Which are exactly what Ralf is saying. You can build an SDK out of some random change # of the tree, and we are going to make it clear to people that it is not official, because:
(1) We don't know what was done to build it, and thus what issues it may have (such as networking being broken, it not being provisioned, etc). (2) We don't know the state of the code at whatever place it was built from, and thus don't want to leave people with the impression that this SDK can actually be taken of an accurately reflection of the ultimate real SDK. As an example of the latter, I spent a couple days last week doing a bunch of cleanup of Cupcake, such as hiding new APIs that shouldn't be exposed in the SDK, and exposing APIs that shouldn't be hidden any more. So people can't count on the actual APIs they get in a random build of the SDK to actually accurately reflect what will be the final SDK, and that doesn't even get in to the more subtle issues of changes to the code. On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > > Quote sources; > > Open source builds labelled as "unofficial" SDK - > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/bb3374b419115644 > > Source of original quote on "unofficial" SDKs not working - > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/c408eb22c1722261 > > The rest of the discussion has moved to -discuss several hours before your > email, so please continue any discussion about it over there. > > Al. > > > --- > > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: android-developers@googlegroups.com > [mailto:android-develop...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ralf > Sent: 12 April 2009 03:04 > To: android-developers@googlegroups.com > Subject: [android-developers] Re: SDKs & comparison with the iPhone > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > > > > Now before I start on the iPhone comparison I'm going to pre-empt the > > normal "But Android is open source....." response by saying lets be > > honest and admit it as it stands Android is not an open source project > > because the public "open source" repository is pretty worthless in its' > current state. > > > > The last time I tried to build the master branch it failed missing > > some Google internal API classes. The SDKs I've produce from the > > cupcake branch seem to be considered by Google employees as pretty > > useless with comments like "This is why we want to be clear it is > > "unofficial," because it is not actually a working SDK" being thrown > > around and networking in the emulator > > You're jumping to conclusions here, and I'd like to be quite interested in > seeing the source of your quote as I guess that's your interpretation, not > an actual quote. > > The current cupcake SDK is out there for anybody who wants to use it. > I even contributed clear instructions on how to build it. It is not deemed > final and won't be till it is officially stated as such. And even when the > cupcake SDK will be deemed final, the official one will be the one > distributed on android.com -- whatever you build is not official. > > The rest seems mere trolling and out of place on the developer forum so > I'll > skip it. > R/ > > > still being broken a week after users started reporting the > > showstopper problem (And Romain did hint that Google have a fix, I > > read > > http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/msg/41fcefc36bd16d44 > > as "there is a version where this is fixed"). And as we all know you > > can't use it to build the exact versions of the open source parts of > > either of the two firmware versions that have shipped on the G1. > > > > To me it seems little more than code dump which is aimed at ensuring > > Google can keep saying "But it is open source and not just a Google > project" > > > > Now, in the last week I had few conversations with iPhone developers > > so I could compare the Android developer experience to that of what is > > perceived as our nearest competitor and they are laughing at us > > (seriously, when I mentioned the G1 most of them responded by > > initially chuckling). The general consensus among them was; > > > > - Yes, you pay $99 for the iPhone dev kit, but you get "free" external > > testing (i.e. at apple) and commercial quality support with many > > queries being turned around in hours or a couple of days at worst. > > Compare that to some of the support queries on b.android.com for basic > > problems things like a Android failing to connect to wireless lans > > with hidden SSID > > (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1041) which, after > > *five and a half months* is still marked as "New" and doesn't have a > > single response from a Google employee. > > > > - The most common cause of App Store listing rejections are things > > that users would complain about anyway. This includes things like > > performance characteristics, UI anomalies, and inconsistent behaviour. > > This is the type of stuff that is left for users to find out on > > Android and only comes to light when 1* or 2* comments are posted and > > even then you don't know if it's a one off on the users device or > > possibly something specific to their region > (http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=2372). > > > > - The normal amount of time from submission to app store listing is > > around 7 days. Some apps take months to go through the approval > > process, but that is because of intellectual property concerns, > > concerns over offensive content, or is because the app has to be > > re-reviewed a few times to meet the apples performance and behaviour > > guidelines. Yes it's not as fast as Android, but you know that once > > it's on the market it's of a quality where you're not going to get > bombarded with user queries about problems straight off. > > > > - Most of the developers actually feel valued by Apple and feel that > > Apple does what it can to make sure they get the tools they need to do > > their job and ensure they're apps. This has been re-enforced by > > allowing the developers to beta test the new firmware and develop against > it. > > > > Personally, it's made me shell out $99 for an iPhone SDK, dust off my > > Nokia N81, and spend $75 on eBay on a Blackberry so I can explore the > > alternatives. > > > > Al. > > > > --- > > > > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * > > > > ====== > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > > subsidiaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dianne Hackborn Android framework engineer hack...@android.com Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to provide private support, and so won't reply to such e-mails. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
