It is a way of saying not to cut off the community at large. It has
not been received well that SDK updates are available to only few
under NDA, selected by the Challenge, without letting anybody know.
This could have been explained and accepted without much fuss.
An hour per day worth of effort (my estimate) is all it would take to
keep the community informed - and even if things cannot be shared with
the public at a certain point, the bare minimum that we (the developer
community) could reasonably expect is to at least be kept in the loop
on the superficial level.
Right now the developer community seems to fall apart. This post-
Challenge period left an impression with many that we're considered
Google roadkill. All the way through spring this year we accepted to
build our apps at-risk (no established platform). Fine, but we did not
expect getting dropped like a hot potato. This has pushed me over
anyways. Summer of no code here.
It's a bummer really - a browse through Apple's brand new app store
leaves me largely unimpressed.
JP
On Jul 11, 9:16 am, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team)
> should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available
> as quickly as we possibly can?
> JBQ (Android Engineer).
> On Jul 11, 1:42 am, just-some-guy <google-analytics....@daloo.de>
> wrote:
> > (+1)
> > i lost patience long ago. will keep coding/waiting untill the end of
> > july. then ill eigther switch to the iphone (if sells are good) or
> > windows mobile. i see absolutely no use in working with a barely
> > finished SDK on an emulator without a piece of hardware in my hand.
> > MOBILE phone development is no fun if you cant test it MOBILE.- Hide quoted text -
Isn't it Google policy that you learn stuff by getting it in people's
hands as quickly as possible?
This developer's concern is that in the rush Google makes a bad deal
with the carrier that results in an undifferentiated product (with
little access to network location information and a cumbersome
connection to the cloud).
Dear Google Android Team,
Please act in a way that supports the business folks in their
negotiations with carriers to get a differentiated product to
customers. A product that allows ordinary people to bring new network
and location benefits to other ordinary people.
On Jul 11, 12:16 pm, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team)
> should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available
> as quickly as we possibly can?
> JBQ (Android Engineer).
> On Jul 11, 1:42 am, just-some-guy <google-analytics....@daloo.de>
> wrote:
> > (+1)
> > i lost patience long ago. will keep coding/waiting untill the end of
> > july. then ill eigther switch to the iphone (if sells are good) or
> > windows mobile. i see absolutely no use in working with a barely
> > finished SDK on an emulator without a piece of hardware in my hand.
> > MOBILE phone development is no fun if you cant test it MOBILE.- Hide quoted text -
On Jul 11, 8:34 pm, "efont...@gmail.com" <efont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that in the rush Google makes a bad deal
> with the carrier that results in an undifferentiated product (with
> little access to network location information).
Exactly my concern, too. Like reading my mind. Before adding to this
however I'd like to say thanks to JBQ for checking in.
Back on top topic though; if carriers create derivate work from
Android to brand their devices, it's still going to be an Android
phone, right? And at least under the current license there's nothing
that Google can do to prevent this from happening. Let's have a look
at the tools that hang up there at the torture chamber wall. What
third-party apps might be denied of; what comes to mind within 10
seconds:
- access to contacts, messaging and phone controls
- location device (GPS) access
- maps through MapView (hope the TeleAtlas deal will prevent that (but
again we're hoping here))
Now why's that? Easy answer - all it takes is Wayfinder to come in,
ink an exclusive deal with carrier, charge the usual $129 and kick
back part of the revenue to the carrier. Independent developer: Out.
Consumers care? Unlikely, in particular here in the US; unless perhaps
there's a change in attitudes given the current economic downturn with
people looking for actual value products when they shell out hundreds
of dollars... unlikely though.
So there's an awful lot of things that can go wrong and it doesn't
even cover the usual annoyances like SIM locks, tethering locks (see
iPhone 3G) etc.
So we won't know *anything* until later this year, it seems? That's
why communications are so important.
I was a bit facetious in my previous post, I'm sorry about that, I
shouldn't have been playing with people's feelings like that, that was
somewhat inappropriate.
There is some truth however in saying that we (the Google Android
team) are very much focusing on playing our part in getting an Android
device on the shelves as soon as we possibly can, and that focus comes
at the expense of other tasks, like getting an SDK out. Since I'm
talking about that, I'll also point out that there's a large lag
between delivery of the final software to a manufacturer and
commercial availability of device with that software: there's a phase
of approvals, acceptance and certification, followed by manufacturing,
shipping and distribution, which take a fair amount of time. That
period of time is quite suitable for tasks like getting an SDK ready.
I've been personally involved in shipping cell phone software for
years, in a way that included an SDK, and invariably we'd build the
SDK after the final embedded software was released (so that we could
get as close a match as possible) and yet the SDK would be ready well
in advance of the availability of devices.
There've been quite a few long threads recently in various groups
(this thread, along with one in android-developers and one in android-
internals) around the issue of communication from Google. I'm sure
that many of the people who participated in those threads get the
feeling that their comments fell on deaf ears, whereas in fact that's
not true. Quite a few members of the Google Android team read those
groups (and we also read a number of community web sites), and (quite
a bit by definition) we are the ones who do care about the community.
Many of us have played roles in various developer communities in the
past, very often on both sides of the fence, and in more ways that one
we understand the situation that the developer community is in right
now and we share the pain. So, while those posts aren't falling on
deaf ears, they're typically falling in the wide-open ears of people
whose hands are tied and whose mouths are gagged, and the frustration
that such posts create in the Android team might in fact be larger
than the relief that gets created in the community.
I will say however, from personal experience being a third-party
developer for a certain platform before it shipped to customers, and
having gone through 5 major "developer" releases and 2 "preview"
releases of that platform, that getting many releases of a framework
that is undergoing active development before its first release is a
frustrating experience in itself. I remember investing a lot of energy
writing code around a certain feature that appeared in one of the
developer releases, only to see that feature disappear in a later
release. And of course that says nothing about the frustration of
porting my code from one release to the next in order to benefit from
certain bug fixes, only to find after a lot of porting effort that
bugs introduced in the newer release got in my ways more than the ones
I had ran into in the previous release. Looking back, I wish that I
had focused more on my system's architecture and on the core of my
code (which were the valuable parts), and less on chasing one SDK
after the other.
Back to the question, and to keep things simple, we've announced that
"the entire platform will be made available under the very liberal,
developer-friendly Apache v2 open-source license" (sorry I had to
quote that, I really have to be very careful about what I say here).
As I understand (but I am not a lawyer), the Apache License, Version
2.0 grants certain rights related to copyright and patents, but
explicitly does not grant permissions in the trademark area. So, there
is some openness about what people will be allowed to do with the
platform as it gets released, but not necessary about how they can
call the result. Once again, I am not a lawyer, and that is obviously
not legal advice.
Ultimately, the market forces will prevail. This is a complex
ecosystem, though, with consumers, network operators, and third-party
developers playing a role (and I'm not even putting software providers
and device manufacturers in the list). The way I see it, if there are
enough excellent third-party applications, consumers will be willing
to pay more money for devices that can run those applications, and
network operators will have an incentive to allow those applications
to run. I said earlier that I'm not a lawyer, and I'll say here that
I'm not an economist either, and what I just wrote about the market it
very primitive and probably very naive too.
I'm afraid that none of all that I just wrote brings any closure in
terms of communication. That's all because it's not my role to
communicate the "big picture" answers that people would like to hear.
The Google Android people who read the groups hear you, we understand
your pain, we communicate it back up to our management, we're not
happy about the situation either, we'd love more openness too. And,
just like anybody else, we don't like to read implications that we're
lazy, or that we're liars, or that we don't care about you, or any of
the other nasty things that have been written or implied about us,
because none of that it true.
JBQ (Android Engineer)
On Jul 11, 9:43 pm, JP <Joachim.Pfeif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:34 pm, "efont...@gmail.com" <efont...@gmail.com> wrote:> that in the rush Google makes a bad deal
> > with the carrier that results in an undifferentiated product (with
> > little access to network location information).
> Exactly my concern, too. Like reading my mind. Before adding to this
> however I'd like to say thanks to JBQ for checking in.
> Back on top topic though; if carriers create derivate work from
> Android to brand their devices, it's still going to be an Android
> phone, right? And at least under the current license there's nothing
> that Google can do to prevent this from happening. Let's have a look
> at the tools that hang up there at the torture chamber wall. What
> third-party apps might be denied of; what comes to mind within 10
> seconds:
> - access to contacts, messaging and phone controls
> - location device (GPS) access
> - maps through MapView (hope the TeleAtlas deal will prevent that (but
> again we're hoping here))
> Now why's that? Easy answer - all it takes is Wayfinder to come in,
> ink an exclusive deal with carrier, charge the usual $129 and kick
> back part of the revenue to the carrier. Independent developer: Out.
> Consumers care? Unlikely, in particular here in the US; unless perhaps
> there's a change in attitudes given the current economic downturn with
> people looking for actual value products when they shell out hundreds
> of dollars... unlikely though.
> So there's an awful lot of things that can go wrong and it doesn't
> even cover the usual annoyances like SIM locks, tethering locks (see
> iPhone 3G) etc.
> So we won't know *anything* until later this year, it seems? That's
> why communications are so important.
We hear you. Thanks for taking your time and communicating with the android developer community. This I hope is the first step in bridging the gap that was created between Google and the Android development community after the public SDK stopped coming.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:29 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm going to get into trouble for this post...
> I was a bit facetious in my previous post, I'm sorry about that, I > shouldn't have been playing with people's feelings like that, that was > somewhat inappropriate.
> There is some truth however in saying that we (the Google Android > team) are very much focusing on playing our part in getting an Android > device on the shelves as soon as we possibly can, and that focus comes > at the expense of other tasks, like getting an SDK out. Since I'm > talking about that, I'll also point out that there's a large lag > between delivery of the final software to a manufacturer and > commercial availability of device with that software: there's a phase > of approvals, acceptance and certification, followed by manufacturing, > shipping and distribution, which take a fair amount of time. That > period of time is quite suitable for tasks like getting an SDK ready. > I've been personally involved in shipping cell phone software for > years, in a way that included an SDK, and invariably we'd build the > SDK after the final embedded software was released (so that we could > get as close a match as possible) and yet the SDK would be ready well > in advance of the availability of devices.
> There've been quite a few long threads recently in various groups > (this thread, along with one in android-developers and one in android- > internals) around the issue of communication from Google. I'm sure > that many of the people who participated in those threads get the > feeling that their comments fell on deaf ears, whereas in fact that's > not true. Quite a few members of the Google Android team read those > groups (and we also read a number of community web sites), and (quite > a bit by definition) we are the ones who do care about the community. > Many of us have played roles in various developer communities in the > past, very often on both sides of the fence, and in more ways that one > we understand the situation that the developer community is in right > now and we share the pain. So, while those posts aren't falling on > deaf ears, they're typically falling in the wide-open ears of people > whose hands are tied and whose mouths are gagged, and the frustration > that such posts create in the Android team might in fact be larger > than the relief that gets created in the community.
> I will say however, from personal experience being a third-party > developer for a certain platform before it shipped to customers, and > having gone through 5 major "developer" releases and 2 "preview" > releases of that platform, that getting many releases of a framework > that is undergoing active development before its first release is a > frustrating experience in itself. I remember investing a lot of energy > writing code around a certain feature that appeared in one of the > developer releases, only to see that feature disappear in a later > release. And of course that says nothing about the frustration of > porting my code from one release to the next in order to benefit from > certain bug fixes, only to find after a lot of porting effort that > bugs introduced in the newer release got in my ways more than the ones > I had ran into in the previous release. Looking back, I wish that I > had focused more on my system's architecture and on the core of my > code (which were the valuable parts), and less on chasing one SDK > after the other.
> Back to the question, and to keep things simple, we've announced that > "the entire platform will be made available under the very liberal, > developer-friendly Apache v2 open-source license" (sorry I had to > quote that, I really have to be very careful about what I say here). > As I understand (but I am not a lawyer), the Apache License, Version > 2.0 grants certain rights related to copyright and patents, but > explicitly does not grant permissions in the trademark area. So, there > is some openness about what people will be allowed to do with the > platform as it gets released, but not necessary about how they can > call the result. Once again, I am not a lawyer, and that is obviously > not legal advice.
> Ultimately, the market forces will prevail. This is a complex > ecosystem, though, with consumers, network operators, and third-party > developers playing a role (and I'm not even putting software providers > and device manufacturers in the list). The way I see it, if there are > enough excellent third-party applications, consumers will be willing > to pay more money for devices that can run those applications, and > network operators will have an incentive to allow those applications > to run. I said earlier that I'm not a lawyer, and I'll say here that > I'm not an economist either, and what I just wrote about the market it > very primitive and probably very naive too.
> I'm afraid that none of all that I just wrote brings any closure in > terms of communication. That's all because it's not my role to > communicate the "big picture" answers that people would like to hear. > The Google Android people who read the groups hear you, we understand > your pain, we communicate it back up to our management, we're not > happy about the situation either, we'd love more openness too. And, > just like anybody else, we don't like to read implications that we're > lazy, or that we're liars, or that we don't care about you, or any of > the other nasty things that have been written or implied about us, > because none of that it true.
> JBQ (Android Engineer)
> On Jul 11, 9:43 pm, JP <Joachim.Pfeif...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 11, 8:34 pm, "efont...@gmail.com" <efont...@gmail.com> wrote:> > that in the rush Google makes a bad deal > > > with the carrier that results in an undifferentiated product (with > > > little access to network location information).
> > Exactly my concern, too. Like reading my mind. Before adding to this > > however I'd like to say thanks to JBQ for checking in.
> > Back on top topic though; if carriers create derivate work from > > Android to brand their devices, it's still going to be an Android > > phone, right? And at least under the current license there's nothing > > that Google can do to prevent this from happening. Let's have a look > > at the tools that hang up there at the torture chamber wall. What > > third-party apps might be denied of; what comes to mind within 10 > > seconds: > > - access to contacts, messaging and phone controls > > - location device (GPS) access > > - maps through MapView (hope the TeleAtlas deal will prevent that (but > > again we're hoping here)) > > Now why's that? Easy answer - all it takes is Wayfinder to come in, > > ink an exclusive deal with carrier, charge the usual $129 and kick > > back part of the revenue to the carrier. Independent developer: Out. > > Consumers care? Unlikely, in particular here in the US; unless perhaps > > there's a change in attitudes given the current economic downturn with > > people looking for actual value products when they shell out hundreds > > of dollars... unlikely though.
> > So there's an awful lot of things that can go wrong and it doesn't > > even cover the usual annoyances like SIM locks, tethering locks (see > > iPhone 3G) etc.
> > So we won't know *anything* until later this year, it seems? That's > > why communications are so important.
First, I'd like to echo Muthu's sentiments -- many thanks on making this post!
JBQ wrote: > So, while those posts aren't falling on > deaf ears, they're typically falling in the wide-open ears of people > whose hands are tied and whose mouths are gagged, and the frustration > that such posts create in the Android team might in fact be larger > than the relief that gets created in the community.
You probably can't answer this, but...
Is there anything we can do to assist with untying the hands and/or un-gagging the mouths? Besides being patient, of course.
<voice tone="conspiratorial">
(and if you can't speak freely, cough twice in your response)
</voice>
;-)
> And, > just like anybody else, we don't like to read implications that we're > lazy, or that we're liars, or that we don't care about you, or any of > the other nasty things that have been written or implied about us, > because none of that it true.
I can't speak for those who have been more...vociferous in their ranting, but I doubt that many of the shouts have truly been directed at engineers. I think they have been more aimed at the "project", which, at present, is a black box (e.g., where does Google end and OHA begin?). Again, not speaking for anyone else, I apologize if the Android engineering team feels persecuted due to the communications lockdown and our reaction to same.
On Jul 12, 7:26 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <muthu.ramad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JBQ,
> We hear you. Thanks for taking your time and communicating with the android
> developer community. This I hope is the first step in bridging the gap that
> was created between Google and the Android development community after the
> public SDK stopped coming.
> Hats off. Keep posting.
> Thanks.
Same here, thank for sharing.
It's not like we could (seriously) expect answers to big picture
question. The Android team cannot control some considerable aspects in
the first place. But at least keep the channels open about the aspects
you can. And if for one reason or another, some things cannot be
shared at one point, it's perfectly fine to state that that's the case
and if possible explain that.
Like we've seen there's a pretty bad impact when you cut off. I am
miffed for example (to inject a grief I've had recently) that the 1800-
number (number of entries to the Challenge I) is leveraged in the
press when on the other side we see treatment like we have. Guy's....
don't do stuff like that, especially considering that you'll need all
hands on deck when you need leverage to fight for *your* (and ours:
open source) interest when things are getting tight; and they will.
When someone ends up with bad compromises, at least one can go to
sleep at night and tell him or herself: you've done everything
possible.
I've been sloppy working out that Android licensing thought. What I
probably should have said was that carriers will likely go out and
(evil-)brand their product/service based on an Android derivative,
call it whatever their legal advisers will endorse, what they can
train their marketeers to pitch and what will provide maximum leverage
of the Google brand name (in the bigger picture: does the "Android"
name mean much anyhow). If things play out that way... *that's* going
to be pain for the Android team and it has been a bit of a shocker to
see how you guys cut off communications on a relatively easy set of
stakeholders like us. You all's have credit 'round here, but
immediately it raises doubt whether you are prepared to fight a fight
with the carriers when the Android team can't get the seemingly simple
things done.
Let me also say that one of the darker side aspects to me is
unceremoniously cutting off the developer advocates. Unless I've
gotten the wrong impression: This has torched Dan M. and others who
have been busting their tails off just a few months ago. A good time
to recognize their efforts, now that we know (not just suspect) that
they've been gagged. Seriously I hope they're not getting a heart
attack; there's been a bunch including myself who have been turning on
the heat...
For my personal entertainment I'll say I suppose they did not expect
something like this to happen when they walked by expecting mother
parking signs on their way to their first job interview. (;->)
Re: chasing SDK's: It's about what poison to chose. There's no right
answer. If we can't get visibility where the SDK goes, the concerns
with every piece of code we implement and every design decision we
take on an "old" release is that we might paint ourselves into a
corner. Lessons learned about focusing on design and architecture are
all valuable, but in the end it's code that actually runs on a
platform, not concepts, and that's what keeps us (or at least me)
going.
On Jul 12, 8:47 am, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote:
> I can't speak for those who have been more...vociferous in their
> ranting, but I doubt that many of the shouts have truly been directed at
> engineers. I think they have been more aimed at the "project", which, at
> present, is a black box (e.g., where does Google end and OHA begin?).
> Again, not speaking for anyone else, I apologize if the Android
> engineering team feels persecuted due to the communications lockdown and
> our reaction to same.
> In many ways, we only rant because we care... :-)
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team) > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available > as quickly as we possibly can?
I think we are all aware by now that Google doesn't have the resources to cut an SDK release, doing a community focus, AND to get the devices launched. This is perfectly understandable; it seems to me that a lot of developers are merely saying that it is no longer their problem.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:16 AM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team) > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available > as quickly as we possibly can?
> > i lost patience long ago. will keep coding/waiting untill the end of > > july. then ill eigther switch to the iphone (if sells are good) or > > windows mobile. i see absolutely no use in working with a barely > > finished SDK on an emulator without a piece of hardware in my hand. > > MOBILE phone development is no fun if you cant test it MOBILE.
I'm really not allowed to say anything concrete about the possibility
of an updated SDK at any point in the future. I'm left with two
options: say nothing at all, or try to say as much as I think can get
away with about other subjects, even if that doesn't answer the SDK
question, and even if I sometimes have to answer in an oblique way.
Saying things I'm strictly not allowed to say wouldn't accomplish
anything positive: saying isn't doing, and even if I said something
there wouldn't be an SDK available. Furthermore I'd probably lose my
job over it, and I'd like to think that I contribute enough to Android
that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and
it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
I'll try to answer a few of the questions that popped up, or to
clarify some of my earlier comments...
About accelerating the untying or un-gagging: I don't know if there's
much to be done. We've been struggling in those restraints for months,
and no matter how much we try they don't seem to ever get any looser
(but at least they don't seem to be getting any tighter either). I'm
afraid that everyone (both engineers on the inside and developers on
the outside) will have to be patient.
About the advocates: I have no reason to believe that at any point
they got gagged more than they already were. Overwhelmed, certainly.
Burnt out, possibly. I certainly don't envy their position, and my
hat's off to them.
"We rant because we care" (slightly misquoted): very well said. I'll
reply "we listen and reply because we care". And in the end we all end
up within a heated discussion between people who care for exactly the
same thing, which is truly bizarre and sad.
JBQ (Android Engineer)
On Jul 11, 9:23 am, Hong <lordh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JBQ, we need an updated SDK. That's the original point of this post.
> Why dodge the main concern us developers are having now?
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team)
> > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available
> > as quickly as we possibly can?
" "We rant because we care" (slightly misquoted): very well said. I'll
reply "we listen and reply because we care". And in the end we all
end
up within a heated discussion between people who care for exactly the
same thing, which is truly bizarre and sad."
Thank you for posting this two part sequence with no predictions of
the future.
Thank you also for posting the fix for sound on VISTA seeing as how
you can't get XP easily any more etc. That is really a big deal as I
bought a Vista notebook just to have a computer to run the SDK. It
made software for the challenge but could not (before now) do the next
step of tying sounds to mouse positions.
Please consider positioning Android as the operating system for
parents who care about their kids - older kids. The programming
process is pretty easy once you get past the file management stuff.
You have seen a homeschooler here who wants his kid to learn this -
and the kid seems to be driving it. The MIT folks seemed to enjoy
their work. I liked what I could do - even though I did have to go on
faith that the sound was OK.
Please touch base with the app engine folks as Android and App engine
that play great together... looks differentiated to me.
I don't know about the bizzare and sad part. I think the gag is sad,
but people want to say something positive when no one person can make
any commitment about the future - so we understand the gag and
appreciate the VISTA sound help.
My hopes are the the challenge painted a picture of what cell phones
could do and you had to adjust direction slightly to accomdate
different visions. Most adjustments cause loss. Loss causes heated
discussion, because people are trying to do the best work of their
lives.
>> Furthermore I'd probably lose my job over it, and I'd like to think that
I contribute enough to Android that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
Heard Google is pretty tight on employee blogs. You have done a great thing of engaging the community again. We would like you to be with Android and address our concerns as much as possible so it benefits Android as a whole. So please tell us only what you can, and we'll understand.
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:09 AM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm really not allowed to say anything concrete about the possibility > of an updated SDK at any point in the future. I'm left with two > options: say nothing at all, or try to say as much as I think can get > away with about other subjects, even if that doesn't answer the SDK > question, and even if I sometimes have to answer in an oblique way.
> Saying things I'm strictly not allowed to say wouldn't accomplish > anything positive: saying isn't doing, and even if I said something > there wouldn't be an SDK available. Furthermore I'd probably lose my > job over it, and I'd like to think that I contribute enough to Android > that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and > it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
> I'll try to answer a few of the questions that popped up, or to > clarify some of my earlier comments...
> About accelerating the untying or un-gagging: I don't know if there's > much to be done. We've been struggling in those restraints for months, > and no matter how much we try they don't seem to ever get any looser > (but at least they don't seem to be getting any tighter either). I'm > afraid that everyone (both engineers on the inside and developers on > the outside) will have to be patient.
> About the advocates: I have no reason to believe that at any point > they got gagged more than they already were. Overwhelmed, certainly. > Burnt out, possibly. I certainly don't envy their position, and my > hat's off to them.
> "We rant because we care" (slightly misquoted): very well said. I'll > reply "we listen and reply because we care". And in the end we all end > up within a heated discussion between people who care for exactly the > same thing, which is truly bizarre and sad.
> JBQ (Android Engineer)
> On Jul 11, 9:23 am, Hong <lordh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > JBQ, we need an updated SDK. That's the original point of this post. > > Why dodge the main concern us developers are having now?
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team) > > > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available > > > as quickly as we possibly can?
I believe that Google is realizing just how complex and difficult phone stability testing and compliance testing can be with carriers for their supposed Q4 launch.
Reason for SDK delay is obvious. Not enough people to focus on SDK with a focus on meeting those complex compliance matrices that carriers require and any and all NVIOTs and critical carrier requirements.
A typical carrier compliance document can run to thousands of lines in massive spreadsheets. The quiet you hear right now is all of the Android developers focused on product launch and all the complexities of actually meeting those requirements.
Would be great if Jean (JBQ) or a head engineer at Android could be
the technical spokesman for the product like spam engineer Matt Cutts
does for SEO - attending conferences and blogging openly about
updates, best practices, etc.
This would take the load off the engineers as a whole to focus on the
work and complete the software while at the same time being inclusive
by getting a face and the communication out there.
> >> Furthermore I'd probably lose my job over it, and I'd like to think that
> I contribute enough to Android that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to
> Android as a whole (and it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more
> than one way).
> Heard Google is pretty tight on employee blogs. You have done a great thing
> of engaging the community again. We would like you to be with Android and
> address our concerns as much as possible so it benefits Android as a whole.
> So please tell us only what you can, and we'll understand.
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:09 AM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm really not allowed to say anything concrete about the possibility
> > of an updated SDK at any point in the future. I'm left with two
> > options: say nothing at all, or try to say as much as I think can get
> > away with about other subjects, even if that doesn't answer the SDK
> > question, and even if I sometimes have to answer in an oblique way.
> > Saying things I'm strictly not allowed to say wouldn't accomplish
> > anything positive: saying isn't doing, and even if I said something
> > there wouldn't be an SDK available. Furthermore I'd probably lose my
> > job over it, and I'd like to think that I contribute enough to Android
> > that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and
> > it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
> > I'll try to answer a few of the questions that popped up, or to
> > clarify some of my earlier comments...
> > About accelerating the untying or un-gagging: I don't know if there's
> > much to be done. We've been struggling in those restraints for months,
> > and no matter how much we try they don't seem to ever get any looser
> > (but at least they don't seem to be getting any tighter either). I'm
> > afraid that everyone (both engineers on the inside and developers on
> > the outside) will have to be patient.
> > About the advocates: I have no reason to believe that at any point
> > they got gagged more than they already were. Overwhelmed, certainly.
> > Burnt out, possibly. I certainly don't envy their position, and my
> > hat's off to them.
> > "We rant because we care" (slightly misquoted): very well said. I'll
> > reply "we listen and reply because we care". And in the end we all end
> > up within a heated discussion between people who care for exactly the
> > same thing, which is truly bizarre and sad.
> > JBQ (Android Engineer)
> > On Jul 11, 9:23 am, Hong <lordh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > JBQ, we need an updated SDK. That's the original point of this post.
> > > Why dodge the main concern us developers are having now?
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team)
> > > > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available
> > > > as quickly as we possibly can?
Instead of going to the iPhone of Windows Mobile, why not go to
OpenMoko? There's already a device selling (the FreeRunner), there's
an active community, SDKs are available, and your Android knowledge
can at least partially apply as Android and OpenMoko have a decent
amount in common.
On Jul 11, 4:42 am, just-some-guy <google-analytics....@daloo.de>
wrote:
> i lost patience long ago. will keep coding/waiting untill the end of
> july. then ill eigther switch to the iphone (if sells are good) or
> windows mobile. i see absolutely no use in working with a barely
> finished SDK on an emulator without a piece of hardware in my hand.
> MOBILE phone development is no fun if you cant test it MOBILE.
We're pleased to announce that SDK build 84853 is now available on
your private download site. This will be the last build released for
ADC Round 2 and is the build that you will need to submit your final
application under.
In addition, the final ADC deadline has been extended to Tuesday,
August 5. This is the final ADC deadline.
Thanks!
Android Developer Challenge Team
On Jul 13, 1:41 pm, "Muthu Ramadoss" <muthu.ramad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Furthermore I'd probably lose my job over it, and I'd like to think that
> I contribute enough to Android that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to
> Android as a whole (and it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more
> than one way).
> Heard Google is pretty tight on employee blogs. You have done a great thing
> of engaging the community again. We would like you to be with Android and
> address our concerns as much as possible so it benefits Android as a whole.
> So please tell us only what you can, and we'll understand.
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:09 AM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm really not allowed to say anything concrete about the possibility
> > of an updated SDK at any point in the future. I'm left with two
> > options: say nothing at all, or try to say as much as I think can get
> > away with about other subjects, even if that doesn't answer the SDK
> > question, and even if I sometimes have to answer in an oblique way.
> > Saying things I'm strictly not allowed to say wouldn't accomplish
> > anything positive: saying isn't doing, and even if I said something
> > there wouldn't be an SDK available. Furthermore I'd probably lose my
> > job over it, and I'd like to think that I contribute enough to Android
> > that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and
> > it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
> > I'll try to answer a few of the questions that popped up, or to
> > clarify some of my earlier comments...
> > About accelerating the untying or un-gagging: I don't know if there's
> > much to be done. We've been struggling in those restraints for months,
> > and no matter how much we try they don't seem to ever get any looser
> > (but at least they don't seem to be getting any tighter either). I'm
> > afraid that everyone (both engineers on the inside and developers on
> > the outside) will have to be patient.
> > About the advocates: I have no reason to believe that at any point
> > they got gagged more than they already were. Overwhelmed, certainly.
> > Burnt out, possibly. I certainly don't envy their position, and my
> > hat's off to them.
> > "We rant because we care" (slightly misquoted): very well said. I'll
> > reply "we listen and reply because we care". And in the end we all end
> > up within a heated discussion between people who care for exactly the
> > same thing, which is truly bizarre and sad.
> > JBQ (Android Engineer)
> > On Jul 11, 9:23 am, Hong <lordh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > JBQ, we need an updated SDK. That's the original point of this post.
> > > Why dodge the main concern us developers are having now?
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team)
> > > > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available
> > > > as quickly as we possibly can?
Would be great if Jean or a head engineer at Android could be the technical spokesman for the product like spam engineer Matt Cutts does for SEO - attending conferences and blogging openly about updates, best practices, etc.
From: Muthu Ramadoss [mailto:muthu.ramad...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 8:42 PM To: android-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Petition - Information about upcoming SDKs!
>> Furthermore I'd probably lose my job over it, and I'd like to think that
I contribute enough to Android that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
Heard Google is pretty tight on employee blogs. You have done a great thing of engaging the community again. We would like you to be with Android and address our concerns as much as possible so it benefits Android as a whole. So please tell us only what you can, and we'll understand.
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:09 AM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm really not allowed to say anything concrete about the possibility of an updated SDK at any point in the future. I'm left with two options: say nothing at all, or try to say as much as I think can get away with about other subjects, even if that doesn't answer the SDK question, and even if I sometimes have to answer in an oblique way.
Saying things I'm strictly not allowed to say wouldn't accomplish anything positive: saying isn't doing, and even if I said something there wouldn't be an SDK available. Furthermore I'd probably lose my job over it, and I'd like to think that I contribute enough to Android that losing my job wouldn't be beneficial to Android as a whole (and it certainly wouldn't be beneficial to me, in more than one way).
I'll try to answer a few of the questions that popped up, or to clarify some of my earlier comments...
About accelerating the untying or un-gagging: I don't know if there's much to be done. We've been struggling in those restraints for months, and no matter how much we try they don't seem to ever get any looser (but at least they don't seem to be getting any tighter either). I'm afraid that everyone (both engineers on the inside and developers on the outside) will have to be patient.
About the advocates: I have no reason to believe that at any point they got gagged more than they already were. Overwhelmed, certainly. Burnt out, possibly. I certainly don't envy their position, and my hat's off to them.
"We rant because we care" (slightly misquoted): very well said. I'll reply "we listen and reply because we care". And in the end we all end up within a heated discussion between people who care for exactly the same thing, which is truly bizarre and sad.
JBQ (Android Engineer)
On Jul 11, 9:23 am, Hong <lordh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JBQ, we need an updated SDK. That's the original point of this post. > Why dodge the main concern us developers are having now?
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM, JBQ <jbqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > just-some-guy: is this a way of saying that we (Google Android team) > > should continue to focus on making sure that devices can be available > > as quickly as we possibly can?
I don't understand why everything is so closed for an open source
platform. If this were any other open source project, all developers
would be able to follow the trunk and we would be submitting bug
fixes ... not sitting around waiting for them.
Google has really shown that they understand the open source community
equally as well as Microsoft ... inotherwords, not at all. I hope the
community is embraced and Android grows to see its true potential.
I hope that Android becomes the best platform because it has the best
development tools. I've never developed for a mobile platform
before ... but I can't *wait* to one day write and distribute Android
apps.
I still have *very* high hopes!
On Jun 28, 2:57 am, plusminus <stoeps...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I'm starting this petition, to express my personal frustration about
> the release cycles and the information policy of the Android SDK.
> Before m5 we were waiting about 2 months, now we are waiting almost 4
> months!
> Partially the SDK is buggy (i.e.: the MediaPlayer) and features like
> built-in Geocoding are not working.
> In order not to lose many highly encouraged developers, I think its
> time to release some news about the development process of the SDK.
> Maybe let us know why we have to live with these long cycles.
> As you maybe know, I am one of the biggest fans of Android, putting a
> lot of work into the community through my forum. But unfortunately
> disappointment is being born in the last weeks :(
> (Especially thinking of recently existing OpenMoko-Phones and the new
> iPhone SDK).
> In my personal opinion it is not the right choice to keep developers
> in the dark. We, the developers, are the absolute base of success to
> the whole Android platform. The presentation with GoogleIO was a good
> first step but for me it was nto enough.
> Therefore I am 'signing' this 'petition', hoping to receive
> information/update on the Android SDK.
> (+1) plusminus
> Regards, plusminushttp://anddev.org > # Worlds largest Android Development Community / Tutorials
> PS: I didn't want to depreciate the work of the Android Dev Team or
> anyone else.
I haven't seen my first reply show up yet, but I've since been reading
more ... and I'm really happy to see things like JBQs' long response.
I think everyone knows that it's not the Android Dev Team's fault ...
but being very public and open about developer frustration seems
necessary so the Dev Team can say to their higher-ups "Hey, look at
all of these pissed off people ... can we do something about this?"
On Jun 28, 2:57 am, plusminus <stoeps...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I'm starting this petition, to express my personal frustration about
> the release cycles and the information policy of the Android SDK.
> Before m5 we were waiting about 2 months, now we are waiting almost 4
> months!
> Partially the SDK is buggy (i.e.: the MediaPlayer) and features like
> built-in Geocoding are not working.
> In order not to lose many highly encouraged developers, I think its
> time to release some news about the development process of the SDK.
> Maybe let us know why we have to live with these long cycles.
> As you maybe know, I am one of the biggest fans of Android, putting a
> lot of work into the community through my forum. But unfortunately
> disappointment is being born in the last weeks :(
> (Especially thinking of recently existing OpenMoko-Phones and the new
> iPhone SDK).
> In my personal opinion it is not the right choice to keep developers
> in the dark. We, the developers, are the absolute base of success to
> the whole Android platform. The presentation with GoogleIO was a good
> first step but for me it was nto enough.
> Therefore I am 'signing' this 'petition', hoping to receive
> information/update on the Android SDK.
> (+1) plusminus
> Regards, plusminushttp://anddev.org > # Worlds largest Android Development Community / Tutorials
> PS: I didn't want to depreciate the work of the Android Dev Team or
> anyone else.
> I haven't seen my first reply show up yet, but I've since been reading
> more ... and I'm really happy to see things like JBQs' long response.
> I think everyone knows that it's not the Android Dev Team's fault ...
> but being very public and open about developer frustration seems
> necessary so the Dev Team can say to their higher-ups "Hey, look at
> all of these pissed off people ... can we do something about this?"
> On Jun 28, 2:57 am, plusminus <stoeps...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > I'm starting this petition, to express my personal frustration about
> > the release cycles and the information policy of the Android SDK.
> > Before m5 we were waiting about 2 months, now we are waiting almost 4
> > months!
> > Partially the SDK is buggy (i.e.: the MediaPlayer) and features like
> > built-in Geocoding are not working.
> > In order not to lose many highly encouraged developers, I think its
> > time to release some news about the development process of the SDK.
> > Maybe let us know why we have to live with these long cycles.
> > As you maybe know, I am one of the biggest fans of Android, putting a
> > lot of work into the community through my forum. But unfortunately
> > disappointment is being born in the last weeks :(
> > (Especially thinking of recently existing OpenMoko-Phones and the new
> > iPhone SDK).
> > In my personal opinion it is not the right choice to keep developers
> > in the dark. We, the developers, are the absolute base of success to
> > the whole Android platform. The presentation with GoogleIO was a good
> > first step but for me it was nto enough.
> > Therefore I am 'signing' this 'petition', hoping to receive
> > information/update on the Android SDK.
> > (+1) plusminus
> > Regards, plusminushttp://anddev.org > > # Worlds largest Android Development Community / Tutorials
> > PS: I didn't want to depreciate the work of the Android Dev Team or
> > anyone else.
> I haven't seen my first reply show up yet, but I've since been reading
> more ... and I'm really happy to see things like JBQs' long response.
> I think everyone knows that it's not the Android Dev Team's fault ...
> but being very public and open about developer frustration seems
> necessary so the Dev Team can say to their higher-ups "Hey, look at
> all of these pissed off people ... can we do something about this?"
> On Jun 28, 2:57 am, plusminus <stoeps...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > I'm starting this petition, to express my personal frustration about
> > the release cycles and the information policy of the Android SDK.
> > Before m5 we were waiting about 2 months, now we are waiting almost 4
> > months!
> > Partially the SDK is buggy (i.e.: the MediaPlayer) and features like
> > built-in Geocoding are not working.
> > In order not to lose many highly encouraged developers, I think its
> > time to release some news about the development process of the SDK.
> > Maybe let us know why we have to live with these long cycles.
> > As you maybe know, I am one of the biggest fans of Android, putting a
> > lot of work into the community through my forum. But unfortunately
> > disappointment is being born in the last weeks :(
> > (Especially thinking of recently existing OpenMoko-Phones and the new
> > iPhone SDK).
> > In my personal opinion it is not the right choice to keep developers
> > in the dark. We, the developers, are the absolute base of success to
> > the whole Android platform. The presentation with GoogleIO was a good
> > first step but for me it was nto enough.
> > Therefore I am 'signing' this 'petition', hoping to receive
> > information/update on the Android SDK.
> > (+1) plusminus
> > Regards, plusminushttp://anddev.org > > # Worlds largest Android Development Community / Tutorials
> > PS: I didn't want to depreciate the work of the Android Dev Team or
> > anyone else.
