3 ms·

It is depressing to see such cavalier attitude towards backwards compatibility and older devices (flagships even, assuming you are talking about Snapdragon 800

It is depressing to see such cavalier attitude towards backwards compatibility and older devices (flagships even, assuming you are talking about Snapdragon 800 devices). This is planned obsolescence at its worst .. :/ (At this point, Android management seem to be thinking "What are the other alternatives, Windows 10 Mobile .. haar, haar ..")

tadfisher 10y ago
On the other side of this controversy are developers who want to use Vulkan and other features which require hardware support, and they are tired of dealing with runtime API capability checks (A.K.A. "fragmentation"). You cannot have backward-compatibility for these features if you require support for them in hardware. This is more a cavalier attitude on the part of Qualcomm who do not support their own hardware for a reasonable length of time, and who do not foster open-source driver development which would at least allow the community to bring new features to older hardware in some cases (Vulkan being the prime example).
- tdkl 10y ago
  > On the other side of this controversy are developers who want to use Vulkan and other features which require hardware support, and they are tired of dealing with runtime API capability checks (A.K.A. "fragmentation"). Imagine Microsoft blocked Windows 10 (or any of the next builds) from all the GPUs who don't support DirectX 12, so that the developers can write DX12 software more conveniently. This obsolescence of multiple hundred $€Ł mobile devices inside 18 months is getting silly.
  - tadfisher 10y ago
    Imagine if Apple no longer released OS updates for devices incapable of running Metal, and they pushed updated drivers for devices already on the market, thus enabling both developer convenience and consumer trust. Oh wait, you don't have to. Your frustration is misdirected. The CTS and Google Play Services are the only tools at Google's disposal for inducing market changes. Perhaps manufacturers will demand longer support periods for upstream hardware, for instance.
- potatosareok 10y ago
  In my opinion Google is between a rock and hard place. They made it very easy to be certified for Android. My assumption for the reason is to spread it everywhere to get market dominance. Now they are tightening it up a bit which as a developer I support but honestly end users are being screwed, and the root cause is Google not Qualcomm in my opinion. Google could have from the start been stricter about certification if they really cared about delivering a good experience to end users and developers, rather than just sending out a shitty product quickly.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

tadfisher 10y ago

On the other side of this controversy are developers who want to use Vulkan and other features which require hardware support, and they are tired of dealing with runtime API capability checks (A.K.A. "fragmentation"). You cannot have backward-compatibility for these features if you require support for them in hardware. This is more a cavalier attitude on the part of Qualcomm who do not support their own hardware for a reasonable length of time, and who do not foster open-source driver development which would at least allow the community to bring new features to older hardware in some cases (Vulkan being the prime example).

tdkl 10y ago
> On the other side of this controversy are developers who want to use Vulkan and other features which require hardware support, and they are tired of dealing with runtime API capability checks (A.K.A. "fragmentation"). Imagine Microsoft blocked Windows 10 (or any of the next builds) from all the GPUs who don't support DirectX 12, so that the developers can write DX12 software more conveniently. This obsolescence of multiple hundred $€Ł mobile devices inside 18 months is getting silly.
- tadfisher 10y ago
  Imagine if Apple no longer released OS updates for devices incapable of running Metal, and they pushed updated drivers for devices already on the market, thus enabling both developer convenience and consumer trust. Oh wait, you don't have to. Your frustration is misdirected. The CTS and Google Play Services are the only tools at Google's disposal for inducing market changes. Perhaps manufacturers will demand longer support periods for upstream hardware, for instance.
potatosareok 10y ago
In my opinion Google is between a rock and hard place. They made it very easy to be certified for Android. My assumption for the reason is to spread it everywhere to get market dominance. Now they are tightening it up a bit which as a developer I support but honestly end users are being screwed, and the root cause is Google not Qualcomm in my opinion. Google could have from the start been stricter about certification if they really cared about delivering a good experience to end users and developers, rather than just sending out a shitty product quickly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]