🚀 go-pugleaf

At 23 Mar 2010 19:03:26 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 23 Mar 2010 12:30:10 -0700 Bhairitu wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> I'm a big fan of Android and like the thinking behind it and of
course
> >> it will do everything he wants (and more that he may like once he has
> >> it).  I think Android eventually will own smartphone the market
mainly
> >> because it is open source so anybody can play.  The latter is not
true
> >> of the platforms.  I even have some apps on the market.
> > 
> > Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see where "open source" is any sort of
> > advantage in the mobile market as it exists today.  I don't think most
> > phone users care, and the barrier to entry to develop for other
platforms
> > is low enough.
> 
> It's the manufacturers who would care about open source since they
> don't have to license anything. That's what I mean by "anyone can
> play."  No it isn't important to the user.

I guess, but WinMo and Symbian licences are only a few bucks per device,
and you get a pre-established ecosytem with millions of users and
thousands of apps.  (Though the quick rise of Android has been impressive
to watch!)  


> Have you developed for other platforms?


Only toyed with WinMo a bit- nothing much sportier than "Hello World"-
type stuff.  The SDK is free (though you need Visual Studio to use it),
and no restrictions to installing your apps on devices (unlike, say, the
iPhone and the upcoming WinPhone 7 that requires signed apps delivered by
a central app store.)  


> >> Now if Verizon/HTC would just update my Eris to 2.1!
> > 
> > ...and here's where the promise of "open source" falls apart- why
should
> > Verizon or HTC need be involved at all?  We don't have to run to Dell
to
> > slap a new Linux distro on a Dell PC.
> 
> Verizon wants to make sure the implementation is pretty much bug free
> before they send it out to users.  Testing delays the release.  And
> before that HTC has to make sure the implementation is solid too. 
> We're dealing with different hardware here. And there can be problems
> with Linux if Dell has a new piece of hardware on a machine that Linux
> doesn't have a driver for yet?  Ever try differently distros over last
> few years to see if wifi was supported?


My point was that the advantage of open-source to the end-user _should_
be the ability to update without the blessing of anyone, but already
Android's upgrade path is already as annoying and convoluted as WinMo's,
Blackberry's and Symbian's.  I expected Android to be the clear leader
here, but it's no different than the others.  Certainly not a disadvantage,
but just disappointing.