Am I the only one pessimistic enough to think that the only reason this machine tripled sales is because of its gimmick? Considering that the machine offers you a drink based on your appearance, can we really ignore the novelty of that?
Hey all. I don't really see a problem with the fragmentation. I developed Cubes, a game that largely depends on device hardware and capabilities. I have over 36k active users, and the only real complaint I get is that it runs a little choppy on some of the underpowered models.
The real trick is the same for PC: Don't code to specific hardware. Poll the system for capabilities. Implement logic for resizing/rearranging the UI. Android is not meant to be like iOS, where the hardware is strictly controlled. Android is successful because it can target hundreds of device profiles. Because of that, you have to write your apps a little smarter.
I don't think this post is flamebait. Ok, well, "dumb" is harsh, but I do think the iPhone is targeted toward people who really just don't know any better. That's why the phone is so easy to use, bc hell, a baby can figure it out.
Android allows you to do more, but at the cost of a little extra complexity. I think an average user can handle it, I know a lot of people with average intelligence that have no problem with it. It's the users that aren't so smart that may have a hard time with it. Those users may want to consider an iPhone.
You're right. That looks way more fun, and much less intimidating. How is it $175k though? Did I calculate that currency conversion right? I mean, it seems like the technology isn't incredibly sophisticated... just a high power water hose. Im surprised its more than 2x expensive than the jetpack in the article.
... were thinking of that scene from Iron Man at the end of the video. In the moment he was hovering, getting ready to land, I was kinda hoping he'd say "Kill power." and go crashing through the floor.
Looks nice? Art doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing to be called art. Art is creativity. Art is about making you think. This is not only a very creative piece of work, but it also required quite a bit of dedication to complete.
If anything, the theme of this very piece may be dedication. Or it could be monotony. Or tedium. Or simplicity, given the featureless form of the clock, and the apparent lack of mechanical parts (which, obviously, is only an illusion).
The rationale for this piece could be one or all of these, and that is what makes it art.
That would explain that easily-fraggable player I met last night in Halo. xX_Hellen_Killer_Xx just kept spinning around looking skyward while filling the mic channel with mad mumbling noises.
C code is different. It compiles. And it usually comes with powerful debugging tools. More powerful, I dare to say, than JS debugging tools. Not to mention the standard library and the STL are very well documented.
Also, when you develop C code for different platforms, you actually have different source trees. One for each platform. You can individually test and debug each set of code on each platform. On the net, the SAME JS code is run on EVERY browser. So not only do you need to discover the right solution for each platform, you have to discover an even more magical solution that works on every browser at the same time.
I can see the point you were trying to make, but it's not really the same. You do have to test your C code in a different debugger for every platform, except, like I mentioned above, a change that you need to make for one platform wont affect all the others. Separate source trees. This is not a luxury you get with JS.
I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else. I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web.
A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it. Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board. I understand that. But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me. I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development. Shocked I tell you. And look where that went. Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing. It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).
There seem to be a few. I can't vouch for their quality though. I would not be surprised if more become available as the Droid gains popularity. Also, I would not be surprised if Google released some sort of client for Google Books in the near future. It seems like an obvious win for them.
iPhone does indeed have a lot of market penetration. But that doesn't mean that other OSes don't stand a chance. We have seen a lot of supposed "iPhone killers" fail to dethrone the iPhone, but I believe Android has an actual shot to level the market share. Ironically, they may achieve this the same way Microsoft achieves this on the PC: make your OS available on as much hardware as you can.
This article seems to push pretty hard for an OS that hasn't been getting a whole lot of press. That being said, I'm not sure Maemo is in a position to take on Android.
First, consider the fact that "anything that can run on a desktop can run on Maemo". This sounds like an incredible freedom, but it makes me wonder how much care and innovation went into their mobile framework for developers. Android goes out of its way to provide access to everything a mobile developer would care about: text messaging, the camera, open GL surfaces, the sensor controls... even core functionality can be completely replaced. Want a new home screen? Want a new dialer? Their Activity and Intent framework is very well designed to accomplish anything you may want to accomplish on a *mobile device*. If the Maemo is all about putting a desktop computer in your pocket, I'm not sure how convenient that will be for mobile developers.
Second, consider market penetration. Android is showing up everywhere: phones big and small, net books, GPS devices and e-book readers. Maemo is on one device. Nokias phone. Sure, it may end up on more devices in the future, but will any of these devices *not* be a Nokia? Maybe. Google has done a lot of pushing, however, to give Android visibility. Google has done a lot to cater to developers. They even went as far as releasing the operating system and an emulator for developers to get started before an actual device ever hit the market. Android is going to see more market penetration than Maemo, if not only because Google is going out of its way to make it accessible.
Third, what does their content model look like? Do they have a market application? How difficult is it for developers to publish apps? How do they safeguard against malicious software? Android has a very accessible market. Securing their very open market is a strong permission model, which allows developers to write the code they want to write, without getting their hands slapped (unlike the iPhone experience). I don't know what content model is in store for Maemo, but it will need to be equally well thought out.
In conclusion, I applaud Nokia for taking one further step in the direction of openness. But I'm not convinced that Maemo can stand up to Android. "Super open!" and "desktop like!" aren't going to win the mobile war.
I agree completely. To me, the blackberry is a bit of a relic. They can dress up blackberry's with new tech and a fancy new OS, but I have to say, the developer experience remains horrible. I'm surprised that Blackberry still has the reputation it has, to be honest. They may have been the first "cool" smartphone, but they can't ride that wave forever. If they want to continue to be a player in the smartphone market, they may need to reconsider their content strategy.
I suppose they can survive by holding their place as the "corporate phone". Corporations don't need content for their employees. They don't need data plans. They may be able to hang on in the "boring" smartphone space for a while, no doubt... Windows Mobile will be there only competitor there.
As for unseating iPhone... no chance. Not with their content model. It won't touch Android either, in my opinion.
I was thinking the same thing. I thought one way to handle this more elegantly would be to have two separate touch pads, one on each side of the keyboard:
[TP][ KB ][TP]
Of course, you may lose some manipulation space for your hands, but this would take up considerably less vertical space, which is the more "expensive" dimension, in my opinion.
I dont see why Google would be considered a control freak. Android is probably the most open mobile OS available. That is the premise behind Google's "Open Handset Alliance" after all. Considering the fact that you can put any application you want on the market, without fear of rejection (unless it gets reported, which is mostly a community decision), and the fact that their OS is open source itself, I think they've gotten pretty close to being truly open as it is. I don't blame Google for trying to protect the applications they require a license for. They really have done everything they can to make the platform otherwise open.
I agree with Bullfish. I think Android is going to reach critical mass soon. In my opinion, it's the only phone that has a chance to close the gap between the iPhone and every other phone on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one pessimistic enough to think that the only reason this machine tripled sales is because of its gimmick? Considering that the machine offers you a drink based on your appearance, can we really ignore the novelty of that?
"Larry, I have Bob Kotick on the line. He wants to meet over tea and crumpets. He mentioned that Adolf will be coming this time."
Hey all. I don't really see a problem with the fragmentation. I developed Cubes, a game that largely depends on device hardware and capabilities. I have over 36k active users, and the only real complaint I get is that it runs a little choppy on some of the underpowered models. The real trick is the same for PC: Don't code to specific hardware. Poll the system for capabilities. Implement logic for resizing/rearranging the UI. Android is not meant to be like iOS, where the hardware is strictly controlled. Android is successful because it can target hundreds of device profiles. Because of that, you have to write your apps a little smarter.
This just in: America is getting fatter, with no signs of slimming down.
Why was this labeled NSFW? To my disappointment, I didn't find anything inappropriate.
I don't think this post is flamebait. Ok, well, "dumb" is harsh, but I do think the iPhone is targeted toward people who really just don't know any better. That's why the phone is so easy to use, bc hell, a baby can figure it out.
Android allows you to do more, but at the cost of a little extra complexity. I think an average user can handle it, I know a lot of people with average intelligence that have no problem with it. It's the users that aren't so smart that may have a hard time with it. Those users may want to consider an iPhone.
No I think he had it right. As long as we are working with unsigned bytes, 255 + 1 rolls over to 0, so 255 + 5 should be 4.
A standard C compiler will not throw an error as long as the types you are using are the same.
You're right. That looks way more fun, and much less intimidating. How is it $175k though? Did I calculate that currency conversion right? I mean, it seems like the technology isn't incredibly sophisticated... just a high power water hose. Im surprised its more than 2x expensive than the jetpack in the article.
... were thinking of that scene from Iron Man at the end of the video. In the moment he was hovering, getting ready to land, I was kinda hoping he'd say "Kill power." and go crashing through the floor.
Or was it my life for A'jur?
...until this technology can be used to regrow luscious locks of hair for balding people? Just asking... for a friend... .
Anybody remember Microsoft's smart watch? No?
Looks nice? Art doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing to be called art. Art is creativity. Art is about making you think. This is not only a very creative piece of work, but it also required quite a bit of dedication to complete.
If anything, the theme of this very piece may be dedication. Or it could be monotony. Or tedium. Or simplicity, given the featureless form of the clock, and the apparent lack of mechanical parts (which, obviously, is only an illusion).
The rationale for this piece could be one or all of these, and that is what makes it art.
That would explain that easily-fraggable player I met last night in Halo. xX_Hellen_Killer_Xx just kept spinning around looking skyward while filling the mic channel with mad mumbling noises.
C code is different. It compiles. And it usually comes with powerful debugging tools. More powerful, I dare to say, than JS debugging tools. Not to mention the standard library and the STL are very well documented.
Also, when you develop C code for different platforms, you actually have different source trees. One for each platform. You can individually test and debug each set of code on each platform. On the net, the SAME JS code is run on EVERY browser. So not only do you need to discover the right solution for each platform, you have to discover an even more magical solution that works on every browser at the same time.
I can see the point you were trying to make, but it's not really the same. You do have to test your C code in a different debugger for every platform, except, like I mentioned above, a change that you need to make for one platform wont affect all the others. Separate source trees. This is not a luxury you get with JS.
Silly you indeed. I would hate to use 3 different debuggers for every bit of code I write, to make sure it works on every platform.
God forbid MORE browsers become popular. Oh wait, Safari? Opera? I wonder if they have 2 more debuggers you can heap onto your development checklist.
If you enjoy having to debug your JS using multiple different debuggers, silly silly you indeed.
What have you done?! Put it back! Put it BACK!
I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else. I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web.
A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it. Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board. I understand that. But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.
Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me. I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development. Shocked I tell you. And look where that went. Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing. It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).
Someone please mod this up. I couldn't agree more.
*checks Android market*
There seem to be a few. I can't vouch for their quality though. I would not be surprised if more become available as the Droid gains popularity. Also, I would not be surprised if Google released some sort of client for Google Books in the near future. It seems like an obvious win for them.
iPhone does indeed have a lot of market penetration. But that doesn't mean that other OSes don't stand a chance. We have seen a lot of supposed "iPhone killers" fail to dethrone the iPhone, but I believe Android has an actual shot to level the market share. Ironically, they may achieve this the same way Microsoft achieves this on the PC: make your OS available on as much hardware as you can.
This article seems to push pretty hard for an OS that hasn't been getting a whole lot of press. That being said, I'm not sure Maemo is in a position to take on Android.
First, consider the fact that "anything that can run on a desktop can run on Maemo". This sounds like an incredible freedom, but it makes me wonder how much care and innovation went into their mobile framework for developers. Android goes out of its way to provide access to everything a mobile developer would care about: text messaging, the camera, open GL surfaces, the sensor controls... even core functionality can be completely replaced. Want a new home screen? Want a new dialer? Their Activity and Intent framework is very well designed to accomplish anything you may want to accomplish on a *mobile device*. If the Maemo is all about putting a desktop computer in your pocket, I'm not sure how convenient that will be for mobile developers.
Second, consider market penetration. Android is showing up everywhere: phones big and small, net books, GPS devices and e-book readers. Maemo is on one device. Nokias phone. Sure, it may end up on more devices in the future, but will any of these devices *not* be a Nokia? Maybe. Google has done a lot of pushing, however, to give Android visibility. Google has done a lot to cater to developers. They even went as far as releasing the operating system and an emulator for developers to get started before an actual device ever hit the market. Android is going to see more market penetration than Maemo, if not only because Google is going out of its way to make it accessible.
Third, what does their content model look like? Do they have a market application? How difficult is it for developers to publish apps? How do they safeguard against malicious software? Android has a very accessible market. Securing their very open market is a strong permission model, which allows developers to write the code they want to write, without getting their hands slapped (unlike the iPhone experience). I don't know what content model is in store for Maemo, but it will need to be equally well thought out.
In conclusion, I applaud Nokia for taking one further step in the direction of openness. But I'm not convinced that Maemo can stand up to Android. "Super open!" and "desktop like!" aren't going to win the mobile war.
I agree completely. To me, the blackberry is a bit of a relic. They can dress up blackberry's with new tech and a fancy new OS, but I have to say, the developer experience remains horrible. I'm surprised that Blackberry still has the reputation it has, to be honest. They may have been the first "cool" smartphone, but they can't ride that wave forever. If they want to continue to be a player in the smartphone market, they may need to reconsider their content strategy. I suppose they can survive by holding their place as the "corporate phone". Corporations don't need content for their employees. They don't need data plans. They may be able to hang on in the "boring" smartphone space for a while, no doubt... Windows Mobile will be there only competitor there. As for unseating iPhone... no chance. Not with their content model. It won't touch Android either, in my opinion.
I was thinking the same thing. I thought one way to handle this more elegantly would be to have two separate touch pads, one on each side of the keyboard: [TP][ KB ][TP] Of course, you may lose some manipulation space for your hands, but this would take up considerably less vertical space, which is the more "expensive" dimension, in my opinion.
I dont see why Google would be considered a control freak. Android is probably the most open mobile OS available. That is the premise behind Google's "Open Handset Alliance" after all. Considering the fact that you can put any application you want on the market, without fear of rejection (unless it gets reported, which is mostly a community decision), and the fact that their OS is open source itself, I think they've gotten pretty close to being truly open as it is. I don't blame Google for trying to protect the applications they require a license for. They really have done everything they can to make the platform otherwise open. I agree with Bullfish. I think Android is going to reach critical mass soon. In my opinion, it's the only phone that has a chance to close the gap between the iPhone and every other phone on the market.