All the SDKs released before 1.0 were no accident you know. So far, only the 1.1 SDK was released after the firmware (and not long after at that.) I don't understand the point of this discussion. We know that the SDK should be released before the bits are placed on actual devices and you know that as well. Since there's been no announcement of Cupcake availability on actual handsets, why all this fuss?
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > Dave, > > I understand the effort involved, but the choice for any SDK is really; > > a) Release the SDK before the devices and let developers test and prepare > their apps. > > b) Allow users to start buying a device which may not properly run the > applications available from Market. > > This is a no-brainer and in order to not appear like a piece of half-thought > out technology the answer has to be a. > > Apple understand this. Microsoft understand this. Symbian understand this. > RIM understand this. This is why they all have developer programmes which > give previews of upcoming OS releases and features. To ignore this fact is > like signing a death warrant on the general publics perception of Android. > > I know that you're going to make every effort to make sure it does happen, > but from a users point of view being told "well we did try" just doesn't cut > the mustard. Being told they may encounter problems using applications from > Googles market running on a Google branded phone downloaded directly on the > 'phone is just going to look really poor. After all who wouldn't be mad if > they bought a Ford car which turned up with an Ford accessories catalogue, > bought some stuff from the accessories catalogue, waited for it to arrive, > tried to fit it, find out it doesn't work, 'phone up Ford, only to be told > "Oh yeah, we left it in the catalogue, but the accessory manufacturer had no > way of testing if it worked because we couldn't do that for them" (although > given Google Support Desk the user will probably just get told "It's an app > problem, it's the developers fault"). > > This is one of the few occasions where I think a marketing persons view > could be of use. > > Al. > > > ________________________________ > From: android-developers@googlegroups.com > [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Turner > Sent: 24 March 2009 16:01 > To: android-developers@googlegroups.com > Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the SDK? > > Hmm.. Despite the fact that this is what we want, we cannot make a guarantee > that the Cupcake SDK will be officially released strictly before the > platform is available on retail phones. > > Properly testing and packaging a SDK takes a lot of time, we may encounter > blocker bugs that have nothing to do with the software on the phone (e.g. > emulator crashes on platform X, ADB doesn't see emulator/devices on platform > Y, etc..). While we test the SDK frequently during development, doing the > necessary job to ensure that it's not going to break on the machines of all > people who download it from the official repository takes some time. And > then, the web site needs to be updated, especially the documentation needs > to reflect the new features / fixes / etc... > > But apart from that, I don't see a reason why this SDK would lag behind, and > as I said, we want it to be released ASAP. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: >> >> JBQ, >> >> Can you pass up the chain that the 'phrase >> >> "...you can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a >> cupcake-originated release as soon as possible." >> >> should be planned to be a point in time (hopefully a couple of weeks) >> before >> a carrier releases a device with it on. >> >> I'm sure you're aware there's no bigger recipe for pain than when the >> first >> people to test applications on a new release of a platform are users who >> are >> trying out a new 'phone in a shop. >> >> Al. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: android-developers@googlegroups.com >> [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Baptiste >> Queru >> Sent: 24 March 2009 15:39 >> To: android-developers@googlegroups.com >> Subject: [android-developers] Re: Cupcake coming in April? Where is the >> SDK? >> >> >> 1.1 was essentially a update of a few Google-proprietary bits on top of >> the >> same platform as 1.0. >> From the point of view of the Android platform (and therefore of the SDK >> as >> well), the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 are extremely minor. >> >> Cupcake is a branch name, it's not a released version. A future numbered >> release will be cut from the cupcake branch, but that product isn't ready >> yet, and therefore there can be no SDK yet. >> >> As cupcake contains significant platform changes compared to 1.0/1.1, you >> can be sure that you'll have an official SDK for a cupcake-originated >> release as soon as possible. >> >> JBQ >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 AM, tauntz <tau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I just hope that this time the release date for the official SDK will >> > be BEFORE the update hits the masses. Not like it was with the 1.1SDK >> > - it was released way after 1.1 was released to end-users (the >> > argument from Google was something in the lines of "Hey, this is a >> > small release with no mayor changes so don't whine that you get it so >> > late"). Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that this is ridiculous.. >> > One of the reasons why we don't have the official 1.5 (or cupcake or >> > however it will be officially called) SDK is that "It's not stable >> > enough" - fair enough but I really hope that you guys @ Google will >> > release it as soon as the code is stable enough (eg the code is tested >> > and ready to be released to the operators). That would give us a week >> > (maybe more) before the operators push it to the end-users. >> > >> > And don't come with the "you can build your own SDK from the >> > opensource tree if you want" - the last releases didn't come from the >> > opensource tree so even if I wanted, i couldn't build the SDK based on >> > the code that's shipped to the end-users. And even if this release >> > will actually come from the public tree, you can't expect all app >> > developers to build their own SDK, can you? We need an official SDK - >> > and we need it as soon as the tree is stable enough (and way before >> > it's pushed to the carriers/end-users) >> > >> > >> > Tauno >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM, AndroidApp <zl25dre...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Not if you stay anonymous (hint, hint) ;-) >> >> >> >> On Mar 23, 7:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous >> >> <firewallbr...@googlemail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> " Someone from Google? " makes it official i guess :D >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM, AndroidApp <zl25dre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Can someone capable just compile the SDK and post it online for >> >>> > everyone? Someone from Google? I dont really care if it's not >> >>> > official, i just dont want to download the source tree just to >> >>> > build the SDK, plus i need to do the tricks you mentioned to make >> >>> > it work on windows. >> >>> >> >>> > On Mar 23, 1:11 pm, Marco Nelissen <marc...@android.com> wrote: >> >>> > > I certainly hope there aren't "a lot" of applications that use >> >>> > > reflection and private APIs. >> >>> >> >>> > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 6:59 AM, zl25drexel >> >>> > > <zl25dre...@gmail.com> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > > > Cupcake is coming, and as you know it will break a lot of apps >> >>> > > > in the market, those that use reflection & private api. So >> >>> > > > where is the Cupcake SDK/emulator for us to try our apps? >> >>> >> >>> > > > I know we can download the source codes and build it, and I >> >>> > > > know apps wont break if they dont use undocumented api, blah >> >>> > > > blah blah, but we should get an official SDK/emulator for >> >>> > > > cupcake, dont you think, google? >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru >> Android Engineer, Google. >> >> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will >> likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further warning. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- Romain Guy Android framework engineer romain...@android.com Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support. All such questions should be posted on public forums, where I and others can see and answer them --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
