This isn't about money: it's about controlling the future of the web. Both Apple and Microsoft see Adobe's Flash and Air as a problem in that it breaks vendor lock in on their platforms. In Adobe's case it creates a new vendor dependency, but one that is very economical compared to maintaining separate code bases for Mac, Windows and Linux. Apple and MS would rather you commit.
There are a few places where having actual phones help, but it isn't nearly as bad as a lot of these posters are making it.
Most of the issues that end up requiring lots of hardware to test on are self inflicted where a dev is trying to improve the experience by rolling their own GUI instead of doing things the Android way. I suppose if you are doing games, this would be a bigger problem than doing business apps and web service front ends.
Other than that, I've run across an issue with a GPS and a problem with a accelerometer.
Both were solved by simply not supporting that device. Give it one year and the manufacturers will get it as consumers return their phones and exchange for one that works. This is no different than back when PCs were relatively new when occasionally, a manufacturer would release a slightly less compatible hard drive or floppy controller... some developers would go gaga trying to get it to work, and others would simply shrug and say buy a compatible machine.
Different phones have different features. Some, well, are getting long in the tooth (i.e. G-1 with 64MB). It just means you have to be smart about selecting your target when you start. If you are not ok with the market growing into your app, don't target 2.2.
LOL. You use a Windows Mobile phone to make your point about Android? Please. ROMS? What is this, 1988 and we need to cook up a bios upgrade?
There are about 50,000 apps in the Market. It ain't that difficult.
Yes, it is up to manufacturers to release updates. That's why you don't target the latest versions, just like EVERYONE in the Android developer community recommends. And yes, sometimes a manufacturer will have a flaky phone. It doesn't happen that often. If you don't like getting cut, don't sit on the bleeding edge.
Dude, we code in Java targeting a virtual machine (it's called Dalvic). You don't worry about the hardware underneath - Android's APIs and virtual machine takes care of all of that stuff for you. You don't even have to have an Android device to do development. The SDK comes with an emulator that lets you build and test your apps on Windows, Linux or MacOS.
Now that we've cleared that up, head over to the Android site and download the SDK and learn to write an app instead of worrying about phone hardware. There's nothing stopping you. The SDK is free.
You really like to repeat this story - this is at least the fifth time I've read it. You also illustrate zero knowledge of the platform, which makes me believe you are just here to lay down some astroturf.
I have to laugh at this because it smells of the finest astrotruf: "Apple took care very well from the start, but they've had lots of consumer software experience. Goole & Android will get their act together... it will just take a little time."
Fragmentation is a non issue. Don't target the latest version, and life is good. Target the latest version and your market shrinks. It's not that hard. Oh, and anyone who says you have to buy a bunch of phones doesn't know how Java works.
You wasted $6k or you are lying. Android is built on a virtual machine. If it tests, it runs. There is no naked hardware, so it makes little sense to buy a bunch of phones.
The original 10 year old article is a classic and should be read by every manager who takes on managing software. It's been my experience that most rebuilds are driven by the idea that:
If we get on platform X, we will have a world beater because platform X will give us so many more modern features.
The problem is that most developers don't understand that rebuilding in platform X may take as long or longer to get to market as the original software will. Most often it is because the original development process was very organic and inexpensive and as the firm grew, more rigorous testing and project management skills were rolled in to deal with change management, preventing regressions on upgrades and such. All the benefits of platform X are eaten alive by increased costs and lost agility.
I find it ironic that the US should decide to introduce this measure under a new government when the old one was notorious for abuse of authority.
This is unsurprising. In the US Republicans will trade in civil liberties for and advantage fighting foreign nations. Democrats trade in civil liberties for an advantage in fighting crime.
If you took it upon your self to hack your car; would you expect to be covered by the manufacturer if it was then unsafe, unreliable or inoperative?
It would be completely legal as the courts and our congress allow car owners to service their on vehicles. The manufacturer must prove that you messed it up before denying coverage. Why? Because the trend in the 1960s was if you didn't pay Mr. Goodwrench to install overpriced Delco replacement parts, your warranty was void. The courts called it unconscionable. The congress made the practice illegal. In fact, you can thank your great uncle twice removed Clevon (or whatever) for tinkering with sophisticated auto-mobiles like his tricked out Studebaker for the ability to install your own memory in a laptop, upgrade your hard drive or even upgrade the Operating system in your computer.
Oh, and people do develop software and upgrade hardware for automotive computer systems. Like these guys. Apparently the manufacturer's code is not always optimal for performance or for economy.
Basically the article is saying that the government is incompetent and then comes to the logical conclusion that adding a new layer to the government will fix the incompetence. It's completely rational!
Using modern technology to search for prior art quickly and having a $100 penalty for submitting prior art probably would do more to fix the system than any amount of raising the fees.
A) B) So are you implying the CRU's work has no merit and should not be examined because other researchers have got similar results using other methods and data? Huh?
C) Two methods can be independently wrong. Without review and transparency, it makes little sense to trust any number of studies. Ignoring review and transparency gets perpetual motion and free energy machines funded.
D) Test suites only test that a program is accurately doing what it is told. What it is told is the problem
Go back to your cubicle and get to work on your next astroturf campaign.
Let's be clear here: there is no position taken in my posts about climate change being real or fiction. Any discussion of my being "sceptical(sic)" assumes facts not in evidence. If you actually read my post, I'm disappointed in the CRUs behavior because they deflected the focus away from the science and to their self-inflicted PR disaster.
Further, raw data does little to help in verifying the work of the CRU. The methods used to analyze the data are critical as:
A) Mistakes can be found that may indicate climate change is greater or lesser than reported. B) Missing data can be identified and its impact on the findings can be understood. C) Independent modeling may yield similar results but the results cannot be compared without a comparison of methods. D) Bugs are very common in computer programs.
The CRU has in their power to silence their critics by full release of the methods, data and code used to perform their analysis. Without all three, there can be *no* independent verification of their results.
That this disclosure has not happened is troubling, and will lead many people to conclude there is something being hidden by the CRU. This *must be fixed* or the entire climate research community will see funding and public interest in their work evaporate slowly.
The issue was that emails from insiders showed that the CRU was sufficiently politicized that the credibility of the institution was destroyed, and that put the research of the CRU in question. Instead of releasing the data, methods and code for their analysis, we are being asked to believe experts, paid by the institution, that the CRU's work is beyond reproach.
All we are given is a press release and a report that contains little to no real data, but does ironically suggests in conclusion 2 that the CRU should release more data and work with professional statisticians. This is the PR equivalent to the Jedi Mind Trick (tm), and will only result in even more scrutiny, and will result in climate change being questioned by even more people. This is why personal integrity and decorum is important in science: this research could be important to humanity's survival but the public now does not believe the research because the researcher's motives and communications seem questionable. Not because the research was bad, but because the way the CRU carried itself.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about money: it's about controlling the future of the web. Both Apple and Microsoft see Adobe's Flash and Air as a problem in that it breaks vendor lock in on their platforms. In Adobe's case it creates a new vendor dependency, but one that is very economical compared to maintaining separate code bases for Mac, Windows and Linux. Apple and MS would rather you commit.
There are a few places where having actual phones help, but it isn't nearly as bad as a lot of these posters are making it.
Most of the issues that end up requiring lots of hardware to test on are self inflicted where a dev is trying to improve the experience by rolling their own GUI instead of doing things the Android way. I suppose if you are doing games, this would be a bigger problem than doing business apps and web service front ends.
Other than that, I've run across an issue with a GPS and a problem with a accelerometer.
Both were solved by simply not supporting that device. Give it one year and the manufacturers will get it as consumers return their phones and exchange for one that works. This is no different than back when PCs were relatively new when occasionally, a manufacturer would release a slightly less compatible hard drive or floppy controller... some developers would go gaga trying to get it to work, and others would simply shrug and say buy a compatible machine.
Having a phone is nice. You could also get any number of cheap Android devices that are not even phones.
The emulator is a lot fine. Even on the phone, your app runs in a virtual machine. You can change resolution on the emulator as well.
Different phones have different features. Some, well, are getting long in the tooth (i.e. G-1 with 64MB). It just means you have to be smart about selecting your target when you start. If you are not ok with the market growing into your app, don't target 2.2.
One 21" screen, go to control panel.display change resolution, bit depth, etc.
No multiple monitors needed. Idiot.
LOL. You use a Windows Mobile phone to make your point about Android? Please. ROMS? What is this, 1988 and we need to cook up a bios upgrade?
There are about 50,000 apps in the Market. It ain't that difficult.
Yes, it is up to manufacturers to release updates. That's why you don't target the latest versions, just like EVERYONE in the Android developer community recommends. And yes, sometimes a manufacturer will have a flaky phone. It doesn't happen that often. If you don't like getting cut, don't sit on the bleeding edge.
Dude, we code in Java targeting a virtual machine (it's called Dalvic). You don't worry about the hardware underneath - Android's APIs and virtual machine takes care of all of that stuff for you. You don't even have to have an Android device to do development. The SDK comes with an emulator that lets you build and test your apps on Windows, Linux or MacOS.
Now that we've cleared that up, head over to the Android site and download the SDK and learn to write an app instead of worrying about phone hardware. There's nothing stopping you. The SDK is free.
You really like to repeat this story - this is at least the fifth time I've read it. You also illustrate zero knowledge of the platform, which makes me believe you are just here to lay down some astroturf.
I have to laugh at this because it smells of the finest astrotruf: "Apple took care very well from the start, but they've had lots of consumer software experience. Goole & Android will get their act together ... it will just take a little time."
Fragmentation is a non issue. Don't target the latest version, and life is good. Target the latest version and your market shrinks. It's not that hard. Oh, and anyone who says you have to buy a bunch of phones doesn't know how Java works.
You wasted $6k or you are lying. Android is built on a virtual machine. If it tests, it runs. There is no naked hardware, so it makes little sense to buy a bunch of phones.
The original 10 year old article is a classic and should be read by every manager who takes on managing software. It's been my experience that most rebuilds are driven by the idea that:
If we get on platform X, we will have a world beater because platform X will give us so many more modern features.
The problem is that most developers don't understand that rebuilding in platform X may take as long or longer to get to market as the original software will. Most often it is because the original development process was very organic and inexpensive and as the firm grew, more rigorous testing and project management skills were rolled in to deal with change management, preventing regressions on upgrades and such. All the benefits of platform X are eaten alive by increased costs and lost agility.
You haven't noticed: They are in charge now. And screwing things up the way their parents said they would.
I think you underestimate the value of power, and overestimate the power of money.
I find it ironic that the US should decide to introduce this measure under a new government when the old one was notorious for abuse of authority.
This is unsurprising. In the US Republicans will trade in civil liberties for and advantage fighting foreign nations. Democrats trade in civil liberties for an advantage in fighting crime.
Apple markets it as a device, not a computer.
If I market beef as chicken, I'm still selling beef. Be a little logical with your booster-ism, please.
It's a device./i>
Thank you for this stunning revelation.
If you took it upon your self to hack your car; would you expect to be covered by the manufacturer if it was then unsafe, unreliable or inoperative?
It would be completely legal as the courts and our congress allow car owners to service their on vehicles. The manufacturer must prove that you messed it up before denying coverage. Why? Because the trend in the 1960s was if you didn't pay Mr. Goodwrench to install overpriced Delco replacement parts, your warranty was void. The courts called it unconscionable. The congress made the practice illegal. In fact, you can thank your great uncle twice removed Clevon (or whatever) for tinkering with sophisticated auto-mobiles like his tricked out Studebaker for the ability to install your own memory in a laptop, upgrade your hard drive or even upgrade the Operating system in your computer.
Oh, and people do develop software and upgrade hardware for automotive computer systems. Like these guys. Apparently the manufacturer's code is not always optimal for performance or for economy.
Past performance does not indicate future results.
Basically the article is saying that the government is incompetent and then comes to the logical conclusion that adding a new layer to the government will fix the incompetence. It's completely rational!
Using modern technology to search for prior art quickly and having a $100 penalty for submitting prior art probably would do more to fix the system than any amount of raising the fees.
A) B) So are you implying the CRU's work has no merit and should not be examined because other researchers have got similar results using other methods and data? Huh?
C) Two methods can be independently wrong. Without review and transparency, it makes little sense to trust any number of studies. Ignoring review and transparency gets perpetual motion and free energy machines funded.
D) Test suites only test that a program is accurately doing what it is told. What it is told is the problem
Go back to your cubicle and get to work on your next astroturf campaign.
Let's be clear here: there is no position taken in my posts about climate change being real or fiction. Any discussion of my being "sceptical(sic)" assumes facts not in evidence. If you actually read my post, I'm disappointed in the CRUs behavior because they deflected the focus away from the science and to their self-inflicted PR disaster.
Further, raw data does little to help in verifying the work of the CRU. The methods used to analyze the data are critical as:
A) Mistakes can be found that may indicate climate change is greater or lesser than reported.
B) Missing data can be identified and its impact on the findings can be understood.
C) Independent modeling may yield similar results but the results cannot be compared without a comparison of methods.
D) Bugs are very common in computer programs.
They are similar in that both involve the distortion of reality and only work on the weak minded.
The CRU has in their power to silence their critics by full release of the methods, data and code used to perform their analysis. Without all three, there can be *no* independent verification of their results.
That this disclosure has not happened is troubling, and will lead many people to conclude there is something being hidden by the CRU. This *must be fixed* or the entire climate research community will see funding and public interest in their work evaporate slowly.
The issue was that emails from insiders showed that the CRU was sufficiently politicized that the credibility of the institution was destroyed, and that put the research of the CRU in question. Instead of releasing the data, methods and code for their analysis, we are being asked to believe experts, paid by the institution, that the CRU's work is beyond reproach.
All we are given is a press release and a report that contains little to no real data, but does ironically suggests in conclusion 2 that the CRU should release more data and work with professional statisticians. This is the PR equivalent to the Jedi Mind Trick (tm), and will only result in even more scrutiny, and will result in climate change being questioned by even more people. This is why personal integrity and decorum is important in science: this research could be important to humanity's survival but the public now does not believe the research because the researcher's motives and communications seem questionable. Not because the research was bad, but because the way the CRU carried itself.