Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

As far as a serious response, the openness of the OS is only one factor limiting a user's options. From the user point of view, the primary options are not at the OS layer but at the application layer. Most users are concerned with what their phones can do, not how their phones do it.

The biggest advantage that Android has (and, if things don't change, that the Droid will have) is the number of applications that are designed and developed to run on it. That choice is what users see as limiting their options.

If, as other posters have said, Android runs with an extra layer between it and the hardware, and if this causes applications to run slower, and if the phone's hardware causes the user to see the application as slower on the Droid than on the N900 then that becomes significant. However, if through fancy coding or faster hardware, a user sees an application running as fast on the Droid as on the N900 then it is not significant. At least not to the user.

Never having seen, much less touched, an N900 or Droid, I can't say which is the better package. But it's only if a lot of more important things are equal that the openness of the OS comes into play for a user rather than a developer.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

Speaking to Coreplayer devs and the dev that made the amazing Smartgear emu for WM, Android is very resource heavy. The byte code translation is a real bottleneck that prevents codecs or emulators to operate efficiently. In this regards, the OS is constrained compared to other options. Both devs would love to make their apps for Android, but no efficient way that is not beating the CPU to death and draining the battery. Both tried and failed with current SDK's.

Think of the byte code layer as the old man blocking the bridge in Monty Python and the Holy Grail ;)

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

Speaking as a user, I can play media, browse the web, send/receive email and SMS ... all at the same time, on my G1. No breaks in the media playing that I've been able to detect.

There's no question that virtual machines are slower than native code. That has already been said (including by me).

The part that matters is: is it noticeable to the user. And, as far as I can see/tell, it is not.

Dalvik's virtualization has not caused me (nor anyone else I know using Android) any speed issues.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

There are videos of doom running a little clunkily on android. There are videos of quake3 running on the n900. Nes emulators get a little slow in some cases on android-based devices (which is shameful given the overall speed of the processor(s)).

For simple apps, slow is fine. There is a ceiling, and a thick java layer lowers it even more.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

Well, I only compared the devices, I didn't say slimmer is better. As I said in another thread, the slimness comes at a cost of 5 mm taller frontal area (width is the same), and I prefer a thicker device if that leads to a smaller front. As for features such as FM xmit, we should find out 10/28.

I do think these two go head-to-head. The Dalvik/Java isn't necessarily an inefficiency, if it (as it probably does) implements pass-throughs to the device drivers.

As for LiMo, Moto 's gone Android, and essentially abandoned it, and the remaining manufacturers in the LiMo foundation don't seem interested in smartphones, not for the global market, at any rate.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

1. Most of the apps are not really running at the same time, but are placed in the background and active again when you choose them. This is actually a good thing, but does not correlate to how powerful the OS or hardware may be. That being said, Android is solid for users and if the SDK is opened up to more resources and virtual space option added for apps- Android could be great.

2. If the apps does not comply to the very restricted SDK (codecs and audio EQ's are examples), they do not run well enough to be practical. The OS is so restrictive, the video and audio resources are off base (except volume, mute and some scaling for video).

There are some good apps: Shopsavvy, Tunewikki, Shazaam, but they were made when Android launched and Google worked with the devs. Not many same level commercial apps from anyone else unless Google, but a TON of same apps and rip-off junk.

If it were not for Jewellust and the game emulators, Android would almost be a complete fail for games. That said, the emulators beat the 7201 to death and that is when clocked at 528mhz. Most users complain of lagging games and it will take Sholes to make games (emulators especially) play smooth. Consdering my $80 Dingoo game system plays Metal Slug 5 smooth with sound (433mhz arm) that makes Android stand out even sadder for efficiency.

Mom & pop devs have kept it interesting, but big commercial devs are avoiding the OS due to lack of app space and SDK resources.

Maemo does not have the same hardware or OS restrictions, so should take off and the community devs will have more leverage to make better apps as well. Not to mention the gabillion apps already around for easy ports.

Android is a shallow creek of an OS compared to the deep blue sea known as Maemo.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

Is not the bulk of the Maemo OS, both the Nokia originated components as well as the externally written parts, licenced under free software licences? With the exception of a few apps and some hardware drivers most of the OS is available for anyone and everyone to run on anything. No?

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

Sure, but those are a large part of what makes Maemo Maemo (icd2, the various applets, etc.). So if you don't have those, you can't really call what you're shipping Maemo (obvious trademark issues aside).

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

Hmmm... Droid's 3430 clocked at 550 MHz, no mention of compass. It appeared on Moto's page for some time before apparently being taken down. See Boy Genius Report thread for details.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)
 

I still feel you're responding to an argument that I actually didn't make.

What I said is, a less open OS in the long run leads to fewer choices to the user about what they can do with the device. This has nothing to do with whether or not the end user is aware of or cares about the differences in the openness of the OSes. But in the long run a more closed device will have fewer application choices, fewer possible ways the device can do things, less control over the services the device will work with, and less control over the security and privacy of the device.

Choices are limited, because a more closed system is inherently linked to a more hierarchical development process. A few people at the top have the final say over what is and is not possible on the platform. Even if those people have the best of intentions (e.g. "don't be evil"), they will never make as diverse a set of choices as a more open platform that necessarily has a more multifaceted and unconstrained development process. Those few people at the top will also act in their own best interest, which will necessarily be a narrower and more limited set of interests.

The iPhone is the best example of this. It does a lot of great things, but if it doesn't do what you want you're stuck, unless you're going to jailbreak it, which does not represent what most users are willing to do. You're also stuck, as I already said above, with Apple's capricious app approval process, including already documented cases of limiting political speech on the iPhone. Google won't be as heavy handed as Apple, with Android. They'll offer a set of applications and services so slickly integrated that it won't be worth your trouble to go outside this system, even if there's something you're missing. In fact, most users will be so complacent, they won't even realize what they're missing. This was really Microsoft's original strategy, with wanting to integrate IE deeply in the operating system. The courts shot that down, but Google is heading toward getting away with it on a much grander scale. Microsoft wanted to embed the browser and interaction with the web deeply in the operating system. Google has simply flipped this idea on its head and embedded the operating system/platform deeply in the web. The goal is the same. Completely monopolize the form of the user experience at all levels. You will also have zero privacy once you've decided to adopt the Google/Android way of doing things. As I mentioned before, everything in history suggests that this kind of centralized database of information about individuals will come back to haunt them.

So I completely agree, it's about the experience of the end user (who knows nothing about and does not care about how the underlying platform works). Right now Android looks great. Once Google has an effective monopoly, it's going to look really different. Innovation well get more and more stifled as Google circles the wagons and protects it's monopoly. And it's going to be a hard system to break out of, because 90% of people will have completely invested their mobile experience in it.

Although that said, I would also argue that users don't really want choices and control. This is part of the effectiveness of Apple in general and the iPhone in particular. It simplifies the options, let's users do a few things well, and saves them from thinking about what they're missing or giving up. Google pursues the same kind of strategy. I think the limitation of choices and surrendering of control in a slick and appealing way is actually part of what most users want and will help Android dominate.