Well, hopefully, a diverse variety of compatible alternatives. You know, things driven by competition but on a fundamental level all compatible.
Sort of like how all OSes support OpenGL, and all graphics cards work via the same APIs, browsers are all different and offer features but work with HTML, Javascript, CSS.
MS has been dominant for so long we seem to forget what competition and diversity look like, and forget that it requires cooperation between entities to make sure that it doesn't go to crap.
But then everyone looks at MS and Apple's lock-in and think "That's what I want. Legions of customers who can't escape me!" with the end result being that end-users get screwed in the long term and progress slows to a crawl in favor of profits.
All those standardization layers you quoted as example came after the platform. And they all exist on MS and Apple platforms.
They, by themselves, don't 'sell'.
'Openness' and technical superiority by themselves don't 'sell'.
It ensures that application developers have a stable set of APIs that they can rely on across devices and manufacturers. But manufacturer can add whatever they want on top of that, as seen in the WeTab MeeGo tablet being able to run also Android applications.
You state that as if any of the aforementioned UI options on top of Android are breaking API's. To my knowledge, none are.
Originally Posted by
Not much. But based on what I've read of Android 3.0, it seems Google is seeking to limit that type of customization
Sounds like they're becoming more MeeGo-like in that endeavor.
I guess what I'm gathering from your statements is that MeeGo has a API framework that explains what UI calls and changes that each and every UI on top of the MeeGo framework will have to follow. As it stands, in very loose terms; that's the exact same thing that's in place for Android.
So with that said, why was it brought up like one had an advantage over the other? I'm not seeing it. Both seem to have rigid frameworks whereas UI/UX is in question. And to me, that's a very good thing.
One isn't more limited than the other... which is also a very good thing (sticking with the UI/UX sections).
I would reiterate what you said Pantera, it was cutting edge for it's time three to four years ago and now it needs to die gracefully. It is too divorced from the leading pack.
I'm not interested about Symbian phones really these days but Symbian is THE OS in mid and low end. Nokia packs lots of hw and features for 150 euros Symbian phones that's not really possible with Android yet because it's a resource hog.
If anything it's very possible that Symbian sells in 2 years time in same numbers as S40(it's not Symbian!) as in Nokia's plans Symbian takes S40 place. When people here say Symbian should just die i don't think people get that if that happens Nokia will essentially be next Motorola.
Old part of Symbian is AVKON that was made in late 90's for hw button based phones, but that changes as Qt takes it's place.
It will be the price and features that will sell S'4 also in future, but the great thing will be that it will be connected to the whole ecosystem that was not there with S40. The feel of the UI will change alot that i can tell already when the throw AVKON out even if they would want to keep some Symbian elements.
All those standardization layers you quoted as example came after the platform. And they all exist on MS and Apple platforms.
They, by themselves, don't 'sell'.
'Openness' and technical superiority by themselves don't 'sell'.
I said NOTHING about openness or technical superiority. Don't stuff words in my mouth. My point was that in a market not suppressed by a behemoth like Microsoft then competitors in a market will look for means of differentiating themselves while still being compatible. Sort of like how Linux distros compete with each other for mindshare but are still compatible with each other.
We simply don't know what that looks like in computing because MS has skewed people's perceptions, to the point that they think diversity is bad.
By your logic we should give up on everything but Windows, Mac OS, Android, and iOS. And personally, I don't want to see what computing looks like when those are our only options.
I said NOTHING about openness or technical superiority. Don't stuff words in my mouth. My point was that in a market not suppressed by a behemoth like Microsoft then competitors in a market will look for means of differentiating themselves while still being compatible. Sort of like how Linux distros compete with each other for mindshare but are still compatible with each other.
We simply don't know what that looks like in computing because MS has skewed people's perceptions, to the point that they think diversity is bad.
By your logic we should give up on everything but Windows, Mac OS, Android, and iOS. And personally, I don't want to see what computing looks like when those are our only options.
And don't stuff words in my mouth
Actually I'm all for technical superiority and open standards; but I've yet to see a workable implementation of them in a brand new platform that can penetrate the market single-handedly.
Android is possibly the closest one I've seen so far.
You state that as if any of the aforementioned UI options on top of Android are breaking API's. To my knowledge, none are.
They don't have a nearly as clear separation between the Core and the UX as MeeGo. An UX that uses the MeeGo API should basically need a recompile, push packages and that's about it, no several months worth of herculean rollout efforts like on Android (plus, the release schedule is known up front).
And of course the tiny detail that with MeeGo you are free to use all the libraries that were ever implemented for Linux, no NDI type hacks required.
They don't have a nearly as clear separation between the Core and the UX as MeeGo. An UX that uses the MeeGo API should basically need a recompile, push packages and that's about it, no several months worth of herculean rollout efforts like on Android (plus, the release schedule is known up front).
Thanks for the answer; however I'm not sure (beyond effort) that's really the disadvantage here.
I'm not interested about Symbian phones really these days but Symbian is THE OS in mid and low end. Nokia packs lots of hw and features for 150 euros Symbian phones that's not really possible with Android yet because it's a resource hog.
If anything it's very possible that Symbian sells in 2 years time in same numbers as S40(it's not Symbian!) as in Nokia's plans Symbian takes S40 place. When people here say Symbian should just die i don't think people get that if that happens Nokia will essentially be next Motorola.
Old part of Symbian is AVKON that was made in late 90's for hw button based phones, but that changes as Qt takes it's place.
It will be the price and features that will sell S'4 also in future, but the great thing will be that it will be connected to the whole ecosystem that was not there with S40. The feel of the UI will change alot that i can tell already when the throw AVKON out even if they would want to keep some Symbian elements.
See, I agree, that is the thing many people don't realise. There is an ungodly number of S40 devices being sold every year, numbers that dwarf everyone else's devices. The more of those S40 devices get replaced by Symbian models in the low/mid-end, the greater the effective marketshare.
Oh and a reminder for people unfamiliar with it - Symbian was/is essentially the core OS that came from Psion's work.S60 is what Nokia actually marketed and built on top of it. UIQ is another example, one that primarily Motorola and Sony Ericsson used. They squandered it completely, I know many people loved the interface and the way it would be implemented on touchscreen phones.
Not an entirely accurate description but it is sort of the way Linux is in reality the kernel not all the stuff built on top of it with every distribution. The S60 "wrapper"/UI are a small piece, which is why it was possible to put in place the transition st S^3 et.c.
We simply don't know what that looks like in computing because MS has skewed people's perceptions, to the point that they think diversity is bad.
More than that, it has brainwashed people into accepting bad software. Instead of complaining loudly and demanding their money back when their computer has crashed for the Nth time in a day because of crappy software, they are instead trained to restart/reboot/reinstall.
