3 ms·

Could you explain how you see it as ghastly? As long as customers understand that their low-end phone won't be able to run the sexiest games out there, I don'

Could you explain how you see it as ghastly? As long as customers understand that their low-end phone won't be able to run the sexiest games out there, I don't see too much of a problem. The developers just need to figure out how many people have the highest-end phones (and what they'll pay for games that utilize them).

ubernostrum 17y ago
"As long as customers understand that their low-end phone won't be able to run the sexiest games out there, I don't see too much of a problem." INT. WHITE ROOM We see two men -- (pudgy but adorable comedian, wearing a robot costume) and (douchey hipsterish guy) -- standing side by side. DOUCHEY HIPSTER Hi, I'm an iPhone. ADORABLE COMEDIAN And I'm an Android. DOUCHEY HIPSTER Hey, Android, have you played this great new game? You can fill in the rest of the script from here, and perhaps in so doing you'll realize how quickly this could become a major marketing problem for Android...
- orangecat 17y ago
  That already exists with the iPhone today, where the 3GS often runs CPU-intensive apps much better than the earlier models. Segmentation is unavoidable as long as hardware is improving.
  - mlinsey 17y ago
    "3GS or better required" is much more understandable than "1Ghz Snapdragon or better required", since the package the customer buys says "3GS" prominently - it's even in the name of the device. In fact, customers already are faced with the decision of "3G" vs "3GS" when they buy an iPhone. What this suggests is that the solution for Android will be to have some easily-understandable number or naming scheme to roughly classify the power of the phone, so apps don't have to list compatible phones en masse. For desktop software, most people basically used the required and recommended CPU speed as such a number. Even though it didn't really capture the full nuances of whether an app required more RAM or more CPU, it was a good enough rough metric.
tvon 17y ago
Not sure what parent meant exactly, but I'd say that requiring a consumer to know what a "Snapdragon CPU" is is a bit of a non-starter.
- usaar333 17y ago
  I'm not so confident that it is that much of a problem. Customers seem to know that a Core 2 beats a Pentium 4. Once 'can this device support x game' becomes enough of a question, users will start paying attention.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    And most "normals" are way way happier gaming with their Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii than with their PC, in part because of that very reason. Some user start paying attention, lots of others leave.

ubernostrum 17y ago

"As long as customers understand that their low-end phone won't be able to run the sexiest games out there, I don't see too much of a problem." INT. WHITE ROOM We see two men -- (pudgy but adorable comedian, wearing a robot costume) and (douchey hipsterish guy) -- standing side by side. DOUCHEY HIPSTER Hi, I'm an iPhone. ADORABLE COMEDIAN And I'm an Android. DOUCHEY HIPSTER Hey, Android, have you played this great new game? You can fill in the rest of the script from here, and perhaps in so doing you'll realize how quickly this could become a major marketing problem for Android...

orangecat 17y ago
That already exists with the iPhone today, where the 3GS often runs CPU-intensive apps much better than the earlier models. Segmentation is unavoidable as long as hardware is improving.
- mlinsey 17y ago
  "3GS or better required" is much more understandable than "1Ghz Snapdragon or better required", since the package the customer buys says "3GS" prominently - it's even in the name of the device. In fact, customers already are faced with the decision of "3G" vs "3GS" when they buy an iPhone. What this suggests is that the solution for Android will be to have some easily-understandable number or naming scheme to roughly classify the power of the phone, so apps don't have to list compatible phones en masse. For desktop software, most people basically used the required and recommended CPU speed as such a number. Even though it didn't really capture the full nuances of whether an app required more RAM or more CPU, it was a good enough rough metric.

tvon 17y ago

Not sure what parent meant exactly, but I'd say that requiring a consumer to know what a "Snapdragon CPU" is is a bit of a non-starter.

usaar333 17y ago
I'm not so confident that it is that much of a problem. Customers seem to know that a Core 2 beats a Pentium 4. Once 'can this device support x game' becomes enough of a question, users will start paying attention.
- glhaynes 17y ago
  And most "normals" are way way happier gaming with their Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii than with their PC, in part because of that very reason. Some user start paying attention, lots of others leave.