What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
56 Comments
- hereisandy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+243) In order to load software, you need to buy the optional cable. No one owns the optional cable. Even if you gave your customers the optional cable for free, it only works with windows. ***Your early adopters use Macs.***
Sure there are mac users out there, but ever since when are all early adopters Mac users? - inphu510n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Seriously. I work in this field. It's not Java, it's the manufacturers who refuse to adhere to a common implementation of it. We have to port our application to a billion different phones because, guess what, manufacturers implement things completely differently. Even iterations of phone models are changed. This makes creating decent software for mobile phones completely painful.
Someone above mentioned that we need manufacturers to unify their OS standards. That's a great start.
Next problem, as mentioned elsewhere is the grossly draconian nature of the carriers. You ever try herding ill tempered cats? Same concept only harder cause humans are smarter.
Our company aims to create that killer app. - EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The past few years have found me (rather unwittingly) becoming intimately involved with mobile software development. I'm not particularly fond of the technology, and I do believe there is _WAY_ too much "potentiality" talk going on right now. But as much as I might be sympathetic to the author's tone... Frankly, he has absolutely ZERO understanding of the industry, or the challenges we face.
1) There are hundreds of different phone models. Your software needs to run on all of them. How hard is this?
Not particularly hard, if you follow properly apply good software engineering practices (good device layer abstraction, scaling feature-sets, etc).
1a) Modifying the software for each phone's display is a matter of brute-force labor. There's no intellectual way around it. Yahoo! is one of the few companies that's been able to pull this off, but only because they have an army of Ph.D. hackers working for them.
There are no more than a 20 current mobile screen resolutions, and for those, most mobile developers only require 3-6 builds of any given application. Hell, given that most browser windows are infinitely re-sizable, we actually have life pretty good compared to other client guys. Hell, even if you take the brute force approach... as Gameloft, Hands-on and EA know, hacking handset-specific versions of a game is a trivial process very easily (and cheaply) done by many very willing lemmings overseas... Handset screen size is a non-issue.
No army of PhD's needed... hell, all you need is a single, decent engineer, a week or so, and good programmer discipline. Its not that hard.
2) The carriers partially disable Bluetooth functionality to prevent customers from downloading their own ringtones. This also means all those good features you came up with in the last brainstorming session aren't going to work.
So many problems with this statement I don't know where to start.
A- _US_ carriers...
B- I'm very heavily involved with the Bay Area mobile startup scene (I party and get drunk with the guys who are starting these companies), and I don't know a single business model that gives a ***** about bluetooth... its a fairly worthless technology to begin with.
There _ARE_ some tremendously aggrevating software development road-blocks to mobile development that make my life hell on a day to day basis... but the author obviously has no idea what any of those are...
3) In order to load software, you need to buy the optional cable. No one owns the optional cable. Even if you gave your customers the optional cable for free, it only works with windows. Your early adopters use Macs.
!?!?!
The ignorance of this statement is... astounding.
Only two US carriers have EVER even used cable-loading phones(Verizon and Nextel)... Both of those carriers went/do go to _EXTREME_ lengths to make sure that cable-loading capability is restricted to developer phones early (Verizon requires a downloaded enabled phone, and all cable-loaded apps expire after 30 days, Nextel, for the longest time, required a physical, parallel port HARD_KEY to run their cable load software, and even then enthusiasts cracked the system with little effort).
Google and Opera-Mini have both have (relatively, by mobile standards) Massive download and install numbers, and they exist entirely off deck... OTA loading has been the de-facto standard now for almost a decade...
This statement is pure, utter, and complete ignorance.
4) You don't know how to install software on your own phone, so why would you expect your customers to know how to do it?
Given that the author doesn't even bother to mention anything about the predominant form of mobile software distribution, its clear that _HE_ doesn't know how to install software on his phone... But that doesn't mean that I don't. Nor does it mean that its any harder than installing software on your computer.
5) Any software that pings the cell tower will quickly drain the battery. Pinging the tower every five minutes completely drains the batter in two hours. So much for making calls.
Even when he has a point, he's still completely wrong. Pinging the tower doesn't drain battery... hell, the phone needs to do that 2-3 times per minute anyways.
Now... driving the processor hard (such as game rendering logic, or using GPS, or doing most 'useful' things) DOES wear out the battery... No more than a phone call, but it does... While the user is actively engaging the software, this is to be expected and not a big deal. Otherwise, be conservative with your cycle use when your suspended (for phones that support suspended MIDlet activity, which not all do... one of the _real_ engineering hurdles with mobile engineering - note the author doesn't mention it anywhere though) and you won't have a problem.
6) Cell phone carriers will never partner with you. At least not on terms that allow you to make a profit.
The author should tell that to MobiTV... TeleNav... Google... Infospace... And those are just _US_ carriers... you know - there's a whole other world of mobile consumers out there... a much larger world than just the Big-Four American Carriers (Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint). Yes the Carriers suck... but that doesn't mean their not greedy. *****, they're so desperate to get their average subscriber revenue up right now, show them a way they can sell more data and they'll be thrilled.
7) Even if one carrier partners with you, the rest won't.
Any of the big four american carriers (not to mention any of the worlds 'real' carriers) could make you and all of your friends quite wealthy with their subscriber numbers alone. Granted... don't put all your eggs in one basket (Infospace just learned that lesson)... but still, all you need is one major carrier to live it large.
8) The next generation of WiFi will make your product obsolete in two years anyway.
Again... I don't know where to start.
a) Technology doesn't matter... sub numbers do. Until the next generation of WiFi hits market and is in at least a million hands, its really not worth our time.
b) When it does come, when WiMax technology does become the standard, it's still irrellevant, because you still need to have experience developing and selling on a small-screen platform... Who do you think is going to be first to utilize this new tech? We all know that the Mobile market right now isn't worth *****. We don't care. We're all jockeying to be the company 'in the right place at the right time' when the technology catches up.
9) Let's say that against all odds you get a few early adopters. To everyone else it will look like they are just sending text messages. Unlike the iPod, your software is invisible. Invisible software isn't viral.
"Hang on a sec, I'm going to pop Google Maps up on my phone to check the Traffic... nah, we should avoid 101 and take the 280 into town"
"Coooool".
Happens all the time.
10) You also can't flaunt what you can't see. So much for your idea of your product being a status symbol.
Because, you know, its so hard to hand a phone to someone else to check out that hot naked chick too.
11) Cell phones don't fit into girl's pants. Remember how the women you asked said they would only use your software if it had a vibrate mode? Oops.
What the ***** does getting a phone into a girls pants have to do with anything? All the mobile industry wants is to make you think when your drunk and horny, we might be able to help YOU get into a girls pants... the rest is just gravy.
I _DO NOT_ mean to say that all is gravy int he mobile world... its a pain in the ***** ass, and there are a lot of promises right now that are going to keep un-kept.
Mobile is doing the dot-com thing right now... Lots of irrational exhuberance... tons of money getting spent on impractical schemes... you know what? its a necessary stage in the development of any new platform.
But for crying out loud... if the Author intends to sit here and write a flame-piece on an industry, he should at least try and gain a _CURSORY_ understanding of how it works. This article is pure and utter *****... - illahtech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I made a long comment reply on his blog, thought I'd share here as well...
The point on platform variance between manufacturers, or even different models from the same manufacturers, makes a lot of sense. Beyond that I think you go a little off base...
Re #2 - Ever heard of bluecasting? It's made quite an impact in the UK and was part of Coldplay's last album release. Terminals at various popular tube stations fed songs to users' phones. It's still slow to catch on in the US, but we're always years behind.
Re #3 - Most smartphones I've seen these days use mini-USB which is a universal standard. Even the super popular Razr uses that cable. As for cheapo phones, how do they get games and other content? Wirelessly.
And no, 'early adopter' isn't synonymous with 'Mac user'. In fact, beyond the iPod most of the Mac loving creatives at my agency are far behind us supposedly ancient PC users. Think IT guys, media strategists, developers, etc...all on PC, and all far more likely to be early adopters.
Re #5 - My phone checks for emails on three separate accounts, then downloads those emails, multiple times an hour. It can go nearly two days before needing a charge. Blackberry's and other smartphones do this regularly. Having my QVGA screen on is by far the biggest power-drain, and I can still get 5+ hours on it (and many long internet sessions can attest to that).
Re #6-8 - For most smartphones they don't need to partner with the networks, those devices are open to whatever you like (i.e. Palm, Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry). See Handango.com. For generic phones this may be an issue, but many with generic phones are happy with campy ringtones and SMS.
Re #9-10 - To think that the classic viral, community driven 'Web 2.0' path to success is the *only* path to success is quite naive...
Re #11 - WTF? This is incredibly sexist. And even when a phone can fit in the pockets, I don't think vibrating one's hip would have the effect you're suggesting...
And FYI - with designer jeans women don't keep *anything* in their pant pockets. That's what handbags are for. - psychohistorian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4
It has been said before: In a gold rush, those who make money are ones that sell picks and shovels. - Pootle4rthur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My phone is also my music player, and I use it to watch tv shows on the train to work, it gets my emails and is a perfectly good MSN client.
The only thing it doesn't do well is gaming, but I can live without it on the move.
I fail to understand why you'd not want multiple devices to converge into a single one, it makes life much easier - insovietrussia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The problem is simple: Java
It is very difficult to program reliable, user friendly Java applications using the MIDP interface. I love Java on a philosphical level, but practically it just fails to shape up. The whole virtual machine container model and the poor integration of applications with the mobile phone software itself creates this kind of pyscological divide that turns people away.
Rather than providing functionality for custom software on phones, the manufacturers should encourage the building of simple gadgets that extend the phones software (I think this is being done with iPhone?). - giant.robot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"to load software, you can use bluetooth. you only need the cable if your PC/Mac hasn't got bluetooth/a bluetooth dongle."
Only if your carrier or phone manufacturer didn't go ahead and cripple Bluetooth on your phone for you. Of ones that aren't crippled they don't necessarily have to implement both the FTP and OPP profiles. Many Nokia phones support OPP but not FTP while many Motorola phones the situation is reversed. Blackberries only enable OPP when you specifically tell the phone to expect a transfer and does not provide an FTP profile. In short, Bluetooth is a good idea but not well implemented by all phone manufacturers. - dericko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I know that Verizon would never allow blue tooth file sharing for games and what not. They cripple their phones enough as is to prevent such usage. They probably make a killing from offering their OWN game and ringtone downloads at a cost to their subscribers.
- greenbeanz69, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Sometimes it seems like cell phone companies read the RIAA's handbook on how to rape and alienate customers by limiting features and "enhancing" the phones with all their bloatware and awkward interfaces.. Maybe I'm too hopeful but im looking forward to Apple bringing about some sort of competitiveness with the Iphone. How else will cell carrier companies have incentive to finally give us the features we want?
- spiralspirit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I have a Motorola Q, and I've found tons of software for it that runs great on Windows Mobile 5.
I've got ebook readers (mobipocket), mobile office suite (documents to go), maps (streets and trips or google), and although I am not inclined that way there are umpteen million games.
As far as connecting it to your computer, it comes with a cable, and the file system becomes available through the "my computer" window as a windows mobile device. It works great.
I also understand several flavors of linux powered phones are being developed, so perhaps software will be available for these as well. - FatalTragedy316, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And I quote:
"2) The carriers partially disable Bluetooth functionality to prevent customers from downloading their own ringtones. This also means all those good features you came up with in the last brainstorming session aren't going to work."
Definitely would never work, to answer your question, as cool as it would be. - EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@inphu510n
If your SN contains your area code, we've probably met;)
No reason to delete your previous comment - your point was a good one. As I mentioned (and I'm sure you know intimately)... There are plenty of engineering road-blocks that make mobile development a PITA, not the least of which being way to many occurrences of the word "may" in the J2ME api (when the handsets even bother to try and abide by it).
But its the growing pains of an industry... Its normal, and no different than the IE vs Netscape wars (and rendering differences) that made the .com days "fun" for the engineers involved.
The carriers suck too. But simple market forces will get rid of that problem, as mobile services move further and further towards 'utility' status...
Remember 'AOL', 'Compuserve' and 'Prodigy'?, names once synonymous with the Internet as Verizon, Sprint and Cingular are synonymous with mobile today. Same *****, different new media form. - negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I totally agree about killing BREW. What a pile of stinky ***** *****.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i put a bunch of useful java apps on my nokia phone via bluetooth and it was no problem. nokia's pc software is a bit clunky but gets the job done for syncing, backing up, file transfers, and application installations.
- quickgold192, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Cars should only be used for driving. I hope those newfangled radios are just a fad...
- Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I feel sorry for you Americans. Here in Aus we don't have any problems sharing stuff between phones or comps using Bluetooth.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Call phone service providers own the last-mile infrastructure. Anyone who owns last-mile infrastructure does everything the law allows to keep competitors out.
Though service providers do flirt a bit with the high-end expensive smartphones, if only because they know eventually they're going to have to become competent in a cellphone world with more competition.
So your options for a cell-phone software start-up are 1) target the smartphone niche (though, per above, phone companies will never let it become more than a niche), 2) lobby congress to change the telco laws, and somehow win out against lots of companies with really really deep pockets, or 3) buy your own cell phone towers, so you get total control over your group of customers. - greenbeanz69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Mark my words:
10 years from now an MP3 player, portable GPS, PDA, PMP (portable media player, videos, pictures, etc), quality video and image camera, TV, and cell phone will all integrated into one device. So in essence.. No. Since they are all "digital" devices with similar target audiences, they will be joined. - jdawg19, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2FTA: "3) [...] Even if you gave your customers the optional cable for free, it only works with windows..."
Not completely true, there is a program called bitpim that is cross platform. I have my VX8300 connected right now using Ubuntu.
It is easier to setup in windows, but it is still possible on other platforms. - eunichs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"3) In order to load software, you need to buy the optional cable. No one owns the optional cable. Even if you gave your customers the optional cable for free, it only works with windows. ***Your early adopters use Macs.***"
That is stupid for another reason: The killer app will be so dominant or have such a high percieved value that it will come preloaded. Look at MS Windows on the desktop platform. All it will take is someone (Google... Lets face it) to write a killer OS or set of Apps that will work on any phone (given a set of requirements) and they can OEM it to every hardware vendor. - HoosbinPharteen, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3Maybe if people would stop bending over and taking it from these cell phone companies.....someone might go out on a limb and make an open source phone. I like cell phone companies as much as I like the RIAA and our current president.
- nirav72, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@scottylist "the cellphone itself won't be the platform. The mobile internet will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mobi"
True, everyone is busy building the ecosystem for the mobile internet. However, data connectivity pricing needs to come down or become less restrictive. (hint:verizon). Not to mention that the U.S is barely into 3G wireless right now. Therefore it will be a while before users take advantage of the mobile internet.
I'm personally hoping that most of the various embedded OSes in the phones die and leave behind maybe 2 or 3 that remain popular with the manufacturers. (Symbian, Linux and Windows Mobile.) That way we can finally start seeing a unified framework that can be used to develop and deploy apps on any phone. (Flash/Flex, Silverlight or J2ME). To start with..they should kill BREW. - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought iPhone wasn't going to allow 3rd party software?
- baileysmooth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The biggest problem that I've discovered is that companies like Nokia -but I'm guessing it's not exclusive to Nokia- have real problems opening up their SDKs for normal developers to use.
- futureisours, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Maybe it's because almost all (save maybe for Tetris and a few other games like it) of the mobile games really suck. As capacities increase, maybe more cell game companies will florish.
- DavidOv0216, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4there might not be a program but you can already do that with bluetooh...
- jonstafari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1meh.... i know my company makes a good mint off of mobile tech. we do surveys and data collection, along with location-based services. you'd be amazed how many people (from various age groups) use mobile tech. there's a _use_ for the tech... but that's different than a _need_ for the tech.
the biggest complaint i field are for screen size and resolution problems. sometimes the data (no matter how much you render it) doesnt look nearly as well as it would on a proper pc -- even a PDA displays better data.
yeah, it's still in an infancy stage. hell, someone here compared it to the dot-com boom too... i think there's a lot of promise and money out there. the technology the US has will only improve... - sunshinelife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Norwegian Troll Tech has done it - www.trolltech.com
- aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2to load software, you can use bluetooth. you only need the cable if your PC/Mac hasn't got bluetooth/a bluetooth dongle.
- smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is it so hard to imagine that some people:
- would like to be able to access e-mail/web (for weather, directions, restaurant directory, etc.) wherever they go
- would like to be able to listen to their digital music collection whenever
- would like to have something on their person to entertain themselves with games/movies/music (for commutes or other moments when they have time to kill)
- would like to be able to conveniently take pictures whenever they want
- would like to have access to a digital planner/calendar/calculator and other useful applications to have on one's person
- would rather carry around one convenient portable device instead of 10
people complaining about phones becoming more advanced are just looking for something to complain about, and want to join the online trend of being a cellphone luddite. and the arguments given are utterly retarded. just because you don't want a particular feature doesn't mean no one else wants it, such as checking one's e-mail on the go (the success of the blackberry demonstrates this). also some people can't fit their laptop in their pocket and go places without wifi access. besides, just cuz a phone has a feature doesn't mean you have to use it or it'll get in your way (this isn't even logical). and anyone who wants a basic phone can still easily find one for cheap.
i have a slidephone that has a 3.1 megapixel camera, a micro sd slot for expandable storage, supports mp3 playback, video playback, java, instant messaging, and other features. i only use the camera once in a while and use my phone primarily for phone calls and text messaging. i have no problem sliding the keypad out, dialing the number, and talking on it. no, the camera doesn't get in the way. nor do i have to press extra buttons just because my phone also has a calendar, calculator, etc. give me a break.
seriously, find something less ridiculous to bitch about. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The biggest obstacle to getting apps on cell phones is mobile carriers who seem to have gone to the same business school as the RIAA and MPAA locking phones where you can't even load your own ring tones .
Any app or media purchased must be bought though their store and downloaded over their network.
The carrier expects to get a profit for this so any developer can't make a good deal.
Unless you unlock the phone which is something they don't want you to do and will lie etc to those who are not in the know saying it can't be done.
Until this changes third party development will never take off. - Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
I don't think I agree with all the reasons, but the overall sentiment is correct: There are so many barriers to entry, some small, some large, that it's death by a thousand cuts. The *only* place to make money in wireless at the moment is in the two services that people actually use, voice and sms. The carriers have wrapped up the meaty parts of those for themselves, and anything you might negotiate would be scraps. Certainly not the basis for a growth model. - smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1god i hate our cellphone carriers. the current telecom monopolies just don't give a ***** about what the consumers want. the pricing is bs, but there's nothing we can do about it, so the companies just keep hiking the rates as they please. this kind of infrastructure should really be nationalized as it's as vital as our roads and highways.
i can only imagine how much better things would be if the cellphone networks were all nationalized and we had a public corporation like the BBC running our cellphone infrastructure. we wouldn't have to worry about price gouging and being screwed over by for-profit companies that are only accountable to stockholders rather than the public.
the way things are now, the price of data transfer is artificially inflated so the networks can make more money. a federally owned corporation would be answerable to the public alone; it'd be a nice change to have a cellphone provider dedicated to providing the best service possible to the public, rather than trying to maximize profits at the cost of the consumer and the quality of service. policies like disabling bluetooth functionality in order to charge subscribers for downloading ring-tones and such would not be allowed.
the BBC has all kinds of innovative programs focused on technological advances and working with independent & open source developers to enhance the services they provide and bring in new services that the users want. such management would definitely make mobile phones a viable platform for next-gen services. and i know my suggestion is going to get a lot of knee-jerk reactions from neocons and free market capitalists that see money as the ultimate ends to everything. but this arrangement would actually benefit entrepreneurs by making viable a potential market that is basically crippled right now by the selfish policies of a few unregulated telecom monopolies. this is what happens when greedy corporations are allowed to control vital infrastructure that ought to at least be regulated by the government so that the interests of the public are served.
if you want a better idea of what i'm talking about concerning the BBC's programs for independent & FOSS developers, check out BBC backstage. it's a great community for open source developers. - jakswa, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Talk about predicting the future!!! http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's not really true in this case, because unlike the early days of the internet:
- Starting a mobile carrier is extremely expensive. In 1995, it was possible to run an ISP out of your basement.
- The mobile carriers we have today are multi-billion dollar corporations that have been around for decades. They eat startups for breakfast and then ***** them on the DOJ for fun.
They SHOULD be dumb pipes. They SHOULD get the ***** out of the way of progress and be happy with the cash they'll be skimming on data plans. But they won't be -- especially not AT&T.
Most of the cell companies today are the same companies (or subsidiaries of...) telcos who know that they missed out big time on the internet. AT&T, Sprint, etc. thought being a dumb pipe was the way to profitability on the internet -- assuming at the time that there was no money in content. Now that they've seen the fallacy of their mistakes, they're not going to let it happen on the mobile side of things. When you have people like Ed Whiteacre saying that companies like google are using "his pipes" to make money, you start to see the mentality of these guys.
Unfortunately for us (both developers and consumers), they have more money, more power, and they have the government on their side.
It'll take 10-20 years for the mobile world to catch up to the same level of sophistication as we were seeing in the late 90s. Even then, mobile devices aren't going to have anywhere near the same kind of use as PCs. The physical limitations of the device pretty much guarantee that many types of applications won't work well on them. - johnlande360, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0hmm... how about Skype, Gizmo, Orb, Slingbox, MyStrands, Jaiku etc?
Download the latest freeware, shareware and demo software arranged by categories, including screenshots, descriptions, ratings, reviews and direct download links.
Free Software Downloads: http://www.freedownloads32.com - aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1hmm... how about Skype, Gizmo, Orb, Slingbox, MyStrands, Jaiku etc?
Mobile software isn't about writing MS Office for Symbian, or whatever. The mobile is about communication, about staying in the loop. This the success stories of the "mobile revolution" will be the ones that integrate the stuff we do already with our phones. Trouble is, a lot of it has been covered already. Start-ups can't really compete with the likes of Google and Yahoo, because they have a headstart. Unless your startup is soooo damn innovative that people are willing to switch from their Gmail, then don't even bother.
If you want to get a foothold into the cellphone market, write a Gimp for symbian. A decent movie editor. A MySpace app that isn't tied to a single provider. These are the things people will pay for. Everything else has been covered (if you look) - Gizza, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The problem is that it can be hard to find a cheap basic phone to do basic stuff. I must only use maybe 5% of the features on my phone. And because of all the crap that I don't use I have to go through 3 or 4 windows just to do the stuff that I do use.
- negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@adc86: stick with alltel as long as you can...i moved out of their service area and have had nothing but problems with every other cell company since. their phones might be kinda lame, but their service is the bomb (and it's crazy cheap).
- Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This seems like a very cynical and extreme view of the situation. I could believe that it would be incredibly difficult to turn a huge profit on selling cell phone software, but on the other hand, I could see cell phone apps that serve as interfaces for web apps that can't be accomplished with WAP as being popular. I use Gtalk and Gmail on my crackberry all the time.
- inphu510n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wish I could delete my comment above.
Thank You.
Completely correct. - DarthSupero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pootle, I would rather have a handful of devices that specifically do one thing well, rather than have one device that attempts to do them all poorly. Everything that I've seen from mobile phones and the like that was internet-related was totally unacceptable compared to my computer. Why even bother with something that is a poor alternative? As for everything else:
Music- iPod
Movies- iPod
Games- DS
E-mail- You know, my computer. Or any computer with internet access.
Talking with other people- Cell phone
Now, I'm sure that the concept of the cell phone that can do all of these things is for someone, but that person ain't me. - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Like this one? http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8030785497.html
- scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The cellphone itself won't be the platform. The mobile internet will: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.mobi
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mobile phones are mostly pieces of *****. Cell phone operators WANT businesses to believe that everyone who uses them has a PC in their pocket, but they don't. They have a highly limited, low-function device that is, in many respects, worse than PCs of the early 1990s.
The best example of this is the "mobile internet".
Even if you can come up with a solution that can render somewhat reasonably stable across the wide variety of markup languages and browser quirks, you're pretty much limited to a plain as possible html page without much room for any kind of real user interaction.
So the web is out.
The next obvious choice is to use java. Unfortunately, java on mobile has actually managed to become worse than java on the desktop when it comes to deployment. The JRE / JVM that you'll find on any given device is different from other devices. Standard libraries are missing. It's a giant crap shoot and it's just plain annoying to deal with.
Flash lite? Complete joke unless you only care about doing business in Japan. Even then, you have to deal with what is essentially a gimped version of an already ***** platform -- Flash 7.
Bleh.
I work on one of the most popular mobile applications available, and my company has one of the best platforms for dealing with device differences -- but it's still *****. I shudder to think of what it's like for people who don't have the benefits that I do who are trying to develop for mobiles. - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A cell phone as an application platform is still in its infancy. I'm still not sure we'll see a lot of successful independent phone application companies even as it matures. It's pretty much going to be the carrier that provides applications as part of a package.
- jtown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"11) Cell phones don't fit into girl's pants. Remember how the women you asked said they would only use your software if it had a vibrate mode?"
Oh, man. Rechargeable bluetooth bullet vibrator. Silently alerts the user to incoming calls. 'scuse me while I look up patent lawyers in the phone book.
/getting myself a time and date stamp... - Ranger175, on 10/26/2007, -0/+0I could really use a developer for a project, or can I do it myself? Could you give me some direction. You seem very knowledgable and I would truly value your opinion.
Regards
reply to ranger175@hotmail.com - fitzfan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I think a cool program would be a blue tooth file sharing program, so you can share ring tones, pictures, songs and whatever with anyone's phone near u on a subway or in a restaurant. You could browse what they got shared and take whatever you want. Not sure if it would ever work, but it would be cool.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is