[OT] mobile rising

[Joakim]

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:09:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 19:46:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Not at all, it makes things easier certainly, but there's a 
>> reason why mobile devs always test on the actual devices, 
>> because there are real differences.
>
> Mostly with low level stuff in my experience.

And what experience would that be?  I've admitted I've never 
developed for Apple platforms, but my understanding is that even 
leaving aside the completely different touch-first UI, there are 
significant differences.  I wonder what Mac apps you simply 
ported the UI over to iPhone and they just worked.

>> Now, they're not going to dump 10-15% of sales because the 
>> Mac's a fading business, they'll just keep milking it till it 
>> doesn't make any sense, as I already said.
>
> Heh, it would be very bad management to take focus off Macs. I 
> doubt Jobs would have allowed that to happen, but as I said, I 
> don't really trust the current management at Apple. So who 
> knows what they will do?

I just said they're not going to dump it, so I don't know why 
you're going on about that.  If you mean their current lessened 
investment is not a good idea, it's because the old desktop OS 
doesn't matter as much, which is the whole point of this thread.

> You are thinking too much short term here IMHO. The mobile 
> sector is rather volatile.

I have no idea what this refers to: you have a bad habit of 
adding asides without any explation or non sequiturs, so that 
we're left stumped as to what you're talking about.

>> Maybe I'm just very adaptable, but I've increasingly come to 
>> the conclusion that smaller works fine, especially with the 
>> extremely high ppi on mobile displays these days.
>
> Small tablets are ok, for reading, but programming really 
> requires more screen space. Although I guess one external + the 
> builtin one is ok too.

Some will use the small tablet screen like me, many a 11-13" 
laptop shell like Sentio, and a few a dock like DeX to connect 
the monitor of their choice.

> I guess it would be possible to create a docking station for 
> phones that was able to transfer heat away from the device so 
> that you could run at higher speed when docked, but then the 
> phone calls and you have to unplug it or use a headset…

I've been using a tablet to compile code for years now, never had 
a problem with heat.  The power budget on these mobile chips is 
already limited, as they don't have a fan, such that you don't 
have to worry about that.  That limits your performance of 
course, but the point is that most don't compile code or do 
anything close, so it doesn't matter for them.

As for phone calls, I noted earlier in this thread that some 
already use cheap bluetooth handsets with their phablet, not a 
headset.

>> multi-window UIs built in, which as I said before is starting 
>> to happen with Android 7.0 Nougat.
>
> I should take a closer look on modern Android… Sounds 
> interesting.

I've linked it a handful of times in this forum, including the 
other mobile thread I originally linked:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/android-7-0-nougat-review-do-more-on-your-gigantic-smartphone/3/#h2

Samsung appears to use it for their DeX dock:

https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-dex-pc-replacement-778222/

>> happened.  MS, Nokia, and others linked in this thread clearly 
>> thought as you did about mobile, yet they completely missed 
>> the boat.  Clearly they misjudged the scale, scope, and timing 
>> of that coming mobile tidal wave.
>
> Yes, but as I said, not many players could have countered this. 
> Microsoft certainly if they had bought up Nokia right away. 
> Nokia alone… probably not. HP or Sony? On a lucky day…

I see, so your claim is that MS, Nokia, HP, Sony, all much larger 
companies than Apple or google at the time, could not have 
countered them even on a lucky day.  I wonder why this is, as 
they certainly had more money, you don't believe they're that 
bright? :)

>> Yes, Apple made a big push, _at the right time_, while 
>> everybody else didn't.  Google and Samsung followed fast, to 
>> their credit, while everybody else fell to the wayside.
>
> Well, but Android units did get a bad reputation in beginning.

Again, I have no idea what this refers to or what point you're 
trying to make here.

>> A good example for what?  They started a mobile OS from 
>> nothing and grew it to two billion-plus users today, which you 
>> implied only those with a "starting point" could do.
>
> The Android makers had a real problem with quality and making a 
> profit. Samsung managed to make a profit, but many others 
> struggled. And it took a long time before Android's reputation 
> caught up with iOS. Most businesses would not have been willing 
> to make that software investment and sustain it until the OS 
> platform would reach a competitive level.

Yet the businesses that did build Android, ie google, HTC, and so 
on, were much smaller than the corporate behemoths like HP or 
Sony that you claimed above couldn't do it.  Your claims about 
who could or couldn't do it make absolutely no sense.

> So I don't think many could have followed Apple there. Apple 
> recycled a lot of their prior work and experiences. Microsoft 
> could have, sure, and I am sure they regret getting in late. 
> But, they were late with embracing Internet too, so they have 
> always followed their own mindset… and only reluctantly follow 
> new trends.

As I've linked earlier, MS had already got in early, around 2001 
with their Tablet PC platform and 2003 with Windows Mobile:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile

Their problem was likely that they got in too early and got 
discouraged, not that they were "getting in late."

> But frankly, I don't think many giants would start with a GPL 
> code base like Linux.

As I pointed out above, that may be changing with their 
developing a non-GPL alternative called Fuchsia now.  Maybe they 
just grabbed linux because it was already built and they were in 
a hurry, and now plan to remedy that mistake.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:49:36 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> Well a tablet isn't really for development. Even a cheap laptop 
> would be better for development. You can't really do much of 
> anything with that little space. I don't think the focus should 
> be people with niche development hardware like tablets. If you 
> do enough CTFE the RAM usage of DMD shoots through the roof and 
> you'd end up not having enough RAM to compile anyways. Let 
> alone if you have enough ram but still use the 32-bit version 
> of DMD and hit that limit.

This is a big problem for MS and Windows, as I've been developing 
D just fine on an Android tablet with 16 GB storage.  You can do 
the same by installing the Termux app for Android and running a 
single command:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.termux&hl=en
https://wiki.dlang.org/Build_D_for_Android#Native_compilation_2

If you require heavy-duty hardware to develop software, there go 
all the entry-level devs who cannot afford the more expensive 
stuff and will get going on Android instead.  This isn't going to 
bite Windows tomorrow or even next year, but it will get them 
eventually.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:04:24 UTC, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, 6 November 2017 at 08:33:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
>>
>> The vast majority of users would be covered by 5-10 GBs of 
>> available storage, which is why the lowest tier of even the 
>> luxury iPhone was 16 GBs until last year.  Every time I talk 
>> to normal people, ie non-techies unlike us, and ask them how 
>> much storage they have in their device, whether smartphone, 
>> tablet, or laptop, they have no idea.  If I look in the 
>> device, I inevitably find they're only using something like 
>> 3-5 GBs max, out of the 20-100+ GBs they have available.
>
> You are making an assumption that people want as much storage 
> for a combo phone/PC as they do for only a phone. You need to 
> also check how much storage they are using on their PCs.

You need to read what I actually wrote, I was talking about 
laptops too.  I don't go to people's homes and check their 
desktops, but their laptops fall under the same low-storage 
umbrella, and laptops are 80% of PCs sold these days.

>>> I never made any previous claim about what IDEs are being 
>>> used. The only time I previously mentioned an IDE was with 
>>> regard to RemObjects and Embarcadero offering 
>>> cross-compilation to Android/iOS with their products.
>>>
>>> "There is a case to be made for supporting  Android/iOS 
>>> cross-compilation. But it doesn't have to come at the expense 
>>> of Windows 64-bit integration. Not sure they even involve the 
>>> same skillsets. Embarcadero and Remobjects both now support 
>>> Android/iOS development from their Windows (and macOS in the 
>>> case of Remobjects) IDEs."
>>>
>>> That was to highlight that those two compiler companies have 
>>> seen fit to also cross-compile to mobile - they saw an 
>>> importance to mobile development. It wasn't about what IDEs 
>>> are best for mobile or even what IDEs are being used for 
>>> mobile.
>>
>> If you look back to the first mention of IDES, it was your 
>> statement, "Good luck selling game developers on using D to 
>> develop for Android, when you can't supply those same game 
>> developers a top-notch development environment for the premier 
>> platform for performance critical games - Windows 64-bit."
>>
>> That at least implies that they're using the same IDE to 
>> target both mobile and PC gaming, which is what I was 
>> disputing.  If you agree that they use completely different 
>> toolchains, then it is irrelevant whether D supports 
>> Windows-focused IDEs, as it doesn't affect mobile-focused devs.
>
> My statements quoted didn't mention IDEs and they didn't imply 
> IDEs. What was implied was the initial line in the first post 
> "* better dll support for Windows". My assumption is that game 
> developers (or just developers) work on multiple OSes. If you 
> want them to use a language - like D - they should find it 
> compelling to use on all their platforms.

Your statement was made in direct response to my question, "why 
spend time getting D great Windows IDE support if you don't think 
Windows has much of a future?"  I've already said I don't think 
there's much overlap between mobile and PC games, the markets are 
fairly disjoint.  The top mobile games are never released for PC 
and vice versa.  As for dll support, that was not mentioned at 
all in the OT thread to which you were responding, and you never 
called it out.

>> I've always thought that flat Metro interface was best suited 
>> for mobile displays, the easiest to view, render, and touch.  
>> To some extent, all the other mobile interfaces have copied 
>> it, with their move to flat UIs over the years.  However, it 
>> obviously takes much more than a nice GUI to do well in mobile.
>
> I don't know what a flat UI is, but every mobile OS I have used 
> - Blackberry 9/10, Nokia Symbian, Nokia Linux, Palm OS, WebOS, 
> Firefox OS, iOS, Android - all have the same essential 
> interface. Icons on a scrolling desktop. Windows 8/10 Mobile, 
> with the resizable live tiles is the only one that does the 
> interface differently, and in my opinion, does it the best.

Yes, icons on a background- not sure how you call it a desktop 
anymore ;) - are now the default, as opposed to Metro's live 
tiles.  I agree that Metro is better in that regard, though I 
never handled a WinPhone for more than a couple minutes, but 
there were all kinds of other problems with it.  For example, 
even in my limited use I remember it had animations when you were 
jumping into apps or other views, presumably because it was so 
slow that they wanted to stick something moving in there.

And doing one aspect of the UI better is meaningless when you 
make so many other mistakes, whether supporting multi-core very 
late or not realizing Continuum is a differentiator and pushing 
that earlier.

As for flat UIs, you really should be aware of the effect your 
beloved Metro has had:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_design

>>>>> Why did they fund development of a new iMac Pro which is 
>>>>> coming this December as well as the new MacBook Pros that 
>>>>> came out this June? That's a contradiction of "milk it like 
>>>>> an iPod".
>>>>
>>>> Because their userbase was rebelling?  I take it you're not 
>>>> that familiar with Mac users, but they were genuinely scared 
>>>> that Apple was leaving them behind, since they weren't 
>>>> refreshing Mac and Macbooks much anymore and all Apple's 
>>>> focus is on iOS:
>>>
>>> So, let them rebel. You said that they would like to see it 
>>> go away, and/or they want to milk it. If you have to spend 
>>> money on development to keep selling it, then you can't "milk 
>>> it".
>>
>> You and I and Jobs may've let them rebel, but Apple is a 
>> public corporation.  They can't just let easy money go, their 
>> shareholders may not like it. Perhaps you're not too familiar 
>> with legacy calculations, but they're probably still making 
>> good money off Macs, but it just distracts and keeps good 
>> Apple devs off the real cash cow, iPhone.  Even if the Mac 
>> financials aren't _that_ great anymore, you don't necessarily 
>> want to piss off your oldest and most loyal customers, who may 
>> stop buying iPhones and iPads too.
>
> It would either be you and Jobs, or just you, letting them 
> rebel. I would keep the line.

That's funny, as I was responding to your statement above, "So, 
let them rebel." :D

> The large Apple profit comes from offering quality products and 
> then pricing them at the highest gross profit margin in the 
> industry. In order to get people to pay a premium for their 
> products it helps to have a mystique or following, and the 
> macOS line helps to maintain their mystique and it is small 
> potatoes next to their phone business.

I've already said repeatedly that they're not going to drop the 
Mac line anytime soon, so I don't know why you want to write a 
paragraph justifying keeping it.  As for mystique, it is 
laughable that you think this outdated Mac line that practically 
nobody buys compared to the iPhone provides any. :) More likely, 
they will keep milking the Mac-buying chumps till they stop, or 
when they can just tell them to buy an iPhone with a multi-window 
option instead.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:33:53 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> On 11/1/2017 11:42 AM, Bo wrote:
>> And frankly, Walter or whoever, there needed to have been put 
>> a stop to this anti Windows bullshit several days ago. As long 
>> as people use this level of disrespect towards community 
>> members because they are not using the "right" platform.
>
> Don't worry, Windows remains a high priority platform for D.
>
> In the not-so-long run, all the platforms are dead. Little to 
> none of D will work on any platform prior to 10 years ago or 
> so. D needs to run on the major platforms of today, and that 
> certainly includes Windows.
>
> Nobody is obliged to work on any platform they don't want to 
> work on. And nobody is entitled to berate anyone for working on 
> any platform they want to.

This post contradicts or corrects nothing said in this thread, 
but simply responds to the crazy, unsupported claims of this guy. 
I understand that you probably didn't read this OT thread but 
maybe just saw your name and wanted to reassure this guy, but you 
should have at least read the responses to him, where I pointed 
out that it's bonkers to suggest what was written, ie showing 
that Windows is declining so we should limit our future 
investment, shows "disrespect" to him or is "anti Windows."