ICS a disappointment?

[csseale]

Release early, release often is a core google philosophy.

The lack of a honeycomb source release has nothing to do with being "rushed". According to Rubin, it was to prevent the proliferation of phones with a non-phone optimized OS.

Exactly. They are seperating the code. If phones ran honeycomb it would fragment android even more. They wanted tablet to stay tablet. Could u imagine all the honeycomb apps built for phone screensize in mind. Come on its just good house keeping.

Now with ics devs can build and things remain clean and organized.

 

[s14tam]

Release early, release often is a core google philosophy.

The lack of a honeycomb source release has nothing to do with being "rushed". According to Rubin, it was to prevent the proliferation of phones with a non-phone optimized OS.

Phones have always been the bread and butter market for Android and yet they made a complete divergence with a major release of Android...for tablets.

If not for moto pushing development for a os to put on the xoom, they would have had more time to make Android 3.0 what it should have been, what ICS is now, hence the term "rushed", and we would have had multi core support on our dual core phones for months now.

added:

Exactly. They are seperating the code. If phones ran honeycomb it would fragment android even more. They wanted tablet to stay tablet. Could u imagine all the honeycomb apps built for phone screensize in mind. Come on its just good house keeping.

Now with ics devs can build and things remain clean and organized.

They can have a tablet stay a tablet even though its running the same OS after all isn't that what ICS is? My point is ICS was what HC was meant to be all along but they pushed (or "rushed" if you will) 3.0 to be released on the Xoom. Also, theoretically, just because a phone ran HC, doesn't mean they would allow a tablet version of a program to run on a phone. IOS runs on both iphone and ipad but they still have separate apps. Without some modding, i can't even find certain apps in market on my HD2 because Google deems it not compatible.

 

[ZanshinG1]

Phones have always been the bread and butter market for Android and yet they made a complete divergence with a major release of Android...for tablets.

If not for moto pushing development for a os to put on the xoom, they would have had more time to make Android 3.0 what it should have been, what ICS is now, hence the term "rushed", and we would have had multi core support on our dual core phones for months now.

added:


They can have a tablet stay a tablet even though its running the same OS after all isn't that what ICS is? My point is ICS was what HC was meant to be all along but they pushed (or "rushed" if you will) 3.0 to be released on the Xoom. Also, theoretically, just because a phone ran HC, doesn't mean they would allow a tablet version of a program to run on a phone. IOS runs on both iphone and ipad but they still have separate apps. Without some modding, i can't even find certain apps in market on my HD2 because Google deem s it not compatible.

Not google. The developer, either by manifest settings or explicit device blacklisting.

My biggest problem with your argument is that it's speculation that Motorola pushed Google to release a beta OS for tablets. I've seen no evidence to support that, and multiple press releases and developer conferences which refute it.

Both honeycomb and ICS have been on their roadmap and discussed by the android framework team since early 2010.

If one is going to speculate, a hypothesis such as "Google and Motorola saw the success of the iPad and decided to test the waters with a pure tablet OS while ICS was baking" at least fits the evidence better.

 

[s14tam]

Not google. The developer, either by manifest settings or explicit device blacklisting.

My biggest problem with your argument is that it's speculation that Motorola pushed Google to release a beta OS for tablets. I've seen no evidence to support that, and multiple press releases and developer conferences which refute it.

Both honeycomb and ICS have been on their roadmap and discussed by the android framework team since early 2010.

If one is going to speculate, a hypothesis such as "Google and Motorola saw the success of the iPad and decided to test the waters with a pure tablet OS while ICS was baking" at least fits the evidence better.

Google, developer, whoever. Point was that its possible and is practice to separate apps by device.

Also I never said they released a beta. Merely that production was pushed. As far as press releases go, hmmm... why would google want to play off a half-assed os as all part of the plan? Not that I'm saying HC was half assed, in fact I love HC, but it would be in their best interest to say the lack of features and functions as part of their master plan. May be it was, I don't know. I, for one wouldn't be so quick to drink googles kool-aid.

I have not seen any road map confirming either HC or ICS as early as you say, but even so, production of devices can take a copious amount of time so I could see moto having talks with google on the issue developing for the xoom.

The market for tech is cut-throat to say the least. It just makes sense that they would push as hard as they could to release products even if they are half baked. Your right that it is conjecture. I don't work for google. I don't have inside knowledge of their development or their plans. I have seen this scenario played out before though as has anyone who has ever used Windows Vista or some other similar scenario which I won't bother to define at the moment as this post has dragged on long enough for me.

 

[csseale]

Google, developer, whoever. Point was that its possible and is practice to separate apps by device.

Also I never said they released a beta. Merely that production was pushed. As far as press releases go, hmmm... why would google want to play off a half-assed os as all part of the plan? Not that I'm saying HC was half assed, in fact I love HC, but it would be in their best interest to say the lack of features and functions as part of their master plan. May be it was, I don't know. I, for one wouldn't be so quick to drink googles kool-aid.

I have not seen any road map confirming either HC or ICS as early as you say, but even so, production of devices can take a copious amount of time so I could see moto having talks with google on the issue developing for the xoom.

The market for tech is cut-throat to say the least. It just makes sense that they would push as hard as they could to release products even if they are half baked. Your right that it is conjecture. I don't work for google. I don't have inside knowledge of their development or their plans. I have seen this scenario played out before though as has anyone who has ever used Windows Vista or some other similar scenario which I won't bother to define at the moment as this post has dragged on long enough for me.

I think you are just missing the point. I get what you are saying and agree to a point. But u have to understand Google did not want hc phones running around. It was not meant for phones and they wanted to keep it that way. It was quite obvious how hideous gingerbread is on tablets. They wanted fluidity.

Hc was built to insure it will work as a tablet os. Like I said before it was an in-between os compared it to windowsME or vista. Neither was rushed but were put out to make certain determinations.

Google needed in the tab market and they needed to make sure they had an os for that. Asus Samsung Motorola were all key players. And Google got the data they needed and can push forward with what they needed to for Ics.

 

[3devious]

Well, if voice actions still don't work right, I'm moving to a real platform. I don't care what tasty treat you name it after.

Sent from my Xoom using xda premium

 

[knut150]

ICS is what honeycomb should have been. Maybe that's why they never released the source for HC and why they are going to be releasing the code for ICS. They didn't want people to develop a platform that was rushed.

 

[bored369]

rushed but who cares really

Hc was rushed which is why we waited a couple updates to get native microSD support...everyone was trying to jump on the ipad bandwagon b4 ipad2 came out; that's why we had a half functional tablet in Feb instead of waiting till Jun/July for the galaxy which really pissed me off supporting 4g b4 xoom got it
But who really cares cause u wouldn't have gotten an android based tablet in Feb otherwise...I kinda hate the fact I waited a month to get mine just cause I thought hc wouldn't be till late second quarter...plus of all the other android tablets this is still my favorite and now with all features working and the latest and greatest is on the way; I for 1 want to thank Google Motorola, Verizon and especially all the great devs here and on the rest of the web for rushing their development.... and i do for over 6 hours a day every day....since march...(minus a painful 9 days that was still worth the power dock)

 

[socalracer]

buzz is to Google plus as hc is to ics. IMO it was better to release hc than push everyone off until Ics. I'm stood for I cs and my galaxy nexus and getting ics on my xoom. It all makes sense y Google has gone this route if u understand Google/manufacture/carrier relationships. As far as I'm concerned as a dev if u don't like I cs maybe u should leave and get an ios device

 

[3devious]

As far as I'm concerned as a customer if you can't produce a quality product, you should leave and get a real job.

Sent from my Xoom using xda premium

 

[RMerlin]

As far as I'm concerned as a customer if you can't produce a quality product, you should leave and get a real job.

Sent from my Xoom using xda premium

You must be a very sad customer then, considering that the vast majority of technology products from everyone is released these days with known and documented flaws. Thanks to the Internet, they can advise a "ship now and patch later" mantra to meet the requests from their financial departments. And as software (and hardware) is becoming more and more complex, it's becoming harder than ever to reach a certain "quality release" level one might (Rightfully) expect out of a product they purchased.

It's not the exception, it's the norm now, as sad as it might be. (And yes, I'm one of those who gets increasingly frustrated by the fact that software and hardware rarely ever works as it should these days).

 

[nooomoto]

Why don't we all wait until ICS comes out, and use it before saying whether we are happy or not with ICS?

 

[e.mote]

I think there's too much emphasis on the OS. It's not the do-all of the platform. Other things matter more, like the health and structure of the ecosystem.

By "health," I mean app support. As long as 3rd-party support is healthy, shortcomings of the OS can be remedied with add-ins. Since ICS unifies phone+tablet, it allows carryover momentum from the sizable library of phone apps, which didn't happen for HC. Android's biggest advantage is its current market share on phones. ICS will hopefully leverage this advantage to drive the tablet effort.

"Structure" means any number of things, but the most basic is the app store. I fervently hope Google will improve it--as well they should for taking a 30% cut. It is the worst software depository I've ever seen. There is no way to sort and only some rudimentary filter (if you use the web interface). App discovery is well nigh impossible. Hopefully, the Amazon store's competition will spur improvement.

We tend to equate latest to greatest, but reality is more prosaic. ICS is a work-in-progress, just as HC was a WIP. It's not an endgame, but part of an ongoing process. IMO, it's less a coding thing than a conceptual thing, as the notion of mobile OS is still an evolving concept. Right now, we're still at the "mobile is for social networking/media/communication" stage, which is a spillover from the smartphone. Aside from taking advantage of the larger screen, no one has a firm grasp of the tablet's potential. There is no overarching vision. It's a trial-and-error process.

 

[okantomi]

I think there's too much emphasis on the OS. It's not the do-all of the platform. Other things matter more, like the health and structure of the ecosystem.

By "health," I mean app support. As long as 3rd-party support is healthy, shortcomings of the OS can be remedied with add-ins. Since ICS unifies phone+tablet, it allows carryover momentum from the sizable library of phone apps, which didn't happen for HC. Android's biggest advantage is its current market share on phones. ICS will hopefully leverage this advantage to drive the tablet effort.

"Structure" means any number of things, but the most basic is the app store. I fervently hope Google will improve it--as well they should for taking a 30% cut. It is the worst software depository I've ever seen. There is no way to sort and only some rudimentary filter (if you use the web interface). App discovery is well nigh impossible. Hopefully, the Amazon store's competition will spur improvement.

We tend to equate latest to greatest, but reality is more prosaic. ICS is a work-in-progress, just as HC was a WIP. It's not an endgame, but part of an ongoing process. IMO, it's less a coding thing than a conceptual thing, as the notion of mobile OS is still an evolving concept. Right now, we're still at the "mobile is for social networking/media/communication" stage, which is a spillover from the smartphone. Aside from taking advantage of the larger screen, no one has a firm grasp of the tablet's potential. There is no overarching vision. It's a trial-and-error process.

Very well said. Thank you.

 

[RMerlin]

Agreed. Apps are what ultimately make or break a platform. Look at WebOS for a good example.

 

[ChongoDroid]

Ice cream sandwich looks awesome.. This thread is a disappointment lol.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium