Current mandatory requirements for next generation hardware meet or exceeds Apple's hardware. Period. The rest is either ignorance or trolling.

I know this because I've actually read the requirements. Have you?

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Altus]

It didn't come out to quite 50 a month for me (or my girlfriend). I got the 2GB data plan through AT&T with the least minuets and the cost increase was something like 20 bucks over my previous Verizon plan (of course if you have a cheep provider you will have different results) but honestly I havent been using that much 3G data. I could have been fine with the 200mb option that my girlfriend went for.

Of course to hot spot costs extra (ridiculous) and requires a higher cap so that would add up.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[rsborg]

Couldn't agree more ... I have the wifi-only version of the iPad ... pretty much most places that I go have free wifi. I can't imagine paying for a cellular data plan for something that 90% of the time I'm connected to a wireless network.

Which is why Apple negotiated and won the on-demand, monthly, post-paid, no-recurrent data option for the iPad. It was, IMHO as important as the OS or device hardware itself; it got worldwide carriers to get on board with the 3G iPad, while at the same time providing a great response to the users' dilemma on 2 data plans (response being: you don't have 2 plans, only one for your smartphone and an option for monthly on the iPad).

Only a huge company like Apple (or Google, or Microsoft) could do this.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[GooberToo]

What is it with comprehension issues?

I said its fixed in next generation hardware? You point to people complaining about current and previous generation hardware? How is your post the least bit topical?

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[gstoddart]

It didn't come out to quite 50 a month for me (or my girlfriend). I got the 2GB data plan through AT&T with the least minuets and the cost increase was something like 20 bucks over my previous Verizon plan (of course if you have a cheep provider you will have different results) but honestly I havent been using that much 3G data.

Yeah, I'm up in Canada, so our wireless situation seems to be a little more expensive and annoying than you guys.

I have a voice-only cell phone, and that already costs me about $40-45/month ... going to a data plan seems like it would cost about $50/month more per line.

Since I'm already paying my cable company for two land lines, two cell phones, internet and cable TV, ... if my wife and I got smart-phones, we'd likely be looking at almost $400/mo for everything. At least her work pays for one of the land lines since she works from home.

I keep hoping that data will go down in price, but that doesn't seem to be something which is likely to happen. I actually know someone who says he pays about $200/month for his Android smart phone and his data plan, but for him it's worth every penny.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[BlitzTech]

One would hope at least one enterprising company would spot a market supply failure and create a product there. There is demand for Android; Google would have work pretty hard to scare manufacturers away. The key here is what is considered "too much", and frankly I don't see Google being particularly ridiculous about it.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Altus]

True, it is pretty awesome, but I still believe that hot spot use will increase and ultimately carriers will have to provide the feature either very cheaply or at no extra charge. As it is on AT&T its 20 bucks but comes with an extra 2GB of data.... I would rather just buy the data I need (because with the limited amount of tethering I do I wouldn't use 4GB in a month) but I suspect that, as this feature becomes more common on more phones and through more providers, the cost will drop and your phone will be the only cellular deceive you have to carry.

Of course with the AT&T / T-Mobile merger this might not happen as quickly as I had hoped.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[tepples]

I know some people who have the 3G iPad, but honestly its hard to justify the cost when Wifi is pretty damn available

Wi-Fi can't handle the city bus or the back seat of a carpool. By the time it's found an open AP, it'll be out of range before it associates. Open Wi-Fi isn't available in the mall[1] or the grocery store[2] either.

and you can even use your phone as a hot spot.

Not my phone. I make fewer than 60 minutes of calls per month and pay per year for service on my Virgin Audiovox 8610 what most smartphone users pay per month. I've gathered that a lot of people are on prepaid dumbphones because it's far cheaper, especially in the collusive United States market. The last time I checked, some major United States carriers didn't even offer Wi-Fi tethering to a phone; they considered it a TOS violation. So I've learned to work without always-on Internet access. Part of this involves using a netbook with Ubuntu rather than a tablet, so that I can download things to work on offline.

[1] Glenbrook Square, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
[2] Walmart and other stores in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[tepples]

One would hope at least one enterprising company would spot a market supply failure and create a product there.

There isn't enough wireless spectrum for "at least one enterprising company" to create a product; the major carriers have gobbled it all up, and the big three don't even appear to offer plans designed for people who bring their own unlocked device.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[node 3]

It was extremely clear what he meant. You clearly misinterpreted his claim, but the fact remains that on iOS, a developer can rely on extremely low latency audio performance, and on Android they cannot. The Android OS itself may well be capable of handling it, but developers target actual installations, not theoretical software capabilities.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[node 3]

You mean this unsubstantiated claim?

With the next generation of Android hardware, all devices will meet or beat iOS' latency requirements.

Yeah, I'm sure that's actually going to happen...

There's a whole lotta vapor coming off Android these days. The *next* version will work on phones again. The *next* version of Flash won't suck. The *next* generation of hardware will blah, blah, blah.

Google's turning Android into a closed platform similar to iOS, but unfortunately they lack the software expertise of Apple, their partners lack the hardware expertise of Apple, and the whole ecosystem lacks the "designs the whole widget" benefit that Apple enjoys.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Culture20]

a friend determined that they'd removed the ability of his Motorolla to directly visit a URL. Instead, you had to go through a customization by the carrier ... which, oddly enough, seems to have been designed to use twice as much bandwidth. Pretty handy when you're selling metered usage.

That's pretty evil.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[chiwaw]

Wow, you DO have reading deficiency. In the following sentence: "Honeycomb is down to a 45ms requirement that hardware manufacturers have to meet." Do you not see the word "requirement" at all? Sunking2 was completely right in his post, but you seems to be unable to properly read what he says, and then you get upset about it. Just calm down, and take the time to actually understand what someone say...

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[BlitzTech]

Counterpoint accepted. All I can do now is sigh, shake my head, and hope my Android phone purchases show enough interest to keep manufacturers/carriers' attention.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[Dog-Cow]

I don't have a cell phone (except for a PAYG that isn't charged, has no money on it, and doesn't do 3G anyway). I cannot use my employer's WIFI with personal devices, and I spend most of my waking hours at work or en-route. Not everyone is a college brat or an unemployed bum mooching WIFI of their parents.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[vlueboy]

And so manufacturers did the only thing they could do: undercut each other on price, to the point where PC profit margins were things best measured in dimes, not dollars.

I predict the same thing happening to Android.

And I'm counting on that. But as of late, even 3+ years after Android's launch, there are too many ripples in the water for prices to stabilize: dual cores and 4G / LTE transitions, iPhones flooding new carriers and outlets, wireless giants' mergers where phones will need carrier changes, etc. Some evidence of price buoyancy is that large Radioshack stores have few offers of "free w/contract" android phones. And only one or two at that, with the tiniest screens of all others at their counters.

Geeky users still on feature-phones like me plus savvy old-time switchers still have to prep to pay $50, $100 or $200 plus contract. PCs got in the tight margin situation not when everyone had one, but around the time when "cheap PC comes with free internet for 6 months" became a marketting tool. Androids and smartphones don't have that kind of saturation yet, cost $500 unsubsidized, and are probably a two full 1.0 releases away from seeing profit margin problems that would drive prices down.

To prove the point, the iPhone just announced a "$50 phone w/contract" tier that IIRC never happened with older iPhones ($99 bottom). It's not on the privileged Verizon network, but on the AT&T one (fighting bad PR and its loss of iPhone exclusivity through price, since tech stopped giving them profit.) That phone is the 2-year-old 3GS model, and offers little benefit because the iPhone 5 announcement is expected in 2 to 6 months. The note here is that the iPhone is a couple years older than the Android, and has finally been forced to join less-desirable priceranges because increasingly marginal "revolutions" can't push profits up, kinda like where dumbphones are today.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[exomondo]

I don't have a cell phone

Then you're an EXTREME minority.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[tepples]

Having a cell phone != having a contract smartphone with tethering. Like grandparent Dog-Cow, I have a prepaid dumbphone, even though I keep mine charged and loaded with minutes. I just don't make near enough voice calls to warrant the 450 minutes/mo voice plan at $40/mo that the major U.S. carriers required a customer to buy (last time I checked) before the carrier would offer a data plan with tethering.

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[exomondo]

Having a cell phone != having a contract smartphone with tethering.

Thanks captain obvious...what part of my post could possibly make you think i would need that pointed out?

Re:Google wants to standardize hardware

[tepples]

what part of my post could possibly make you think i would need that pointed out?

I wasn't pointing it out to you. I was pointing it out to other Slashdot users who have posted in the past, apparently under the mistaken impression that all phones on all plans have already been replaced with smartphones on adequate data plans. There are still plenty of people above no cell phone and below an Android-powered phone, and I'm one of them.

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

All the apps run fine that ran on my phone, and they don't seem to be just "2x" scaled like on the iPad. What are they talking about? It appears to me that most Android apps don't care about the resolution of the device and adapt automatically.

Dammed If They Do ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... and dammed if they don't. Google needs to get a better grip on the Android market to help keep things consistent and keep quality& security high. By doing so they are affecting some aspects of application development.

First to market is great and all, but that horse is already out of the barn (and named Apple). Yes, Apple didn't have the first tablet but they had the first successful tablet. Now Android needs to run a smart race and not just try to chase Apple.

"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term...

[ProppaT]

I don't think Google's trying to standardize hardware as much as they're trying to create a hardware baseline for software releases. It makes sense. There's no reason one should expect last years hardware to run next years software. You get caught up in that messy Microsoft sphere if you do that where you have to bloat all your software to make sure it works with old hardware and new hardware alike. This has been Microsoft's approach with Windows Phone 7 and, while WP7 sales have been lackluster, the hardware baseline itself has been working very well for them. There's less emphasis on comparing hardware specs in the phone and more emphasis on picking the model that you like the best, which is the way that the entire industry is moving relatively quickly.

Scaling looks like crap

[Anonymous Coward]

What's different this version as opposed to others that only 20 apps are considered 'real'?

And what about Apple's trick of just doubling the pixel usage for iPad vs iPhone apps to repurpose the latter for the former?

Does that work on Android?

Yes, that's exactly what happens, and scaled-up apps look just as shitty on Honeycomb as they do on an iPad.

Nobody buys a tablet to run scaled-up phone apps. Until Android tablets get apps designed for tablet-size screens, they won't be that successful.

Re:Scaling looks like crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we don't have to double the pixel count for any application that already supports the high res screens. Even old games like Angry Birds works without pixelation. ~800x400 to ~1000x600 is only about a 20% increase, not 100%. Android manufacturers (generally speaking) hasn't gimped their phones to make a fortune off of the people. I mean, such a low resolution phone, and the were charging the same price as phones with the same sensor but a larger screen with a higher resolution.

Not enough libraries

[Grindalf]

Why didn't they include more Linux libraries, command line utils etc? What's the point in making a linux phone if it doesn't include most of the platform? Or rather, wouldn’t a linux phone with everything included be a nice plaything? WOW! How about a Free BSD UNIX command line mobile? Later ...

Re:Not enough libraries

[ThatMegathronDude]

Linux kernel != GNU Linux-based OS.

Re:Not enough libraries

[Grindalf]

With precision you are correct, and all the original spiegel implied linux in a phone, i.e. a Richard Stallman type platform. Whenever this notion appeared on this site everyone became exited, as you can recompile your own binaries on such a device – I still believe that this would be a good toy.

Re:Not enough libraries

[Tacvek]

If you want a phone that you can run vim or emacs on, then what you want is an Openmoko or MeeGo/Maemo/Moblin phone. Just keep in mind that a desktop UI does not work well on a phone, so they usually have some phone-specific environment running, although they have a command line, and the basics are installed by default, and you can use the package manager to install you favorite Linux apps, or theoretically download and compile your favorite apps.

Re:Not enough libraries

[shutdown -p now]

You're free to root Xoom - it's a "Google experience device", which specifically includes rooting not being deliberately hindered in any way. From there you can load as much command line stuff on it as you want.

Re:Not enough libraries

[exomondo]

Or rather, wouldn’t a linux phone with everything included be a nice plaything?

It's called the Nokia N900.

Why didn't they include more Linux libraries, command line utils etc? What's the point in making a linux phone if it doesn't include most of the platform?

Because it's a smartphone, not a mobile PC. Many linux-based devices don't include the often associated GNU tools because they simply don't need them.

Those are "featured" apps picked by marketing

[One Louder]

All of these "articles" are just looking at the "featured" tablet apps list, which are picked by marketing folks and is not the definitive list of Honeycomb-specific or Honeycomb-enabled apps.

For instance, my company updated its app to use Honeycomb features as appropriate, while maintaining backward compatibility with Froyo and Gingerbread (minSdkVersion=8, targetSdkVersion=11), but it's not listed as a "featured" app.

Re:Those are "featured" apps picked by marketing

[GooberToo]

Its been pretty clear for a while now, featured apps don't always get that visibility based strictly on the published guidelines. I've seen many a featured app which was garbage. Likewise, I've seen many which should be a featured app, including many others saying the same thing, which are completely ignored.

I don't proclaim to understand exactly how it works but its pretty clear it doesn't work the way Google has published and repeatedly claimed.

Re:Those are "featured" apps picked by marketing

[troyready]

Thank you; this was exactly the point that I came to make. TFA is completely FUD, and this is the most glaring issue. It's referencing a blog post where a Mac developer uses this flawed 'Featured Apps' methodology for determining Honeycomb app availability.

(as a side note, I certainly can't fault Google for not promoting an excellent Honeycomb app like Andchat; while I love it, most users couldn't care less about an IRC client).

Honeycomb is *clearly* still very much in early-adopter status, but that doesn't make it ok to just blatantly through around FUD like this.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's less emphasis on comparing hardware specs in the phone and more emphasis on picking the model that you like the best, which is the way that the entire industry is moving relatively quickly.

Slashdotters are particularly tired of having to choose their products based on their capabilities. Personally, I would prefer to be given a choice of three levels of "flashiness" and a couple of hardware vendors.

If I wanted an iPhone/iPad, I would just buy one.

Google is a hypocrite!

[mrnick]

This is just another example of Google trying to keep control of an OSS project. Ultimately the truth is they cannot. If they comply with the OSS licenses in play they have to release it and this will allow ANYONE to use Android as a platform. With that said they can keep people from using the trademark "with Google" off such devices (who cares?). If Google wanted to keep things closed they should have forked something with a BSD style license, like Apple did. It looks like Google wants to eat their cake and have it to... But a company cannot advertise based on being "open" and do everything to keep things under their control at the same time without looking like a hypocrite to the OSS community. Google wants to try and ensure their paying customer that they are getting a superior product without earning that respect, like Red Hat has.

How do they realistically expect to control the hardware platform when ANYONE can install Android on any device? Honeycomb may be optimized for tablets but no doubt we will see smart phones running it. I for one am happy as this will be another opportunity to show our Google overloads that we don't care about the "with Google" trademark.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[Anonymous Coward]

> If Google wanted to keep things closed they should have forked something with a BSD style license

What is this nonsense? Android is Apache licensed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29

+3 Interesting my ass, what a douche

Let's all whine about a company improving their source before giving it us when they don't even fucking having to.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[LordLucless]

Anyone can run Android; not everyone can sell it with Android branding. The branding is what Google controls, not the code.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[tlhIngan]

This is just another example of Google trying to keep control of an OSS project. Ultimately the truth is they cannot. If they comply with the OSS licenses in play they have to release it and this will allow ANYONE to use Android as a platform. With that said they can keep people from using the trademark "with Google" off such devices (who cares?). If Google wanted to keep things closed they should have forked something with a BSD style license, like Apple did.

Repeat after me, Android is not open-source. AOSP is not Android.

Motorola isn't the only company with Honeycomb. You can bet LG, Samsung and HTC have it too. It's just that Google has decided to not push the Honeycomb code to AOSP yet. Doesn't mean Honeycomb tablets aren't coming, it just means that tablets relying on AOSP code won't have access to the official code yet (they can do various hacks to get Honeycomb working though).

And "with Google" isn't just a brand. It's a collection of apps that people expect from Android devices, including ... Google Marketplace. Without it, most Android devices won't have access to the vast majority of Android apps and have to resort to either pirating the Marketplace (Nook Color, Archos Tablets, others), or pirating apps (most free ones won't be there though). Other apps are YouTube, GMail, Goggles and Maps (and without Marketplace, it's impossible to update those, too).

Google has full control of the hardware platform. They can't control what people do with AOSP, but they can ensure the official Android devices meet a minimum spec and software release. So for example, if 3.1 comes out, Google can ensure every tablet released from that point must have 3.1, and not 3.0 "with future support for 3.1".

AOSP users like Archos and the like, they can release anything they want. Including crapping $100 tablets that run Android crappily. Google can't do a thing about those, other than ignore them, in the hopes customers do too so it doesn't sully the Android experience.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[zzyzyx]

Android OS is open source but the Google APIs, including Maps, and the Market, are not. They also rely on features not included in the public sdk, ensuring they would easily break on non Google-sanctionned Android releases. The platform becomes much less attractive without these.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[larry bagina]

Great! Where's the Honeycomb source code?

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop getting upset. It's obvious Google is just trying to get major players to agree on a base set of expectations for developers, so targeting the typical buyer of tablet apps is easier. No one (who matters) wants to stop you from installing android on your device how you want too. Of course there will be people who do their own things, and if it is popular the it will either get added to this baseline, make the baseline irrelevant or exist alongside it peacefully.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all the good parts of Android were already covered under the ASL and that only the kernel was GPL? Hence people calling Android "open" instead of actually open. It's more of a PR thing than a giving back to the community thing.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[tepples]

How do they realistically expect to control the hardware platform when ANYONE can install Android on any device?

By getting developers to publish on Android Market (which Google controls) and not AppsLib.

Re:Google is a hypocrite!

[exomondo]

If they comply with the OSS licenses in play they have to release it and this will allow ANYONE to use Android as a platform.

All that statement shows is that you don't know what OSS license they are using, because that is absolutely NOT a requirement of the license.

If Google wanted to keep things closed they should have forked something with a BSD style license, like Apple did.

Why?

A proprietary piece of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Android 3.0 is. The Android team released a piece of shit in a hurry because they wanted to compete with the new iPad and now they don't want to release the code. I wish Meego had more support, so I could tell Google where they can shove their POS system.

Re:A proprietary piece of shit

[judeancodersfront]

You should try WP7, it's pretty neat.

Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[goldcd]

at Android development, one of the 'good things' seemed to be that you can write your app - and then provide different layouts based upon the screen resolution of the target device. Should mean a developer can very quickly tweak their app to benefit from the extra space given, if it's run on a tablet. I'm not for one moment suggesting that adding some better layouts to a phone app will suddenly transform it into an app natively designed for a tablet - but better than just scaling up.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[poetmatt]

yup, and wait for it....wait for it...you don't need honeycomb to be able do exactly that, which shows that the whole article is shoddy journalism at best.

For the reality side, Microsoft has lost, as pointed out by groklaw.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[BasilBrush]

If an Android app just gets a quick tweak to the UI when moving to the tablet platform, then it's a shit tablet app. Tablets are not just bigger phones. For example an app that requires a drill down interface (a hierarchy of screens) may just need a single screen on a tablet. You don't do that just by tweaking the screen layout, or worse: relying on automatic layout. Actual code needs changing.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[exomondo]

If an Android app just gets a quick tweak to the UI when moving to the tablet platform, then it's a shit tablet app. Tablets are not just bigger phones. For example an app that requires a drill down interface (a hierarchy of screens) may just need a single screen on a tablet. You don't do that just by tweaking the screen layout, or worse: relying on automatic layout. Actual code needs changing.

Look at the settings app on the ipad and iphone, it's very similar, the only real difference is the layout. The items that appear in a list on the iphone, and take you to another page, appear in the left pane of the 2-pane layout on the ipad and simply change the right pane instead of taking you to another page. It's not difficult to adapt this as a layout option.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[gig]

What you *can* do and what actually gets done are 2 very different things.

Fact, is, you pay $800 for a XOOM with a PC screen and there are hardly any apps that will take advantage of that screen.

The knock on iPad was it is "just a big iPod touch". Well, if you run iPhone/iPod apps on an iPad, then it is just a big iPod touch. You might as well just buy an iPod touch. But if you run iPad apps on an iPad, then it is a small Mac full-size PC class apps in half the size, double the battery life, and with multitouch. That is worth paying the $500 for.

With Android, you're being asked to pay the price of an iPad *and* an iPod touch just to run mini-apps.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[Anonymous Coward]

If an Android app just gets a quick tweak to the UI when moving to the tablet platform, then it's a shit tablet app. Tablets are not just bigger phones. For example an app that requires a drill down interface (a hierarchy of screens) may just need a single screen on a tablet. You don't do that just by tweaking the screen layout, or worse: relying on automatic layout. Actual code needs changing.

Actually, you're (kind of) wrong. That can all be done quite easily in Android with just changing the layout definitions through a UI system called Fragments.

Each Fragment represents a part of the UI, and they can be chained together differently based on the device's screen or orientation.

http://androidphoneguides.com/news/developers-news/the-android-3-0-fragments-api/

Now, yes, the concept of Fragments was introduced with Honeycomb. But it's since been backported to earlier APIs (back to Android 1.6) so app authors have been able to re-do their apps so they'll take full advantage of the space of a tablet screen all in the same app.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[Kartu]

Last time I've checked, Samsung Galaxy street price was lower than that of ipad. (in Germany)

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[MyLeftSock]

I wouldn't class iPad as anything similar to a PC. As long as Apple dictate what you can and can't do with it and take a cut of all apps to subsidize the selling price (presumably, I don't know how much it costs them to build it), it's more like a Playstation. I see the Android tablets as being far more similar to a PC: you can do what you want to them; multiple manufacturers; multiple form-factors; etc.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[poetmatt]

Really?

Just because tablets are generally useless and people don't get what it is for, doesn't mean that magically apps aren't taking advantage due to the resolution. Your hilarity of "oh, but ipad apps for ipad are different" only points out that you actually have to program them differently for ipad, and can't actually run the same thing as iphone. That's quite a giant flaw there. Android apps don't HAVE to be "THIS IS FOR TABLET BUY US MORONS" like apple, because the apps actually can already be designed for the tablet without having to be "Tablet exclusive" which is a bad fucking idea.

Might want to take the head out of your ass, because if battery life, application size, and multitouch are your feature list you might want to just get a cellphone. Cellphones are about $120 for the feature list of a tablet of the kind you mention.

Re:Yes - but based on my very brief peer

[poetmatt]

Here's what tells me you're full of shit, everything you say is apple-centric. There is no single price point with android, and you fail to even notice that there are tablets under $300.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[mlts]

This sort of is becoming the case with Android. A lot of apps have dropped support for any Android version pre-2.0.

I'm sure after 2.4 is dropped and out for a while, anything less than 2.2 is just not going to be supported. The good thing is that the app developers decide who runs the app or not. If the app doesn't really require features in newer operating systems, the devs can set the manifest back to 1.0. If it requires features present in newer operating systems (a good example are multi-gigabyte games which have the option to be installed to SD card), the developer can require whatever version they want.

Of course, if there are any bugs, since the Android development cycle is so quick (no waiting for app/update approval), they can be fixed very quickly.

Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought the WiFi Xoom yesterday. First time I've used Android, and I installed 10-15 apps yesterday alone. The "featured apps for tablets" page of Android Marketplace lists 50 apps. A few I downloaded that weren't on that tab still seemed to work fine.

Apple's marketing machine is in full swing.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Dr Egg]

But running next years software on last years hardware is expected by consumers. Look at iOS. Your phone is supported software wise for 3 years from release of that model. Windows 7 is likely to run as well as Vista (or better) on a 2007 PC. I agree expecting new software should not be expected to run on old hardware, but only to an extent. I think it is reasonable to expect a few years of life out of some electronic device

Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[dara]

I think Google made a mistake in buying into the idea that phones and tablets have be different at all. There is a big difference going from a desktop/laptop with a mouse and no touch screen, to a phone/tablet with usually no mouse and always a touch screen, but after that, do we really need the distinction? Wouldn't it be better if software (apps and the OS) allowed for a smooth transition across screen sizes from 3" to 10+"?

I personally want a phone in the current dead zone (except for the Dell Streak). I find even 4.3" too small, but 7" is too big. 5", or even 5.5" is my sweet spot. What am I supposed to use - Honeycomb?, Gingerbread? Why the hell do I have to make a choice?

Future smart phones are all going high resolution. Anything with a screen size of 4 inches or more is going to have 1280x720, 768, or 800 pixels at a minimum. 1920x1200 will probably push down to 7" devices. Software should be able to handle a range of screen sizes and resolutions and reflow text and icons (and allow lots of configuration to choose font and icon sizes and number of icons) to make working across this range not a big deal.

And another thing, at this point I do expect that some reasonably specified current hardware (single core, 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, etc.) should be able to be upgraded many years into the future. Sure certain features may have to be disabled, and configuration sliders controlling animation may have to be turned way back, but I don't want the core Android to turn into some behemoth that won't even run on hardware that is a few years old. I'm ready to hop off the iPhone train and a big reason is that Apple screwed my phone (3G) completely with iOS4 and isn't even trying to fix it anymore (no more updates for that phone). I'd rather Google didn't emulate Apple on that front also.

I'm all for Google flexing some muscle against manufactures and carriers, both of which disappoint me orders of magnitude more than Google ever has. But a sufficient solution for me to the fragmentation problem is if they would push for a lot more Nexus phones and tablets available simultaneously. Just one phone at a time (and no tablets) isn't cutting it. At least one phone from each manufacturer on each carrier and a bunch of tablets would be more like it.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[shutdown -p now]

From an app perspective, there isn't really a difference - you can easily write an application that adjusts its look and feel according to the screen size. Opera Mobile is a good example of that.

As far as OS version goes, why do you really care? So long as it's the same for you feature-wise (and for these kinds of devices, frankly, experience is mostly defined by apps anyway), is it important if the About screen says "2.4" or "3.0"?

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[dara]

If the only difference between Android 3.0 (which admittedly, I have not tried - just seen some videos such as http://ces.cnet.com/8301-32254_1-20027466-283.html) and 2.3 is the About Screen, then I wouldn't care (nor would I understand why there are two versions). But it looks like there is a fair amount of difference to me (perhaps not in Google Maps, but many of the other programs). I don't know how much is the apps and how much is the underlying OS, but it doesn't really matter - most people, including me, think of an Android release as the whole package.

I'm arguing against this difference - I think it would have been better to make Honeycomb as simply the next version of Android which included more features that allowed it to be configured to work better on tablets, but would still work just as fine for small screen phones and any size in between. So I hope they merge the two on the next iteration (whatever the number is).

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[shutdown -p now]

I'm arguing against this difference - I think it would have been better to make Honeycomb as simply the next version of Android which included more features that allowed it to be configured to work better on tablets, but would still work just as fine for small screen phones and any size in between. So I hope they merge the two on the next iteration (whatever the number is).

They have already said that merge will happen, circa 2.6.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[evilviper]

The difference is screen size, and it's a huge one. On my phone, I want text from edge to edge. On my desktop, my eyes would be tired in 3 lines... On a phone, one app at a time, always full screen, makes perfect sense. On a desktop, you'd hate every second of it...

Tablets aren't desktops, but they're vastly closer to them than phones. Can you imagine a 3 column mail client like outlook/evolution on your phone? It works on a desktop, and it would work on a tablet... Don't take my word for it... On your desktop, go to http://en.m.wikipedia.com/ and read though a few nice long articles, and tell me how what works wonderfully on a tiny screen is better than the desktop version when you've got a huge screen to work with...

And finally, I've read a few reviews of honeycomb, and they all say it's a big improvement, and the feel of using a tablet os, rather than a giant phone, is a major plus.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

In theory, yes, there's a continuous gradient from 3" phone to 12" tablet. And sure, you could scale a UI from one end to the other. But the fact is, somewhere in between the two physical sizes, people start interacting with it differently. It's not a set point either. It depends on the person.

Why this matters is that once you get to a certain size, it doesn't make sense to directly scale the UI up from where it is anymore. Take for example, a dictionary app. When you draw it on a phone, it's a simple table with entries. If you scaled that up to a 7" screen, you'll either have silly amounts of white space and tiny text, or huge text that fills it proportionately as it did on the phone, but largely useless. This is bad. It's a waste of space, and it's simply a bad user experience.

If left up to developers to decide where and when to take the leap to the larger screen, it'd be chaos. Every developer will think, "well, it works for me, so it must work for everybody" and even the fact that you're asking this question proves that we're going all going to have differing opinions. The result would be that anywhere in the no-mans-land between 3" and 12", we'd end up with apps that behave like a phone on a 5" screen but a tablet on a 5.5" screen. Or maybe somebody crosses the line at 4". Or 6.78". The end result is that people who disagree, will stare and think "wtf? I thought I bought a tablet? why is this app look like a badly scaled phone?" or vice versa.

Apple took the solution of providing 2 physical screen sizes. This way, it's easy to target. It's large or it's compact. (it's not by resolution, it's by form factor)

Android took the solution of providing a different platform, and therefore declaring the device to be a tablet instead of a phone. (it's called a tablet, therefore it is a tablet)

Google's pushed for Nexus phones in the past, but people don't seem to want to buy them. Having more won't help, it's simply that Google is bad at selling phones. And it makes no sense for Google to become a retailer or carrier.

By the way, if your primary reason for leaving iOS for Android is because Apple screwed you over your iPhone 3G, you're going to the wrong platform. The equivalent phone, the Google Ion/ADP2, got abandoned around Android 2.0, in 2009, less than a year after launch.
I suggest you find a different reason to switch.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[dara]

I agree with your point that interacting with the screen becomes different as the screen gets larger. Perhaps it would be chaos, but I still think it is possible to have a single OS and app for phones and tablets that is configurable enough that a device sitting in the middle (say at 5.5") can choose the right blend of UI elements (multiple columns, etc.) to satisfy the given user. Perhaps I'm naive though, and the quality control issues are just too great and there needs to be more fixed configuration to quash bugs.

I owned a G1 for a month and returned it, partly based on T-moblie's reception in my area, and partly based on the stability of the phone. I looked at the Nexus 1 and S and I was disappointed with both. The N1 didn't have a subsidy with AT&T (and there is no discount plan as there is with T-mobile when you own your phone). The Nexus S had some interesting features, but it didn't work with AT&T (I think an upcoming version will), and if I were to switch to T-mobile again just to get this phone, it didn't even have 4G (that was crazy). If the Motorola Atrix where a Nexus M (stock Gingerbread, no Blur, no locked boot loader). I'd probably have it now even though it's back camera is so-so, and I don't like pentile displays. I agree, it doesn't make sense for Google to sell phones, that's not what I meant - the manufacturers sell the phones and the carriers subsidize them, but they are under tigher requirements to be referred to as Nexus devices.

I have lots of reasons I'm done with Apple now, but the frustration I experienced with the 3G is a significant one. At least if I had kept my G1, I could have rooted it and put Cyanogen on it. I can jailbreak my iPhone too, but everything I read says there is nothing that is going to help with performance issues. Other issues are: I want sideloading of apps (so I probably have to leave AT&T unless I root and in that case, I could jailbreak an iPhone to get the same result), I want access to Google's more advanced services (e.g. Navigation), and I want to get a bigger screen phone (if the iPhone 5 came out with a 4.5" screen, I don't think I'd stay, but I'd take a look). Even with the criticisms of Google on not releasing Honeycomb AOSP yet, I do consider the more openness of the framework preferable to Apple.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[Ash-Fox]

From an app perspective, there isn't really a difference - you can easily write an application that adjusts its look and feel according to the screen size.

Really? I haven't really seen the APIs or dialogs that magically make a UI look right no matter what the resolution is.

Opera Mobile is a good example of that.

Not really, such a huge chunk of code in it is written to do it all, where is the easy way you were talking about - I can't find it?

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[shutdown -p now]

Really? I haven't really seen the APIs or dialogs that magically make a UI look right no matter what the resolution is.

It's called "flexible dynamic layout". In some cases, it also means repositioning certain UI elements programmatically.

Not really, such a huge chunk of code in it is written to do it all

You have access to Opera Mobile source code?

I don't, but it definitely looks like they had it easy, because one thing I noticed about it is that the UI elements are the same on either my phone or my tablet. The only difference is that it rearranges some of them past a certain resolution (e..g the "Opera" button, back/forward, reload, and tabs drop down - they're on their own separate toolbar on the bottom of the screen on the phone, but they're merged with address bar on the tablet). It's actually remarkable how well the UI looks in both cases despite not being radically different - that's good design for you.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[Ash-Fox]

It's called "flexible dynamic layout". In some cases, it also means repositioning certain UI elements programmatically.

That's fine, but as a developer, I would love to see this 'easy' method. Because I personally don't want to go about doing what Opera did which was writing their own widgets and UI system in order to do that (a considerable amount of work that I wouldn't call 'easy').

You have access to Opera Mobile source code?

I've "decompiled" many applications, Opera Mobile is one of them. There is a huge amount of code dedicated to just handling the UI logic alone, never mind the fact it's using it's own custom widgets system.

It's actually remarkable how well the UI looks in both cases despite not being radically different - that's good design for you.

I remain unconvinced that this is easy.

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[shutdown -p now]

The reason why Opera has their own widget framework is to be portable among many platforms (Android/Maemo/WinMo/S60/...), not to be portable among screens. They also have their own widget framework on desktop, for the same reason.

I remain unconvinced that this is easy.

What, exactly, is hard in repositioning the same UI element to a different place if screen width, say, exceeds 1000px?

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[Ash-Fox]

What, exactly, is hard in repositioning the same UI element to a different place if screen width, say, exceeds 1000px?

In my experience about 20-70 lines of code for each 'movable' UI element.

It gets complicated when you have to deal with a dynamic layout for good amount of widgets as it requires a decent amount of design work to do it in a way that looks sane for the user. In Android, you're better off painting your own UI in the case of having many UI widgets because rewriting something like 'coolbar' is pretty asinine using the existing widget system. Neither method I would consider "easy".

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[shutdown -p now]

Fair enough. Since my Android development experience is very limited, I'm not going to argue.

That said, 20-70 lines of code per element still doesn't feel too large to me, assuming we mean the same thing. E.g. in Opera, the entire block of toolbar buttons (back/forward/reload/tabs) would be a single element, since they are all positioned the same relative to each other in either tablet or phone mode. You only need to relocate it relative to the address bar, which is another such element - also combining two actual widgets, the address field and the search field. The third element is the "Opera" menu button. By your estimate, that's 200 lines of code, top.

Come to think of it, for Opera. it's probably easier to just define two separate layouts for tablet/phone, rather than writing code that adapts layout on the fly. Both layouts would be trivial (horizontal panes for toolbar & address bar, vertical pane to arrange them).

Re:Better to not have a tablet phone distinction

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

As a person who recently joined a group working on both an iPad and iPhone app, I can say from experience that it's a quality control issues are real already with a fixed configuration. Moving the apps from two separate apps to a universal app (one app that switches based on form factor) would require us to rebuild the app once again despite half the app using the exactly same code already. The problem is that UI code isn't an insignificant amount, and some of it just doesn't make sense on one form factor versus the other. Making a single app that switches between the two would be doable, but significantly harder.

The problem with having the manufacturers and carriers sell Nexus-style (stock Android and unlocked bootloader) phones is that neither the manufacturers nor the carriers benefit from converting a chunk. They have no motivation to do so because they can't differentiate their offerings aside from hardware, and making more hardware models is expensive. If Google forced the manufacturers to all make some sort of Nexus-style device, I'd easily see many of them unhappy and considering leaving, especially since the diversity they provide is the only reason the Android platform is doing as well as it is.
The vast majority of Android users wouldn't understand why they'd buy it either. Installing somebody else's homemade OS? To the common user, "home made" versus "provided by Google" are equivalent to "shoddy" versus "backed by the company with tons of money and (hopefully) trustworthy." Given the problems with the Market and malware, I doubt many of them would be keen on installing a third party ROM especially when people are now worried of third party software containing malware.
I bought a Nexus S for dev. Even I don't want to install a third party ROM (well, partly since even Cyanogen doesn't support the Nexus S). I feel that I have to keep the stock ROM because it's closest to a common user's Android setup.

The sideloading, screen size, and Google Navigation reasons are fine with me. I was just thinking that official support for phones on the Android platform has been lackluster lately. Even Cyanogen is dropping support for the G1 and Ion. For me, it's starting to sound like I should look into the WP7 platform in more detail now.

and even if he wasn't

[goldcd]

If nothing ever fragmented, we'd all be sitting in Android 1.0 (and IOS 1.0 for that matter).
Current Android is pretty much stuck with the same problem PCs are - for every dual-core, gpu assisted monster that's put out, there's a dozen chinese budget models. Means everybody can pick up an Android device to suit their pocket/needs - but the apps then either all suit the lowest common denominator, or piss off the low-end user when they're 'slow', or piss of the multi-core monster when the iphone app looks better (despite him having bought better hardware)
Personally I love Android to bits - but will be sticking with Nexus X models. Whole Nexus concept seemed to be geared to providing some good reference platforms - the geeky tinkerers picked up on this, but seemingly the masses didn't. Google's current messing about with Android 3.0 would seem to be a response to this - instead of having a specific reference model, have reference internal gubbins.
Not saying I'm happy with it - but there it is. Looks like it's going to be more like buying a PC graphics card. You choose buy the GPU, but then can go high and low on the slight overclocks, the diversions from standard layout/cooling etc etc.

Counting Real Apps, not Apple.

[SuperKendall]

Hmmm.... now i wonder, if apple gets to count the apple provided and or sponsored apps at launch time

Why would they? The number of Apple iPad apps is up to about ten or so. Hardly a dent in the number.

No, instead the original poster is talking about some 3000 iPad specific applications available when the FIRST iPad shipped.

That also does not include the hundreds of thousands of iPhone apps which of course also run, the same way existing Android apps can run on Android tablets.

just a bigger screen

[bl8n8r]

Add multiple screen support to your manifest file. 2.1 stuff seems pretty compatible so far, at least the stuff I've tried. Motorola and google only just released the honeycomb/xoom dev stuff a couple weeks ago. also, the price makes the xoom a bit out of reach for some.

Re:just a bigger screen

[DJCouchyCouch]

Motorola and google only just released the honeycomb/xoom dev stuff a couple weeks ago. also, the price makes the xoom a bit out of reach for some.

It's like they're really trying to encourage adoption!

Honeycomb is Android's Vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bascially it. When Steve Jobs, said flummoxed, he really mean totally splatted.

Now Honeycomb's source is gone, people who bought earlier tablets will be stuck on Froyo and earlier, meaning that people will stick to writing apps for older versions, just like how Windows XP is still going strong.

Flamebait

[rainmouse]

Whole topic should be modded flamebait!

Re:Flamebait

[Henriok]

Reality bites.

OT: want wireless monitor connection

[unique_parrot]

apart of using a big, high resolution display it would be nice to have a common user experience on android. ALL vendors should include the bluetooth hid stack (yes i'm talking to you, htc), and please: a wireless screen connection (i want to use a big screen at home, not just dlna). this would be on the wish list for my next mobile phone (so i can get an ebook reader instead of a bulky tablet)... with this included i will happily wait for the apps to evolve...

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[ProppaT]

I have an iPod touch and it's not quite that simple. While the OS is updated, there are still limitations on what you can do with that various update. Certain features aren't supported. Various apps aren't supported depending on your hardware revision. It's more confusing than Android's fragmentation, imo. When you buy an ipod touch, it doesn't state what gen/version you bought on the box. When you buy an Android device, it's pretty straightforward what version of Android you have.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[sootman]

> There's no reason one should expect last
> years hardware to run next years software.

Really? REALLY? There are a MILLION reasons to expect new OS to support multi-year-old hardware. I'm using Apple as an example here, not because they're perfect, but because I have first-hand experience with them and I remember the stats off the top of my head.

• iPhone users got three full years out of original iPhones before they got dropped.
• OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Macs, some of which are over five years old now, and the upcoming 10.7 will probably do the same.
• 10.5 came out in 2007 and supported Macs that were six years old at the time, which were 8 years old by the time 10.6 came out.

Windows, of course, supports much older hardware and yes, Windows has some bloat due to the fact that it can run 20-plus-year-old software, but there IS a middle ground between "bloat up and run software for decades" and "one year and you're done."

Users should ABSOLUTELY expect good support for at LEAST 2 or 3 years, especially since 2 years is the standard length of a cell contract in the U.S.

Really, really bad point.

[SuperKendall]

There also are lots of apps that don't benefit from changing the layout

Actually there are almost none. Pretty much every iPad app that also has an iPhone version has a very different layout on the iPad.

A lot of games, for example, are in this category.

Games are actually the worst possible point you could bring up in this context, because they are so often tailored exactly for a specific size and even aspect ratio. They can take some adjustment but basically what you end up with is (at best) very upscaled graphics that look pretty blocky. Almost no game designer is going to quadruple the size of the assets in a game on the off chance it might be run on a tablet, instead they are going to produce two different versions if the game has many graphic assets at all.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[SoftwareArtist]

Actually, I personally have three different apps in the Android market that fall into exactly this category. I wrote them with resolution independence in mind, and there is absolutely nothing I would change about them to work better on a tablet. They simply don't need it.

Changing the size of game assets has nothing to do with tablets or with using Android 3.0 features. Tablets and high end phones tend to have similar screen resolutions. For example, the iPad 2's resolution is 1024x768, only very slightly higher than the iPhone 4's 960x640. And Android games are almost never tailored to a specific size and aspect ratio, because (unlike iPhones) Android devices have varied in those aspects for a long time.

Finally, remember there have been Android tablets around for over six months. Developers have had lots of time and reason to make sure their apps work well on them. None of the things you're talking about require using Android 3.0 features.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[darkshadow88]

The vast majority of the games I've downloaded on my Xoom look great--not blocky at all. Since there is such a wide range of resolutions on Android devices, I have to assume that most game developers include high-resolution assets to facilitate scaling to any resolution.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[Anthony Mouse]

Actually there are almost none. Pretty much every iPad app that also has an iPhone version has a very different layout on the iPad.

You've got some serious selection bias going on. The apps that someone has bothered to write a separate version of are the ones that benefit from having a separate version.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[gig]

> You've got some serious selection bias going on. The apps that someone has bothered to write
> a separate version of are the ones that benefit from having a separate version.

His bias is towards apps that are actually running on iPads. They are almost exclusively iPad apps. Almost nobody is using the iPhone apps on their iPads. It's just not happening. This was probably the biggest surprise of the iPad with regards to apps. Even when a user had a large collection of iPhone apps, they were going to App Store and buying replacement apps with iPad layouts, whether they were the same app/developer or not. In some cases, they were preferring a very new, basic iPad app over a sophisticated and mature iPhone app.

The iPad has a PC screen and PC browser and email and other apps. When you're using it, you're in a PC context. It's a small Mac, not a big phone. When you switch to an iPhone app, you context switch to a phone, and users don't like it. You go from big views with menus on the side to tiny views that you have to go "back" out of to get to a menu. You go from 10 finger-sized buttons at a time to 3 huge buttons at a time.

A lot of the same people who at first criticized iPad for being "just a big iPod touch" are now saying it's totally fine to run scaled-up phone apps on a XOOM. Running scaled-up phone apps is "just a big iPod touch". Running PC apps on a tablet makes it a mobile PC. That is what users want, because the people who are buying tablets in many cases already have a touch phone or iPod touch, they already have the mini-apps right there next to the tablet. They want you to put their PC into the tablet and make a mobile PC to bring along with the mobile phone, not put another phone into their tablet so they have 2 phones.

A lot of people here are talking about this stuff like it's academic. It's not. There is a year of experience on this, with 25 million users now, and they are running the full-size apps, not the mini-apps.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[exomondo]

Games are actually the worst possible point you could bring up in this context

How so? Most use scalable assets and anything done in 3D can just change the view and projection matrices to handle different resolutions and aspect ratios.

because they are so often tailored exactly for a specific size and even aspect ratio.

That's a load of rubbish, most are done just as they always have been - to handle multiple screen sizes and resolutions, which is VERY easy to do.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[exomondo]

Since there is such a wide range of resolutions on Android devices, I have to assume that most game developers include high-resolution assets to facilitate scaling to any resolution.

Or they use scalable assets. When working with a 3D framework you use world coordinates (not screen coordinates) to handle object transformations anyway so the only thing that changes is your view and projection matrices. If you doing things in 2D you use relative coordinates, not absolute ones when drawing and positioning UI elements, this means your application can scale smoothly across multiple resolutions and screen sizes.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[darkshadow88]

I recall hearing a developer mention that they were not using vector graphics, but rather high resolution 2D assets. I don't know if that's standard practice on Android or not.

As for the rest of your comment, I wasn't talking about the positioning of objects on the screen--you're preaching to the choir, there. My comment was dealing solely with the 2D assets and the problem of scaling (not in the sense of "how big does this need to be on the screen?", but "does this look like crap on this screen?"). With vector graphics, not a problem, but if you're not using vector graphics, your phone-resolution assets will scale really badly to the tablet screen, even if they're positioned correctly.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[moronoxyd]

Finally, remember there have been Android tablets around for over six months. Developers have had lots of time and reason to make sure their apps work well on them.

Unfortunately, it's not as easy.

On monday I bought an Archos 70 Internet Tablet (Android 2.2, 7", 800x480).
Now, there are many Android phones out there, that have a similar screen resolution, but a significantly smaller display.

Since most developers do not care about DPI, apps that look just fine on a phone with WVGA resolution look bad on a tablet with the same resolution, because the elements (buttons and stuff) are just to big.

I don't know if Android doesn't track the DPI of a display, but it should and developers should take that into account.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[SilentMobius]

It does, and it provides resource management so you can provide separate assets for ldpi mdpi and hdpi. Most tablets are mdpi (~160 dpi) the nexus one is hdpi. The g1 was mdpi.

Developers can fail to handle this nicely but most of the "good" apps handle dpi just fine.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[SilentMobius]

Nonsense, iOS is almost identical between the iPad and the iPhone, your artificial separation of "mini-app" and "full-size app" makes no sense. The only difference is the layout of the UI nothing about the core of the app needs to change (assuming the API is flexible enough)

Sure there may be apps that are fundamentally impossible to build using a small screen. But mostly the formula is "two panes, one for navigation the other for content" rather than "one screen leading to another" That is easy to do on Android even without honeycomb.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[SuperKendall]

he only difference is the layout of the UI

But that is a whole world of difference. It's a massive change from a design and UX perspective. If you ignore the difference your application will at best be mediocre and at worst, suck quite badly in one of the two form factors.

Re:Really, really bad point.

[SuperKendall]

For example, the iPad 2's resolution is 1024x768, only very slightly higher than the iPhone 4's 960x640.

The difference is pretty large when you factor in the DPI. Graphics suitable to a 4" screen may not look that great scaled to 10". And of course the whole display is needlessly chunky with an interface that has been designed to fit in a 4" space when you have a whole 10" to work with.

All of the big games and just about all of the smaller ones have distinct versions on the iPad and the iPhone, there are good reasons for this.

Apps...you mean like...

[Anonymous Coward]

iFart? What a shame.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[R3d M3rcury]

OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Macs, some of which are over five years old now, and the upcoming 10.7 will probably do the same.

That's not entirely accurate.

Snow Leopard was released in August of 2009. The PowerMac G5 was discontinued in August of 2006. Doing the math, that comes to three years.

10.7 will support Intel machines with 64-bit capabilities (ie, Core 2 Duo). This precludes any Mac mini built before August 2007, which would be four years.

Apple is slowly narrowing the window.

That said, I would agree. I would expect last year's hardware to run next year's software. I wouldn't expect the best experience, though.

And the 3G iPad is more for occasional use

[SuperKendall]

I suspect that, in the mid term, selling tablets through networks will not be the way to go. I know some people who have the 3G iPad, but honestly its hard to justify the cost when Wifi is pretty damn available and you can even use your phone as a hot spot.

I totally agree, and anther thing in support of this is even people getting an 3G iPad may not use the 3G more than a few months here and there - the real innovation for tablets there was true month-to-month no commitment plans without setup or teardown fees.

I bought the WiFi iPad also because I could just use my phone as a hotspot when I really need to use it somewhere without WiFi.

It is~ 2X for tablets.

[SuperKendall]

~800x400 to ~1000x600 is only about a 20% increase, not 100%.

Very few Android tablets are 1000x600, where did you get that figure from? That would seem to be from a 7" device which are not really tablets, but over-sized phones.

The Xoom is 1280x800. That is 2x scaling in the shorter axis.

Also if you're going to make that argument then all iPhone games count for the iPad as well, since pretty much all games now target the retina display with assets built for a 960x640 iPhone. But the truth is that even apps with assets for the retina display simply are not that great scaled up, because the form factor and screen space is very important in UI design. Only games can kind of work OK under those constraints, and specifically Angry Birds is about the only one where you really would not care what screen size you had since you can so easily scale and pan.

Designing for the droid is a ngihtmare right now

[greymond]

I'm all in favor of Google standardizing Android hardware. As it is right now it's a nightmare when doing UI Design compared to doing UI design for the iPhone. With the iPhone it's nice because every phone using the same screen size. On the droid not only are the screen sizes different, but the aspect ratio is not consistent either, so it's not a simple choice of designing one interface that can scale, you're stuck creating multiple interfaces. I think standardizing the hardware, at least screen sizes, would actually encourage app development (or at least more iPhone app ports to droid).

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Anonymous Coward]

> There's no reason one should expect last years hardware to run next years software. You get caught up in that messy Microsoft sphere if you do that where you have to bloat all your software to make sure it works with old hardware and new hardware alike.

Wtf are you taling about. You're clueless.

A) Next year software cannot ignore installed base.
B) Bloat is when next year software requires next year hardware. Supporting last year hardware points to simplifed, efficient & unbloated software.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Macs, some of which are over five years old now, and the upcoming 10.7 will probably do the same.

OS X 10.7 will require a Core 2 Duo or newer CPU. The original Core Duo and Coro Solo processors are unsupported.

A standard connector would be great

[SWPadnos]

I hope Google *does* do something to standardize hardware. Specifically, they need to define a standard connector similar in functionality to what every iOS device has.

The fact that you can make a set of speakers or a stereo dock with one connector, and have it work for basically every device out there, is a big win. I know there have been some issues with device thickness which required mechanical adjustments on dock devices, but the electrical connection is the same.

It's hard to overstate just how useful that is. Imagine how great it would be if you could get a charger / speaker set / remote control / keyboard / USB adapter (ever wanted a host port on your device ...), etc, and have it work for any device you buy, from any vendor. There might actually be enough of a market so that independent manufacturers would make devices that are meant to work with Android.

To make this work, it has to be done right. The connector spec has to include anything and everything that is likely to be useful, including some generic interfaces (like USB, HDMI, audio, charging, maybe even SATA ...). There has to be full OS driver support for every peripheral, including enumeration of handset/tablet capabilities and detection of attached devices and their capabilities.

I can't even tell you how annoying it was to walk around at CES and see thousands of devices meant to work with iCrap, and basically nothing that was meant to work with Android devices (that wasn't made by the manufacturer of the Android device). It's even more annoying to go to an electronics store looking for something like portable speakers - about 95% of them have iPod docks, but less than half have a miniphone connector to plug into a headphone port.

Get with it, Google. The software is about equal, but there will never be a "peripheral ecosystem" unless there are hardware connection standards.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Overzeetop]

This is actually why I bought my iStuff. Everybody makes a standard interface for it. My first device was an iPod - sure iTunes sucks, and the iPod itself sounds pretty lousy, but there are a whole range of car head units that work with an iPod and have an on-screen interface. For less than the cost of a CD changer, I could buy an iPod to hold all of my music and the adapter. Same thing for the iPhone and Pad - lots of docking stations, covers, cases, accessories - all tailored to the interface.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

micro USB has generally been accepted as the universial connector, Apple unfortunately decided to go their own way, Apple shouldn't be praised for this as they are no better than what nokia/samsung and many others have done in going their own way, you can only use devices specifically designed to conect to apple products which is SHIT. thankfully everyone else is converging on micro USB now.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[anethema]

Not like you're likely to ever see this, but the iPhone connector is a hell of a lot more than a USB connector.

Look at the pinout:

http://pinouts.ru/PortableDevices/ipod_pinout.shtml

Some notable mentions are Serial RxD and TxD, composite, svideo, AND component video, 3.3/5/12V, and others.

Other than only being used on apple, it is a really cool connector.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good that you bring USB Hostport up, because that would solve the problem.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

But then, they would have to add this as an addition to MicroUSB port. EU requires USB for charging now (I think), but it is definitely a good thing as you don't have to buy loads of chargers, just one. Huge relief, especially on road trips with lighter USB charger.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Problem is micro USB can't be used for as much stuff as the iDevice Dock Connector.

The Dock Connector is better than what Nokia/Samsung/etc have done because for the most part, it's remained the same connector for a freakin long time.
Yes, there have been devices where support has gotten dropped, probably due to having to own up to past decisions not being viable in the future. But for the most part, most accessories work. The additional serial and video lines are useful.

Others are converging on microUSB, but it's not going to give you the ability to link in a standard line-out, audio remote, or video out. And everybody puts it in a different location. And the phone sizes are different, so there's no chance of an ecosystem of compatible docking stations.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a whole lot of merit in your comment. One of the biggest advantages iOS devices have comes from standardized after market accessories. I would find it amusing (although unlikely) if an android manufacturer licensed the apple iPod dock connector for use in their phone/tablet.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Rich0]

Fortunately line-out was standardized with the 1/8" jack sometime back when I was in diapers, and before many here were conceived.

Plus, bluetooth has made a lot of that stuff irrelevant. When I get in my car I plug in a micro-usb charger, and hit play on the radio.

I have no problem with a standard connector that includes power, audio, usb, and video. The problem is that everybody always comes out with their own standard, it makes it harder to use one device to charge and another to playback audio, and another to playback video, and whatever anybody comes out with will almost be certainly filled with so much DRM that nobody will use it for ten years anyway.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

Except it hasn't. When you see a 1/8" TRS jack, it's an audio output of some sort, but you have no guarantees whether it's amplified or line-level. This in important since feeding an amped signal into another amp can easily cause clipping.

Bluetooth isn't easy to implement either, and requires a lot more hardware in order to do simple things. A wireless remote is not what everybody wants. Nor do they all want to experience the lag that bluetooth normally introduces when you're using a mobile device to feed into some audio systems.

A standard connector that includes power, audio, usb, and video isn't enough. There has to be some way of negotiating what's available on both sides of the connection. And yes, dozens of proprietary standards is not good. It'd be great if somebody took the time to make a well-designed standard mobile docking connector, but from the looks of it, it's not going to be as simple as somebody's slashdot post.

Apple's dock connector is an example of the best solution so far. Not perfect, but obviously the most successful.
An entire ecosystem with rules that dictate how to interact between an unknown device and another unknown device using one connector. It has issues. And the latest devices do have DRM. But the result of having to abide by one central authority has resulted in many devices and accessories maintaining compatibility over longer periods of time. I'm fairly certain that the DRM resulted from the need to require standardized access for APIs and preserving expandability. (a free for all to the serial port would most likely result in some sort of protocol collision, and also remove the ability to automatically search and load applications that understand how to talk to the device)

(Yes, I did want to make hardware accessories for an iPhone. Yes, the auth requirement does annoy me. No, I didn't end up developing a device nor signing up for NDA and whatever in order to do so. But I totally understand why it is the way it is.)

Re:A standard connector would be great

[Rich0]

Apple's dock connector is an example of the best solution so far. Not perfect, but obviously the most successful.

I think this was only successful because the iPod itself was successful and has such a large market share.

Imagine if the iPod's market share were 5% and not 75%. Nobody would make peripherals for it (well, there would be the odd one or two, but that's about it) - just as nobody makes dedicated peripherals for the NoCo GX1325 cell phone, except for a $25 charger made in taiwan for 50 cents (the rest of the cost pays for the shelf it sits on rusting while it isn't selling).

In such a market the dock would become an anti-feature - nobody would want it because it would mean that they'd have to buy all kinds of expensive peripherals - all two of them and couldn't use anything that actually follows a standard.

The dock is only successful because Apple has a monopoly. Oh, and that monopoly has led to all the usual abuses associated with proprietary connectors - you need to licence the rights to use many of its features.

Re:A standard connector would be great

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

I agree that the iPod being successful contributes to the Apple dock connector being successful, but I don't think that is the only reason.

For example, we all know what the Sandisk Sansa series, the Microsoft Zune series, and the Creative Zen series are. They each have their own dock connector as well. They are that 5%. Yet companies do make accessories using their connectors. It's more than just two. There are speaker docks, there's desktop docks. Even high profile Apple accessory manufacturers like Griffin offer accessories customized for the Sansa and Zunes too. It's just that most of us don't consider that a success because there's simply so many more Apple accessories. If Apple wasn't in the picture, I'd consider this a success. And if we factor in Apple, then despite their tiny marketshare, I'd consider this pretty successful since there is external support for these manufacturers.

But yeah, that's not the complete picture either. I know the Sansa has a certification program as well. I can only assume that MS/Zune would too. The Sansa and the Zen use the same connector, but incompatible pinouts. Had they banded together on this, it would have worked out even better.

You're right that the dock connector can be an anti-feature. Buying accessories tied to a connector is an investment. You have to have confidence that you investment in accessories will continue to be there when you upgrade to the next model up. So if the manufacturer continues to support the same dock connector, they will in time encourage their customers to remain their customers by investment, and that the customers who have enjoyed their products in the past will continue to invest in their accessories as long as they enjoy the products in the future. An increase in commitment gives 3rd parties the confidence that making an accessory for the ecosystem is profitable as well, and then further contributes to its establishment.
It's not the same kind of lock in that we as programmers complain about, since accessories wear out. If a company makes a music player series and eventually starts putting out awful designs, they will lose their customers regardless of the lock in because disuse of the device doesn't hurt the user as much as it hurts the company. They're gadgets, it's not a vital part of the customer's life, but it's vital to the company. The company has a vested interest in making their customers happy because they need them to ensure other companies will support them.

Outside of the mp3 player space, there are a number of proprietary or defacto standardized cables. It's less noticable if you don't buy tons of stuff or get exposure to a ton of devices. But the mechanics are the same.
My Fuji F31fd digital camera uses a weird USB/AV connector... it's not an open standard as far as I know. But it just so happens to be compatible with Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, Vivitar, Panasonic, Olympus, a few Sonys, and a couple of Samsung devices as well.
See here: http://www.digitalpowerpro.com/catalog/avusb-cable-nikon-coolpix-s6000-s3000-l110-p100-s8000-s5100-s4000-p-564.html

Buying that cable, to me, makes a lot of sense despite it being proprietary, since it's supported by a reasonably large number of cameras. Sure, a $20 usb cable is expensive, but at the same time, if I don't need it anymore, it wouldn't be hard to ebay it off or find a friend who'd get a use out of it either.

Finally, one last example is Japanese cell phones. Having a controlling authority who dictates the use of a docking connector is best exemplified by the cell phone carriers in Japan. If you go into a convenience store or electronics shop, and look for a power adapter, or external battery supply, or a non-bluetooth headset, or even video/audio connectors, you'll find that the most important thing to know is who your carrier is and what is it that you want to do. Why? Because the carriers have managed to wrest

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I have to say, I was pretty pissed when OS updates started leaving us 3g owners behind. First they started by cutting out features by model, then dropped support altogether. I hadn't expected this to happen since all my previous smartphones would run every succeeding version of (at the time) windows mobile.

I guess next time I buy a phone I'm going to have to figure the cost of the phone divided by the number of months I'm likely to get updates for. At 2 years before they started trailing off software updates, that phone cost me about $9/mo, assuming I replace it when software support is dying.

No more Apple phones for me, I'm thinking.

I think you're missing my point.

[goldcd]

I'm agreeing with you...kindof. What I was trying to say, was that instead of having a hierarchy of page on a phone (or a huge scrolling list, or whatever) you could just shove it all onto one screen on tablet.
The dev environment provides a nice abstraction to do just this - and you can run different versions in the spangly little emulator that pops up in eclipse, without every even buying a single android device (or spending a single cent).
Point I was trying to make was that the alteration of UIs, upscaling of graphics etc that at least all the initial ipad apps got, is even simpler to do with Android. What is going to be more interesting/problematic, is whether Android gets the apps that could only ever be created for a tablet.

Re:Designing for the droid is a ngihtmare right no

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boohoo.

PC devs have been programming software for a multitude of different screen sizes and aspect ratios, as well as a number of possible hardware combinations so vast, it may as well be infinite.

Does it make things tougher on the Dev? Yeah. Does that mean that everyone should have to conform to the same device? Hell no.

The fact that so much iOS software is designed for a specific rez is probably a nightmare for Apple. They can't increase resolution on any device without just doubling it, otherwise they risk making a lot of stuff look like ass. It's why iPad will be stuck at 1024 x 768 until there's enough horsepower (and it's economical enough) to just double that resolution.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Dog-Cow]

I've never seen an Android phone that listed the Android version on the box. With any iDevice, you can check under Settings->General->About to see what version you're running.

And I just had my app's update approved last week... runs on everything from 3.1.3 (supports the 1st-gen devices) through 4.3.

Utter FUD.

[mjwx]

Using access to Android source as a club to force OEMs to use Google search, to hamstring Facebook and other service providers.

First off, Facebook is not a search provider.

Secondly, how, you and I can access the latest 2.3 source code on the AOSP and do what we like with it. The source does not include Google Search any more, that is now a separate application. Same with market, Gmail and all other Google branded applications. You can download these from Google yourself.

Finally, all google are actually saying is, "manufacturers, stop screwing around or we'll remove the unfair advantage you have over cheaper handset manufactures like Huawei and ZTE, we're looking at you Samsung". They have not limited access to the source code at all, they are limiting access to unreleased code (which google is under no obligation to release at all).

Google is not using the source code as a club, they are leveraging an unfair advantage that big manufacturers like Samsung and HTC to ensure that the end user gets a better product. If the partners don't like it, they can wait for the source to drop into the AOSP, just like modders such as Darky and Cyanogen do (who are ironically keeping my HTC Desire Z more up to date then HTC).

Kindly stop trolling and take your FUD back to the bridge from whence you came.

Re:3.0 Nexus 1

[shutdown -p now]

Meanwhile, Xoom gets 8 hours of battery life with regular use, and several days (just didn't try longer) on standby. That's why it's for tablets, not for phones, I guess.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[exomondo]

I've never seen an Android phone that listed the Android version on the box.

It doesn't have to be on the box, the version shipping on a device is well publicized.

With any iDevice, you can check under Settings->General->About to see what version you're running.

That's after you've bought the device though, too late.

And I just had my app's update approved last week... runs on everything from 3.1.3 (supports the 1st-gen devices) through 4.3.

what app is that?

PDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

PDMI? It provides video, audio, USB and power.

http://enwp.org/PDMI

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[sootman]

Sell! Assuming you're eligible for a new iPhone every two years, get a new one every two years! Due to the fact that the iPhone is only available on 2 networks, they resell very well. I paid $250 for an original iPhone (refurbished 4 GB after the price drop) in late 2007. I sold it for enough to pay for a 3G, then sold that a year later* for enough to cover a 3GS, then sold that for enough to buy a 4. So I've had a phone that's gotten bigger and/or faster, and better, every year for no extra money, AND I've been within the 1-year standard warranty period as well! (Except for a couple months here and there.) Sites like nextworth.com will pay (for example) $75 for a (now almost 3 years old) 8 GB iPhone 3G in decent shape and you can get even more (most likely) by selling on ebay or craigslist.

Or, once you've passed the 2-year mark, you can keep your old phone and drop the mandatory data plan and save $180/year. Either way you win.

* as the main phone on a multi-phone plan, I'm eligible to upgrade about once per year.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Macs, some of which are over five years old now. The math you're doing is about PowerPC machines bought years after they'd been virtually announced as end of life:d. And even then, PowerPC machines got a major OS upgrade (OS X 10.5 Leopard) even after the Intel machines were released.

As for the future after OS X 10.7, one can only speculate. Limiting to 64-bit machines (Core 2 Duo and later) is a somewhat reasonable step after all.

The visibility of the iPhone version is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

The visibility of the iPhone version is worse. Like 1/3 the size.

Re:"Standardize hardware" might be the wrong term.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I am ditching Android when my contract expires in August. My first droid barely lasted a half year before HTC/Verizon decided it wasn't worth the trouble to give new updates. Rooting the thing, it works fine with 2.3 so far.

Burned by 'Droid, don't trust MS's phone OS yet, I'm heading to the iPhone because I want a phone that will at least last my full contract term before I learn it is effectively considered obsolete.

Very few games use vector graphics

[SuperKendall]

Or they use scalable assets.

Very few games do this. Most use textures that have been created for specific resolutions.

Scaling up these textures looks tolerable but not great.

And of course, you really have to consider the screen size for a game, a much larger screen means you can include a lot more meta details without obscuring content.

Re:Very few games use vector graphics

[exomondo]

Or they use scalable assets.

Very few games do this. Most use textures that have been created for specific resolutions.

Scaling up these textures looks tolerable but not great.

You don't have to scale them up if you use vector graphics or procedural textures or even if you pre-compute them from higher resolution assets, these are *very* basic principles of game development.

Re:Designing for the droid is a ngihtmare right no

[Ash-Fox]

Oh boohoo.

PC devs have been programming software for a multitude of different screen sizes and aspect ratios, as well as a number of possible hardware combinations so vast, it may as well be infinite.

As a developer, all I have ever done with screen resolutions is ensured the application windows fit a standard windows desktop running at 1024x768. I'm fairly certain other developers do the same thing, so I find your implication that PC developers have a harder time rather unlikely.

ipad pos coming to android?

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any point of sale solutions for android, similar to ipad pos by erply : http://www.erply.com/erply-free-point-of-sale-for-ipad-12-now-available-on-apple-itunes/