4 ms·
It's true that Android initially didn't support touch; they were making a Blackberry competitor (http://www.talkandroid.com/109966-how-did-android-look-in-2007-
by rizwan 13y ago
It's true that Android initially didn't support touch; they were making a Blackberry competitor (http://www.talkandroid.com/109966-how-did-android-look-in-2007-see-it-running-on-the-google-sooner/ http://www.talkandroid.com/109966-how-did-android-look-in-20...).
I'd argue that it wasn't because of doing a "good job" adding touch that allowed them to succeed. It was the price of free.
Even now all "touch" events are treated as 'click' events. And it's not easy to get access to the number of fingers on a view or to track them like iOS can.
- slantyyz 13y agoWhile the obvious analysis is that they were making a Blackberry competitor, wasn't Android really targeting deployment on hardware that could Windows Mobile? iirc, the first phones running Android were slight variants of Windows Mobile hardware, which happened to have the BB form factor. And if this was the case, there were plenty of touch screen Windows Phones at the time. I think Android going touch would have been inevitable. Having said that, if Apple didn't release the iPhone, the definition of touch on Google would probably have meant "with a stylus".