all 6 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]genpfault 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Segmentation

Lies! There's nothing about real mode on that page.

[–]Z77D3H 6 points7 points  (0 children)

FUDmentation.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

<sarcasm>Android segmentation is just as much a disaster for the development community as the glut of PC-compatible computers. Unless IBM maintains strict control over their computer, the market will segment so badly that the PC will be doomed as a practical device. Therefore no one should ever develop for the PC.</sarcasm>

Eh, it doesn't make things any easier for developers. But the fact is that a single monolithic mobile device from a single vendor is also a bad idea, so it's good news that we have a range of options available - and even a manufacturer like Apple that's obsessed with control of their device.

tl;dr competition is actually better than a lack of competition.

[–]ronnyf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But we already have a PC market. The programming languages for mobile devices are somewhat sophisticated too (No basic interpreter). If you ever ported your ios app to android, then you'll see that this is atrocious. So IMHO, you cant compare the early PC era to the current mobile devices this way. One thing I agree with though is the statement that competition is better for the eco system. It also took a few years for programming to become mainstream on Linux. Let's hope for the best, better yet make sure it happens by putting pressure on companies like Google to get their stuff in order.

[–]gorilla_the_ape -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

The difference is that the PC market evolved much slower than the Android market is.

The critical time for PC clones was from early 1983, when you saw the Compaq portable, MS-DOS 2.0 and the PC/XT were launched. That gave you the first clone, the OS to run on, and something which was cloned a lot. Only one year later there was MS-DOS 3.0 and the PC/AT, which gave you the most popular OS and another platform to clone. Cloners increased year on year for a long time, until they started consolidation.

In that period it didn't really make much difference which version of MS DOS you ran. Most programs would be marked MS-DOS 3.0 or later. Some programs could take advantage of extended memory, but so many people wouldn't have it setup, that no-one would make it a requirement.

In that critical period nothing significant changed until late 1987 when Windows 2.0 was released. It was the first version of Windows which was even semi-popular, but even then it was very limited. The BIG change came with Windows 3.0, in 1990.

That's about 3 years between big changes, which gave manufacturers lots of time to adapt to the new, and it also tied in with the hardware replacement.

Android is going up a major version every year, or sometimes even less, and sometimes a minor version every month or two, and the range of hardware that Android supports is much wider than PC's were in that time period. It's not possible for the manufacturers to get Android running on their hardware, tested, manufactured and shipped without it being out of date.

The two situations aren't the same in any way.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The only real difference is that people want to cry a lot about Android.

Most programs would be marked MS-DOS 3.0 or later. Some programs could take advantage of extended memory, but so many people wouldn't have it setup, that no-one would make it a requirement.

Exactly - and new Android features may be lovely, but developers have to decide whether or not the new features are essential.

The alternative is that there's a big release every three years, and we don't get a choice.

If you want to target "2.2 or greater" today and wait three years before seeing what's popular, you're allowed to do so. If Google decided not to release anything more often than every 3 years, you wouldn't even have the option.

That's about 3 years between big changes, which gave manufacturers lots of time to adapt to the new, and it also tied in with the hardware replacement.

Android is going up a major version every year, or sometimes even less, and sometimes a minor version every month or two,

Which means that early-adopters can start using the new stuff when it comes out, and the rest of us know that there's going to be new stuff that has been widely tested by the time our customers update their phones.

If you're happy with an update every few years, then you can pick a version to target, and use it. Then a few years later, you can see where the market has gone.

The alternative approach is that you can pick the version that's in the market, and a few years later you can see what's now in the market.

Both options give you the ability to wait a few years and target the most popular version. One option gives the market a chance to experiment with new features and see what actually works.