Page 34 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2429303132333435363738394484 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 680 of 2089
Like Tree1415Likes
  1. #661  
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc_PIC View Post
    Hi everyone,

    I'm really sorry about the delay in the schedule - I know that we've disappointed a lot of you with this, but it really is necessary to do this to ensure we deliver the type of quality product that you're expecting. Much of the delay is due to the time needed to add in more rounds of testing and bug fixing, as well as improve the general stability of the system. I will do my best to update you as we move forward step by step - we've finalized the completion plan and it's full speed ahead until we get this done.

    Marc
    I'm just going to say it straight: Always underpromise and overdeliver; in the software world, where companies live and die by their promises (or lack thereof), unless you have serious competition (which ACL does not) you should always pad your estimates to the point where one's comfortable that they'll deliver ahead of--or at least on--time.

    This is poor project planning on the part of PIC, and shows one (or more) of the following:

    1. Pure naivete from a lack of major software project experience. Which doesn't speak well of the devs who estimated it.
    2. PIC didn't get and assess the source code from OM until after they secured the Kickstarter funds (a huge problem, if true)
    3. Simply overpromising in the Kickstarter to secure funds to move forward. Least likely, but possible.

    Either way, it really doesn't speak well of the organizational logistics one would expect out of a company already promising so much to what remains of the webOS community--and for so much money, to boot. I'm sure plenty of backers are very interested in more transparent detail as to what really drove this sudden change rather than the typical "Oh, well, we screwed up and realized we needed more time after all" excuse I've heard too many times from development teams over the last couple of decades. Typically, those projects ended in failure due to a lack of understanding project complexity and scope.

    Extremely important questions PIC should answer include:

    1. Most importantly, how knowledgeable of the source code was PIC before and during the Kickstarter?
    2. Why wasn't this factored into the original estimate, if PIC had it and knew what the source consisted of?
    3. What drove the need for additional rounds of testing where before PIC didn't think it was necessary?
    4. Is the general stability of the ACL really that bad?

    Inquiring minds want to know, because right now this business arrangement with OM sounds a bit fishy if this schedule is already being changed so drastically so soon after the Kickstarter ended.

    If one can't trust PIC to deliver the ACL on a reasonably-estimated timeframe, how can it ever trust them to deliver a significantly more complex webOS device and all its hardware, regulatory, and miscellaneous hurdles it has to pass, after all?
    Last edited by dignitary; 06/09/2013 at 01:22 AM.
  2. #662  
    I called it from the beginning that there was no way they would hit that July date. Now they are pushing back 2 months. I can only offer a warning to PIC that if they try and go beyond that date they will have a TON of people yelling for their money back. They promised a date on Kickstarter and got funding for that time-frame. Their contract with Kickstarter funders was a promise of "A" (product by a specific date) and receive "B" (funding). They aren't delivering "A" and will be dealing with bigger issues if they don't deliver on this final date they are offering.

    I certainly hope OM and PIC don't think donors will simply go along for a ride for too long past the initial promise.
  3. #663  
    Hi everyone,

    I'm really sorry about the delay in the schedule - I know that we've disappointed a lot of you with this, but it really is necessary to do this to ensure we deliver the type of quality product that you're expecting. Much of the delay is due to the time needed to add in more rounds of testing and bug fixing, as well as improve the general stability of the system. I will do my best to update you as we move forward step by step - we've finalized the completion plan and it's full speed ahead until we get this done.

    Marc
    Thanks for the early and honest headsup, make sure to keep me (us) informed to keep me (us) happy.
  4. #664  
    Quote Originally Posted by dignitary View Post
    This is poor project planning on the part of PIC, and shows one (or more) of the following:

    1. Pure naivete from a lack of major software project experience. Which doesn't speak well of the devs who estimated it.
    2. PIC didn't get and assess the source code from OM until after they secured the Kickstarter funds (a huge problem, if true)
    3. Simply overpromising in the Kickstarter to secure funds to move forward. Least likely, but possible.
    ...
    4. Feature creep (all those folks asking for Jelly Bean and Pre 3 support, for example)
    5. Underestimation of the difference between a OM demo prototype and a real PIC product.

    -- Rod
    Last edited by rwhitby; 06/11/2013 at 11:35 PM.
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
    RumoredNow and dignitary like this.
  5. #665  
    It should be noted that Kickstarter has estimated delivery dates. Most (software) projects that I - kinda - follow have severely exceeded that date for various reasons, e.g. Spriter by edgar muniz , Double Fine Adventure by Double Fine Productions , Tex Murphy - Project Fedora by Chris Jones & Aaron Conners , Two Guys SpaceVenture - by the creators of Space Quest by Two Guys From Andromeda . Several of these have a lot more experience in producing software. So I don't think that exceeding the expected deadline should be held against PIC (just yet). Especially since they are open about it this early in the project.
  6. #666  
    Quote Originally Posted by Choorp View Post
    Just curious... Does PIC have actual employees or is it just a group of people volunteering their free time?
    I'm going with the latter.
  7. #667  
    Quote Originally Posted by rwhitby View Post
    ...
    4. Feature creep (all those folks asking for Jelly Bean and Pre 3 support, for example)
    5. Underestimation of the difference between a OM demo prototype and a real PIC product.

    -- Rod
    Great additions.
  8. #668  
    Quote Originally Posted by stung View Post
    I'm going with the latter.
    My understanding from Marc in this forum was that the kick starter money was to pay Phoenix to complete the project and not just to pay open mobile for the work done to date, I don't know how they arrived at the original July estimate--did open mobile mislead them about the work still to be done ? .; did Phoenix not understand it properly and now that they hopefully contracted someone skilled to do the work, that person evaluated the project and came up with a new timetable?

    Answers to these and the other good questions in the thread would help to evaluate further possible delays in the timetable. I see the likelihood of the project being scuttled as small as we have seen some rough dems already but my guess is that issues like Netflix running choppy might not be so easily solved.

    At this point I would hope for the project by Nov 30th,. I also would like to see some of the webos community, like webos internals brought in to evaluate a realistic timeframe and as a resource for the bugs.
    Remy X and gderoiste like this.
  9. #669  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenote View Post
    ...I also would like to see some of the webos community, like webos internals brought in to evaluate a realistic timeframe and as a resource for the bugs.
    I'm sure Internals members will do as they see fit... But I'd rather they spent the time on Ports.


    Lumia 1520.3 (the Beastly Unicorn): Windows 10 Mobile

    Windows Central Senior Ambassador

    Mobile Nations Devotee
  10. sarlo100's Avatar
    Posts
    30 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #670  
    Is this still going to be a Gingerbread based launcher? Are they going to be asking $30 for it? I mean, I like WebOS and all, but Jelly Bean is pretty good now, and if given the choice between paying $30 for an outdated launcher (and getting more outdated by the week) and dual booting CM10, the choice is pretty clear.

    This is a year late unless it launches programs all the way through Jelly Bean. Even then, it's dicey considering how stable CM10 is now.
    RumoredNow likes this.
  11. #671  
    Quote Originally Posted by sarlo100 View Post
    Is this still going to be a Gingerbread based launcher? Are they going to be asking $30 for it? I mean, I like WebOS and all, but Jelly Bean is pretty good now, and if given the choice between paying $30 for an outdated launcher (and getting more outdated by the week) and dual booting CM10, the choice is pretty clear.

    This is a year late unless it launches programs all the way through Jelly Bean. Even then, it's dicey considering how stable CM10 is now.

    For those that dual boot, it's one thing, but those (like myself) that really don't want to dual boot for multiple reasons, I'm looking forward to see this work out.

    Of course, I hope that it'll be compatible with all versions of Android Apps, but still, opening the door for a new catalog without having to dual-boot is extremely welcomed news.
    Palm M105 > M130 > Zire 71 > Zire 72 >TX > Lifedrive > Pre > Pre2 >Touchpad > Pre3(8GB) > Pre3 (16GB)
    I see a pattern...
  12. #672  
    Is this still going to be a Gingerbread based launcher? Are they going to be asking $30 for it? I mean, I like WebOS and all, but Jelly Bean is pretty good now, and if given the choice between paying $30 for an outdated launcher (and getting more outdated by the week) and dual booting CM10, the choice is pretty clear.

    This is a year late unless it launches programs all the way through Jelly Bean. Even then, it's dicey considering how stable CM10 is now.
    I'm not understanding what your definition of "launcher" is. My understanding of a launcher in Android is that it is essentially a home screen replacement (like ADW Launcher EX for example). Will you please clarify what you mean by launcher.

    If it is simply just Jelly Bean the OS that you want, then by all means stay with CM10. However, most of us who dual boot don't want the hassle of the Android OS. We just want the apps. If the apps you need are still compatible with Gingerbread, which almost all of them are, then why do you need it to be Jelly Bean compatible on day one? That is a waste of time and resources. Not what I paid for.

    I have an Android 2.3 phone, two Android 4.x phones, and CM10 installed on this Touchpad. I have not found one app yet that did not run on all of my devices. The 2.3 phone is the one I use everyday (the 4.x phones are my wife and daughter's). I get app updates for it at the exact same time I get updates for the same apps on CM 10. Besides the screen size, the apps don't look any different on the Gingerbread phone then they do on CM10. In fact Android STILL lags far behind other platforms when it comes to tablet based apps. That hasn't changed much since Google was getting dinged on it when the Touchpad was released (and 3.x was on their tablets) so I definitely don't expect it to change much by September or even December. There is no mad rush to dump 2.x support for apps.


    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
    Last edited by HelloNNNewman; 06/11/2013 at 03:40 PM.
    hulickr likes this.
  13. hulickr's Avatar
    Posts
    65 Posts
    Global Posts
    74 Global Posts
    #673  
    Quote Originally Posted by k4ever View Post
    I'm not understanding what your definition of "launcher" is. My understanding of a launcher in Android is that it is essentially a home screen replacement (like ADW Launcher EX for example). Will you please clarify what you mean by launcher.

    If it is simply just Jelly Bean the OS that you want, then by all means stay with CM10. However, most of us who dual boot don't want the hassle of the Android OS. We just want the apps. If the apps you need are still compatible with Gingerbread, which almost all of them are, then why do you need it to be Jelly Bean compatible on day one? That is a waste of time and resources. Not what I paid for.

    I have an Android 2.3 phone, two Android 4.x phones, and CM10 installed on this Touchpad. I have not found one app yet that did not run on all of my devices. The 2.3 phone is the one I use everyday (the 4.x phones are my wife and daughter's). I get app updates for it at the exact same time I get updates for the same apps on CM 10. Besides the screen size, the apps don't look any different on the Gingerbread phone then they do on CM10. In fact Android STILL lags far behind other platforms when it comes to tablet based apps. That hasn't changed much since Google was getting dinged on it when the Touchpad was released (and 3.x was on their tablets) so I definitely don't expect it to change much by September or even December. There is no mad rush to dump 2.x support for apps.

    ---Sent from my HP TouchPad using Communities (a great webOS app!)
    I agree wholeheartedly.. How do the core OS features of Jelly Bean, or ICS actually pertain to this ACL? As long as apps actually function in the 2.3 emulator, then it seems immaterial. We're not looking for core OS functions here. We're looking for the ability to run an individual app or apps, in the OS whose functionality we prefer anyway, aren't we?
    The issue may become significant if, in the future, the apps we want no longer function in 2.3. But for most of us who still have and enjoy webOS, we are primarily looking to shrink the app gap, and keep our investment practical for our use, until we get a chance for a new open webOS device, (which we'll still want the ACL for), or until our devices die and we're forced to permanently select a new platform altogether. And from what I can see so far, 2.3 is still supported by a majority of the apps we can't get in webOS.
    (I haven't actually analyzed, or have I seen anyone else analyze, what critical apps will not function on 2.3.)
    I don't care about OS features; I have webOS! I simply want the option to be able to utilize mobile apps and services that are sadly only being developed for iOS and Android any more, without having to reboot into a foreign OS to utilize them, and then have to boot back to webOS for everything else. I have cm9 and plenty of friends that have Android or iOS devices, and while they have the latest hardware and software features, I still love the beauty of webOS for my uses. Someday my devices will fail, or become too obsolete to be viable in this world of technology. But until the other platforms can surpass webOS in core function, ACL is our best chance at keeping us existing users in the webOS game until it can no longer function as a viable tool for us, or until webOS is resurrected :-). (hopefully the latter ;-) Bring on 4.x in phase 2 to future-proof against the apps that may not support 2.3 in the future, but for right now, 2.3 seems perfectly viable to me.
    Roy

    Pre3 is here !! Loving it
    Sprint FrankenPre2 - Touchpad - Homebrew galore
    History: Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Palm Pre
    Preemptive likes this.
  14. #674  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenote View Post
    At this point I would hope for the project by Nov 30th,. I also would like to see some of the webos community, like webos internals brought in to evaluate a realistic timeframe and as a resource for the bugs.
    I can tell you how long it'd would take myself or any combination of people on my development team how long it would take to complete a major project.

    However, I couldn't tell you a reasonable estimate about how long Programmer X, Y, and Z over on the other side of the building--whom I don't even work with--would take to do the same project. At least not without taking some serious liberties and denying all liability if that estimate is catastrophically inaccurate.

    tl;dr: One dev team can't be responsible for estimating how long it'd take another team to do their job. Clairvoyance and omniscience are not things we've quite perfected yet, although we're often expected to have done so.
  15. #675  
    Quote Originally Posted by hulickr View Post
    Bring on 4.x in phase 2 to future-proof against the apps that may not support 2.3 in the future, but for right now, 2.3 seems perfectly viable to me.
    I hope PIC is quick on that 4.x turnaround: Should Android developers abandon Gingerbread and only support Android 4.0+?

    Note: This was written back in February when Android 2.x was still over 50%. Now it's quite a bit under that number, as I illustrated in an earlier post in this thread.
  16. #676  
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenote View Post
    I also would like to see some of the webos community, like webos internals brought in to evaluate a realistic timeframe and as a resource for the bugs.
    ACL is a commercial project, undertaken by PIC (a commercial entity, with no development track record to speak of) using proprietary closed-souce technology from OpenMobile (another commercial entity, with a demonstration-quality prototype product and no delivery track record to speak of).

    WebOS Internals wants nothing to do with such an arrangement, thank you very much.

    -- Rod
    WebOS Internals and Preware Founder and Developer
    You may wish to donate by Paypal to donations @ webos-internals.org if you find our work useful.
    All donations go back into development.
    www.webos-internals.org twitter.com/webosinternals facebook.com/webosinternals
  17. #677  
    Quote Originally Posted by dignitary View Post
    I can tell you how long it'd would take myself or any combination of people on my development team how long it would take to complete a major project.

    However, I couldn't tell you a reasonable estimate about how long Programmer X, Y, and Z over on the other side of the building--whom I don't even work with--would take to do the same project. At least not without taking some serious liberties and denying all liability if that estimate is catastrophically inaccurate.

    tl;dr: One dev team can't be responsible for estimating how long it'd take another team to do their job. Clairvoyance and omniscience are not things we've quite perfected yet, although we're often expected to have done so.
    The first and only time i see you haven't proofread your post

    Hope you'll get some rest this coming weekend...
    dignitary likes this.
  18. T-Pad's Avatar
    Posts
    327 Posts
    Global Posts
    332 Global Posts
    #678  
    Quote Originally Posted by hulickr View Post
    I haven't actually analyzed, or have I seen anyone else analyze, what critical apps will not function on 2.3.
    Basically I fully agree with you and k4ever. There's one critical app for me where the developer decided to have 3.x as minimum Android OS requirement. It's an app for reading subscriptions of a German IT magazine. <rant>First they published the Andriod version much more than one year after the iOS version and then 3.x is required. I can't use this app on my PlayBook or Sony PRS-T1 or in the first version of ACL.</rant>
    Preł (iPhone 4), TouchPad 32 GB (PlayBook 16 GB)
    gizmo21 likes this.
  19. #679  
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Pad View Post
    Basically I fully agree with you and k4ever. There's one critical app for me where the developer decided to have 3.x as minimum Android OS requirement. It's an app for reading subscriptions of a German IT magazine. <rant>First they published the Andriod version much more than one year after the iOS version and then 3.x is required. I can't use this app on my PlayBook or Sony PRS-T1 or in the first version of ACL.</rant>
    What's the app's name? I can have a look at it, see if I can get anything useful from the APK and it might not be too difficult to make a proper rewrite in Enyo 2 for webOS and other platforms
    Remy X, T-Pad and gizmo21 like this.
  20. #680  
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Pad View Post
    There's one critical app for me where the developer decided to have 3.x as minimum Android OS requirement. It's an app for reading subscriptions of a German IT magazine.
    yeah i also would like the c't app on webOS, i think T-Pad is refering to this. For now i still have to reboot to CM9 to read it.

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...oid.ct.magazin

    http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Es-is...t-1818031.html

    One magazine c’t 3/13 in this app is free, so this can be usesd without an account to test. The app is mostly HTML-reading mode with PDF-dl alternative

Similar Threads

  1. Is there a future for Pre3, Touchpad with ACL?
    By SeiGraph in forum Open webOS General Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 10/09/2012, 12:23 PM
  2. Mobile Wallet Roll Out Starts With Small Change
    By ilovedessert in forum The 'Off Topic' Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05/20/2011, 11:16 AM
  3. cannot find an app to open a pic??
    By visorhawk in forum webOS Discussion Lounge
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07/19/2010, 07:56 AM
  4. Replies: 131
    Last Post: 06/03/2010, 05:12 AM
  5. Side Kick 1. Unlock? T-mobile Only
    By SCP_DRUMS in forum Other OS's and Devices
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08/25/2006, 12:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions