Interesting to read about the Android NDK, which is a "native" SDK for Android.
It is a shame that currently, the implementation seems somewhat flawed IMO:
- your app is written in Java and runs through the VM; you can call-out to native code libraries through JNI (which has hardly efficient!)
- no support for C++ exceptions (this is a show stopper for a lot of code...)
- no support for STL (this is also a show stopper...)
Reading the forums, the latter 2 are likely to appear some time; goodness only knows if the first restriction will ever disappear...
Monday, 29 June 2009
Friday, 26 June 2009
Is the expanding mobile environment a good thing?
Thanks to a response from "Mobile" to my blog from a couple of days back, pointing out that the whole underlying market for Smartphones will continue to expand and diversify.
It seems pretty clear that most product churn seems to be of little benefit to the consumer. For example: I was pretty happy with Windows 95, and accept that Windows XP is better; but cannot see any point at all in Windows Vista. :) Companies have a need to keep re-inventing successful products, as milking a cash-cow is hugely easier than creating a new one.
For me, phones have been capable enough for most things since Windows Mobile 2002! That allowed full-featured, multi-threaded applications to be written and deployed in C++; with support out-of-the-box for full-duplex audio. With easy exchange of data through the PC using Active Sync. Devices were cheap, too.
All that was missing back then was a realisation by the market that such a device was a genuinely capable, multi-purpose mobile computer.
Since then, I can't see that Windows Mobile has moved on much (although the development tools are now better!); but then it really didn't need to change much, it has been a great platform for a long time. Symbian seems to have stood still for many years, and is stuck with a terrible variant of C++ and an awful tool chain. iPhone has opened a lot of peoples eyes, full credit to Apple for putting their toes in the water and for extending the iPod concept to include iPhone, and for pointing-out a direction for touchable UIs.
Anyways: to the heart of the problem. Now that more platforms offer similar capabilities - though iPhone has big sandboxing and connectivity issues, Android only allows Java apps, Symbian is a pig to code for and (IIRC) only allows applications to support single-duplex audio - that has served mainly to split-up the market. This gives more choice for the consumer in terms of hardware, but ironically makes it more difficult to get all the software you want on your chosen phone. Should you get a Windows Mobile device for application A, or iPhone for application B, or Symbian for application C? What if you want to change platform? Tough: you probably can't bring all your favourite apps with you. Now this might be good for the hardware developer (locking people in to their platforms), but in my opinion this is bad for the consumer.
The applications are what really define the device. You want Halo? You get an XBox. You want Zelda? You get a Wii. If you want Logic, you use a Mac. If you want Microsoft Office, you get a Windows box. Luckily now if you like Open Office, Firefox or other cross-platform tools, you have the option of running on all three main desktop platforms.
When it comes to smaller apps for mobile devices, the sort which are written by smaller developers and which really are what make a phone do what a user wants, and which are a far simpler proposition that the big apps I've just mentioned, you might think that it should surely be possible to write once, and deploy on all the platforms without too much effort? Actually no: it is unbelievably hard work, as you'll have seen from other posts on my blog.
The biggest challenge for mobile software developers, is one of writing an app such that it can reach as much of the market as possible. I can't see many ways to make this easy (apart from using a framework like the one we've painstakingly developed at Intermorphic!); this will lead to each phone platform being a separate island. I can but hope that Antix will succeeed and open up this whole market... which would also allow apps to be written once in C++, and run with binary portability on any device, including TVs, which had the application engine installed.
It seems pretty clear that most product churn seems to be of little benefit to the consumer. For example: I was pretty happy with Windows 95, and accept that Windows XP is better; but cannot see any point at all in Windows Vista. :) Companies have a need to keep re-inventing successful products, as milking a cash-cow is hugely easier than creating a new one.
For me, phones have been capable enough for most things since Windows Mobile 2002! That allowed full-featured, multi-threaded applications to be written and deployed in C++; with support out-of-the-box for full-duplex audio. With easy exchange of data through the PC using Active Sync. Devices were cheap, too.
All that was missing back then was a realisation by the market that such a device was a genuinely capable, multi-purpose mobile computer.
Since then, I can't see that Windows Mobile has moved on much (although the development tools are now better!); but then it really didn't need to change much, it has been a great platform for a long time. Symbian seems to have stood still for many years, and is stuck with a terrible variant of C++ and an awful tool chain. iPhone has opened a lot of peoples eyes, full credit to Apple for putting their toes in the water and for extending the iPod concept to include iPhone, and for pointing-out a direction for touchable UIs.
Anyways: to the heart of the problem. Now that more platforms offer similar capabilities - though iPhone has big sandboxing and connectivity issues, Android only allows Java apps, Symbian is a pig to code for and (IIRC) only allows applications to support single-duplex audio - that has served mainly to split-up the market. This gives more choice for the consumer in terms of hardware, but ironically makes it more difficult to get all the software you want on your chosen phone. Should you get a Windows Mobile device for application A, or iPhone for application B, or Symbian for application C? What if you want to change platform? Tough: you probably can't bring all your favourite apps with you. Now this might be good for the hardware developer (locking people in to their platforms), but in my opinion this is bad for the consumer.
The applications are what really define the device. You want Halo? You get an XBox. You want Zelda? You get a Wii. If you want Logic, you use a Mac. If you want Microsoft Office, you get a Windows box. Luckily now if you like Open Office, Firefox or other cross-platform tools, you have the option of running on all three main desktop platforms.
When it comes to smaller apps for mobile devices, the sort which are written by smaller developers and which really are what make a phone do what a user wants, and which are a far simpler proposition that the big apps I've just mentioned, you might think that it should surely be possible to write once, and deploy on all the platforms without too much effort? Actually no: it is unbelievably hard work, as you'll have seen from other posts on my blog.
The biggest challenge for mobile software developers, is one of writing an app such that it can reach as much of the market as possible. I can't see many ways to make this easy (apart from using a framework like the one we've painstakingly developed at Intermorphic!); this will lead to each phone platform being a separate island. I can but hope that Antix will succeeed and open up this whole market... which would also allow apps to be written once in C++, and run with binary portability on any device, including TVs, which had the application engine installed.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Sharing data between Mixtikl Windows and Mixtikl iPhone/iPod
While waiting for the skins and Tiklpaks for Mixtikl 1.5 to pull-together, I've been continuing to fill-out the outer edges of Mixtikl. I spent the past week adding-in code that allows Mixtikl on Windows to share data with Mixtikl on iPhone/iPod; this was a lot harder than I wanted, as it involved both bonjour code and the creation of a mini HTTP server, which are things you get "out of the box" with XCode for Mac/iPhone, and which are hard to implement on Windows (to say the least!). Still, the code to do the file sharing all now seems to be working and I'll spend a day or 2 more on testing/tweaking it.
I remain amazed that the iPhone SDK makes it so difficult to share data with the desktop. On Windows Mobile, you can get data on and off via your PC using Active Sync and Windows Explorer; albeit, there is no simple way to get data on/off your Mac (if you have one!) short of installing Windows on your Mac through a VM or Boot Camp. On the iPhone/iPod, your app sits there in its own island, unable to communicate even with a Mac without a large amount of code being written for both Mac and iPhone. And if you want your iPhone/iPod app to communicate with a Windows box, well you're in a world of hurt from a coding perspective.
The good news for us is that now we've done the hard work, I think we'll be able to quite easily roll-out useful utilities within Mixtikl, that will allow quite a lot useful stuff to be done on iPhone/iPod/Windows Mobile - and shared/worked-on on the PC/Mac, as best suits the needs of the user...
I remain amazed that the iPhone SDK makes it so difficult to share data with the desktop. On Windows Mobile, you can get data on and off via your PC using Active Sync and Windows Explorer; albeit, there is no simple way to get data on/off your Mac (if you have one!) short of installing Windows on your Mac through a VM or Boot Camp. On the iPhone/iPod, your app sits there in its own island, unable to communicate even with a Mac without a large amount of code being written for both Mac and iPhone. And if you want your iPhone/iPod app to communicate with a Windows box, well you're in a world of hurt from a coding perspective.
The good news for us is that now we've done the hard work, I think we'll be able to quite easily roll-out useful utilities within Mixtikl, that will allow quite a lot useful stuff to be done on iPhone/iPod/Windows Mobile - and shared/worked-on on the PC/Mac, as best suits the needs of the user...
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Windows Mobile, iPhone, Android, Palm - a look around
It is an interesing time of flux in the mobile software development market. The new version of iPhone OS released, a new version of Windows Mobile in the offing, Android phones have trickled onto the market and the Palm Pre arriving.
Intermorphic are in a pretty good position during this time of change.
The approach we've taken is to try and embrace all the key platforms - provided they support C++, Posix threads and STL. This lowest common denominator allows us develop complex software quite cost effectively. Of course, this required us to engineer our products from the beginnning to be able to reuse 95+% of our UI code, and 99+% of all other code, across all platforms we support; which is a challenge but one that was well worth the effort. That allows us to create standalone Mixtikl variants for Windows Mobile, iPhone, and Mac/Windows desktops. And even plug-in VSTi/AU variants for Mac/Win desktops!
This baseline requirement on C++ means that for now, Android and Palm webOS aren't viable target platforms for Mixtikl. The reason? Android only supports Java applications, and Palm Pre supports only JavaScript/CSS applications. However, the C++ approach does mean that a Symbian Series 60 variant of Mixtikl is possible in the future, if the Symbian SDKs ever become cost-effective to use (I remember various past problems when I last looked at Symbian, including their use of non-standard C++, no thread support, no support for STL...). The Antix platform also looks very promising, I hope it gets mass distribution so we can run on it!
It is interesting to consider how the Android and Palm platforms might succeed in terms of a 3rd party software market. From my perspective as a creator of applications for mobile, I can't see how it could be cost effective for me to invest several months (or years!) in creating a complex app for either Android or Palm, where I could spend just a little more time creating a complex app that would run on all of Windows Mobile, iPhone/iPod, Windows desktop, Mac desktop, and future platforms as yet unknown. The economies of scale seem pretty clear to me. :) I can see small games and utilities being created for the two platforms, but would be surprised to see large-scale commercial apps coming about for either of them.
Pete
Intermorphic are in a pretty good position during this time of change.
The approach we've taken is to try and embrace all the key platforms - provided they support C++, Posix threads and STL. This lowest common denominator allows us develop complex software quite cost effectively. Of course, this required us to engineer our products from the beginnning to be able to reuse 95+% of our UI code, and 99+% of all other code, across all platforms we support; which is a challenge but one that was well worth the effort. That allows us to create standalone Mixtikl variants for Windows Mobile, iPhone, and Mac/Windows desktops. And even plug-in VSTi/AU variants for Mac/Win desktops!
This baseline requirement on C++ means that for now, Android and Palm webOS aren't viable target platforms for Mixtikl. The reason? Android only supports Java applications, and Palm Pre supports only JavaScript/CSS applications. However, the C++ approach does mean that a Symbian Series 60 variant of Mixtikl is possible in the future, if the Symbian SDKs ever become cost-effective to use (I remember various past problems when I last looked at Symbian, including their use of non-standard C++, no thread support, no support for STL...). The Antix platform also looks very promising, I hope it gets mass distribution so we can run on it!
It is interesting to consider how the Android and Palm platforms might succeed in terms of a 3rd party software market. From my perspective as a creator of applications for mobile, I can't see how it could be cost effective for me to invest several months (or years!) in creating a complex app for either Android or Palm, where I could spend just a little more time creating a complex app that would run on all of Windows Mobile, iPhone/iPod, Windows desktop, Mac desktop, and future platforms as yet unknown. The economies of scale seem pretty clear to me. :) I can see small games and utilities being created for the two platforms, but would be surprised to see large-scale commercial apps coming about for either of them.
Pete
Friday, 12 June 2009
Mixtikl 1.5 gets closer...
Another 2 weeks on, and another 2 (or 3!) weeks of coding to go.
I've put a lot of effort over the past couple of weeks into further polishing Mixtikl on iPod/iPhone, and have also spent time improving the behaviour of Mixtikl on Windows Mobile (which has not been forgotten amongst all the iPhone work!).
There is still quite a bit of work to do on tweaking the skins for all the different Mixtikl platforms, and we've yet to finalise the Tiklpaks for release; we'll just have to see how we get on and release when we're ready!
I've put a lot of effort over the past couple of weeks into further polishing Mixtikl on iPod/iPhone, and have also spent time improving the behaviour of Mixtikl on Windows Mobile (which has not been forgotten amongst all the iPhone work!).
There is still quite a bit of work to do on tweaking the skins for all the different Mixtikl platforms, and we've yet to finalise the Tiklpaks for release; we'll just have to see how we get on and release when we're ready!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
