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

Er, yeah, "Maemo".

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

what's that supposed to mean, GA? Explain, not just act crass and sarcastic, either.

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

As far as I can tell, Android is designed to be a free common infrastructure (free/open OS and kernel, and then a common device independent application infrastructure) that phone makers can layer upon their devices. Essentially, it turns the mobile OS into a commodity, instead of a value component. IMO, the OS, kernel, and application infrastructure SHOULD be a commodity.

It's not meant to be "Linux/Unix in your pocket", in the traditional sense of Linux/Unix (and, iPhone OS X isn't meant to be this either; both platforms leverage Linux/Unix under the covers, but they aren't intending to reveal those layers to end users). Maemo does seem to be aimed that: full Linux/Unix in your pocket, even with an X based environment (and they do a great job of making X not suck -- no small feat). It's also leveraging that into something entirely new, but not in a way that conceals Linux/Unix from the expert user. A very good thing, IMO.

(and, obviously, there's a difference in how Android approaches the open-ness at the upper layers, but I wont re-visit that hot potato)

To me, the best platform would be a hybrid approach between Android and Maemo. Like Maemo: access to the traditional Linux/Unix layers, native hardware optimized applications, and leveraging as many open components as possible. But with a high level, hardware agnostic, application eco-system (Dalvik) that has a rich and growing central application conduit (the Market), as well as easily lending itself to secondary conduits. As for the UI, I'd probably take the look and polish of Maemo, but leverage some of the extras that Android brings to the table (automatic screen rotation, portrait and landscape keyboards, etc.).

You could do that by adding Linux things to Android (a full local terminal app, missing bin-utils stuff, a "me" account, an X layer that sits on top of the Android graphical environment, an rpm or deb package manager) ... or by adding Dalvik on top of Maemo (or Mer). I'm sort of agnostic about which approach is better ... there's trade-offs to either, and most of those trade-offs are likely to be dictated by an individual's biases. But, either one could work.

The problem with going with Android: a lot of work to make it into a useful Linux/X environment. And, not all of Android is fully "open and free" (though, at least one of the open android developers seem to be doing fine producing a workable platform without that open code).

The problem with going with Maemo: very small supported hardware selection. In this regard, Android is growing and spreading like kudzu. I don't expect to see Nokia put a lot of effort into making that happen, as opposed to Android.

The problem with going with Mer ... while I'm sure the team wants to fill in the gaps of Maemo wrt to supported hardware, and produce a platform that also doesn't have Android's gaps ... I don't see them having enough there, now/yet/soon, to make that kudzu like adoption rate happen.

And, in all of those cases, for me, the goal is a common commodity OS, kernel, and application environment, that is both flexible to the expert, and accessible/usable for the consumer.

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

Hm. I wonder what it takes to license Maemo (both in terms of agreements, and money) ... and which versions are available for licensing.

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

It's only Maemo in so far as it's using some of Nokia's open source components. It hasn't been licensed from Nokia, it doesn't even come close to including Maemo's complete software stack and it's a rank violation of Nokia's trademark.

As far as I'm aware, Nokia does not license Maemo and has no plans to.

Perhaps one of the reasons you've been having trouble on these forums over the past few weeks is because you're not assuming good faith? Not immediately assuming people are reacting aggressively or condescendingly to your posts and the posts of others would be a good place to start. Treating them like children is also probably not the best strategy for maintaining civil discussions, no? :)

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

I'm wondering why Motorola has been able to make the Droid as thin as it is and still have a slide out keyboard and the specs it has.

The thickness of the N900 is the one thing I most don't like about the design (since it will impact pocketability). Mostly I've read the thickness is due to the slide out keyboard. But then along comes Droid (13.7mm vs 18mm).

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

Perhaps it's the features the n900 has that Droid doesn't?

FM Transmitter, TV out, Infrared? Granted it can't add that much to the size..

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

I think this is a very apt analysis, The winning strategy will be making the OS a hardware independent commodity. It's Windows vs. Apple all over again. The thing that positions Google so well is that their revenue stream is not based on selling/licensing the OS. It's based on tying people into their universe of services and then advertising to them. This gives Google a unique position. Microsoft can't do it (or their attemtps at it keep failing--Google just has too big of a head start) and has to license WinMo. Apple won't do it (they want to control the hardware and software). Likewise for Palm and Nokia really. These three all need to sell the device to make money. But it's a huge opening for Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, Acer, Dell, and other not yet existent device manufacturers, on the device side, with Google being the big winner.

One problem of course with Android/Google is not just the technical question of it's halfway open, halfway closed OS. The problem is that Google will always be strategizing to suck people further and further into it's universe of services. Of course, there a privacy concerns. But this is also a limitation of choice in and of itself. In the long run, Google could become a monopoly controlling your desktop experience in a way that makes Microsofts attempts at this pale in comparison. I presonally would really rather not have Google suck up the entire world and I try to avoid being part of that. So I really appreciate Nokia making Maemo so open (but I also worry it will always remain a niche product).

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

Google does at least give you the option of leaving their cloud with all your data. So if you do want to switch your more then welcome to. They're currently working on ways to output all your data so you can take it anywhere you want.

But yes, in the long run this is what I see.

Android will be the dominant OS on most of the devices out there. And then the smaller camps with their own marketshare (one guaranteed camp is Apple). Then maybe BlackBerry, Pre, Nokia as other camps, who knows what slots they will be fighting for.. but I'm pretty sure it's

1) Google + everyone with Android
2) Apple
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?

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

Getting back to my original post. It looks like the design is very close to the final one (Verizon sent out this mailer: http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...scare-children) and I still think it is quite an ugly device.

The N900 may be thicker but at least it looks nice.

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

That keyboard just screams mid-90s.

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

One thing I've been wondering about that device that bugs me..

I do like the dpad on there.. but why on earth is it on the right side and not left?

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

Yes, Google isn't as heavy handed as Microsoft or Apple, in its attempts to control everything. They do it by just offering really slick and well integrated applications and services, then hoping that the convenience of it all will slowly make people not think about the competition or what options they may be lacking. It's more of a Brave New World strategy than a 1984 strategy. That is, Google wants to placate people into complacency, rather than force them into submission. But the end results may be more of a closed experience for most people (even if the exit door is right there), than Microsoft's greatest dreams.

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

It seems we may need to relocate to a remote village to find that door.

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

No, GA. I'm bipolar, and was overworked and hadn't been eating and sleeping regularly during those couple weeks, and it had an adverse effect on my mental health. I was just being more combative than usual, not my normal self. I'm actually having very little trouble here, and have grown to love it. You make a good point, and I'll take all that into consideration. I'm rarely that difficult, as you'll see over time. You'll probably look back and wonder what the hell was my problem, and now you know.

I want you to take some advice from me as well. I wasn't implying that you are rude, since you seem to be a genius in terms of Maemo. But you have a penchant for sarcasm and jokes, and I wanted a good answer from you, not one you'd give the older members with more knowledge. When you said:
when I said there was a Chinese Maemo device, it made it seem like I had made an incorrect statement, and you were in obvious sarcasm mode, but you didn't elaborate. I knew you knew something I didn't, so I wanted the scoop. That's all. Nothing personal, and didn't think you were acting aggressively nor rude. Just wanted to know why it was "Maemo" and not Maemo, which implied it wasn't at all.

Do you have any documentation to show its not really Maemo, and that it knocks on Nokia's trademarks? I noticed the CEO of the company described the OS as a combination of Linux and Android, and didn't seem to either be able to or want to tell what OS it ran, and that gave me reason for pause, so I felt something weird was amiss.

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

Well, first, as I said earlier, Nokia doesn't license Maemo, so any other device manufacturer claiming to be running Maemo isn't.

Second, Maemo doesn't run Safari. . . .

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....e-09-04-09.jpg

What they did was take some of the open source components from the Maemo 4 SDK, slap them together with some stuff from Android and regular old desktop Linux and then called it Maemo. It's nothing of the sort.

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

Thanks for that info. Now I can start ignoring and researching this device as much as I have. Chinese translations from Google aren't always ideal...

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

LOL!
Tell that to bill gates ;)
PC>MAC (as far as $$$ sales go, which is the bottom line)

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

So I should support clunky and poorly integrated applications and services just to spite Google? Is that Maemo's new strategy?

If you want to debate the merits of Google's implementation of Linux versus Nokia's implementation of Linux or Motorola's phone versus Nokia's phone or even Google's use of closed source applications versus Nokia's use of closed source applications, fine.

But does every mention of Android have to result in attacks on Google? It's as if I jumped into every N900 thread to complain that Nokia is evil because they refuse to write an OS which will allow me to update my N810 to Maemo 5.

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

I couldn't say anything else.

I'm considering making a campain about making an official general Google boycott. Hopefully there'll be enough people interested by then...

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

Google needs the attacks, you can't honestly say Nokia is worse!?

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

Nokia sold me an N810 that is supposedly open but can't be upgraded to the supposedly open Maemo 5. I knew what I was getting into but I'm sure some people didn't and Nokia never advertised the fact up to and including when they stopped selling them on their web site.

OTOH, Google sold me Google Notebook that they then canceled. I knew what I was getting into because, like any cloud service, nothing is guaranteed, so I was using it as a backup to data I had elsewhere but I'm sure some people were putting their life in there. Of course, unlike Nokia, Google didn't charge me anything other than a bit of privacy. Also Google provided a long warning that they were shutting off the service and nearly a year later they are still hosting the service on their servers for legacy users.

So they are both bad in some respects but it has nothing to do with the N900 and the Motorola Droid or with Maemo and Android.

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

Says who, exactly? TI should be releasing the PowerVR drivers this week and Mer should be integrating them soon after. "Open" doesn't mean Nokia has to provide neverending software upgrades, it just means you're free to scratch your own itches.

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

I understand and agree with you. An informed user can deal with Nokia's hardware and software strategy. An informed user can also deal with Google's which was my point.

I don't see the fact that Nokia is producing the N900 or Google is maintaining Android as pertinent to a discussion of the N900 versus the Motorola Droid. A valid point would be whether the N900 or the Droid will be upgradable in the future to Maemo 6 or Android 3. Another valid point would be the relative openness of the OSs when it comes to adding apps. OTOH attacks on Google do not add to my understanding of the relative merits of these devices.

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

Well, that is complete a caricature of what I was saying, so it's not a serious response.

First of all, I was not knocking Google's overall universe of products and services. It's very impressive and should be appreciated, undertstood, and feared by all of it's competitors. Indeed, it's so strategically ahead of all it's competitors that I have consistently said, if you read all my posts, that I think Android will be the dominant mobile platform eventually.

My criticism of Google/Android is twofold. First, as others have argued, Android is not a completely open platform. This intrinsically poses limits on the options users will have and this will only increase in the long run, as users get more and more locked into the Google universe. Second and related, as we ought to all know from the Windows experience, once a platform becomes so dominant that it essentially has a monopoly, the limitations only increase and the possibility for competition falls by the wayside. This would be true for any platform, it just happens that Google/Android will be, I believe, the dominant mobile platform.

Now, if there has to be a dominant platform, I think it would be better that it be something more open like Maemo. Maemo's openness would allow for more choices and more freedom over what you do with your device, as the available products and services grow. Yes it's nice to have a slick highly integrated set of services like Apple offers or Google, but that always involves giving up a lot of choices (look at Apple's capricious review process for the app store, that has not gone without imposing limits on political speech). Also, Google's massive and ever growing data base of user behavior, cross referenced by IP address and no doubt every other way possible, should frighten anyone who remotely values their privacy. Google may be using it for purely commercial purposes, but history shows, it's only a matter of time before governments and other entities abuse access to this kind of information.

So I think these issues are worth considering, when comparing the Droid and the N900 and deciding which platform one wants to get invested in.

I also think we're probably living in the hay day of platform options right now. The market will narrow and we'll all look back at this time wistfully.

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

"Do you remember the time when Maemo and its children and variants had competition? From vendors trying to push closed solutions? It certainly made for some lively threads!"

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

Everyone claiming slimmer is better easily forget why the N900 was thick in the first place. Does the Droid have (loud) stereo speakers? Does the Droid have a FM transmitter (or FM radio at all)? There's much more functionality in the N900, which the Droid simply lacks (due Android restrictments and lack of support, you have to agree about that Android is still an immature OS).

Even if Android's limitations won't be considered, it'll still be an inferior OS, due its Java layer on top of the Linux kernel, which leads to inefficiency.


In my opinion, the biggest competitor to the N900 (quality wise, not PR wise) is Samsung's future LiMo-lineup, but it looks like the N900 will still be (although slightly) superior. Android is nothing than a combination of Google and PR; it's a shame that it's even considered as an alternative to Maemo. Because of this, LiMo has been left in the dust, which is quite undeserved.

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

Actually, I haven't noticed any speed problems compared to my N800 or N810. Dalvik (not Java) runs quite fast. One of the differences between Dalvik and Java is ... Dalvik removes a ton of things that slow Java down.

Sure, a virtual machine language will always be slower than a native machine language, but that doesn't mean it's going to be noticeably slower (noticeable to the user -- which is all that matters, since we're not doing number crunching or protein folding, nor anything along those lines).

The idea that Dalvik somehow makes Android inferior is just silly. It's actually a strong point for Android, making for one app store no matter which underlying device platform you're running it on, yet with runtime speeds that are more than capable of keeping up with the user.

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

Well SAID !!

I'm astonished of the ignorance of a lot of people here. Dalvik != JavaVM, its a bastardised version of it and is highly optimised. Android also allows for native development thanks to the newly released 1.5 native dev kit NDK.

Actually Java syntax compatibility is a huge advantage as it allows for RAD and there are millions of Java developer out there which is why Android mkt place will continue to grow.

Maemo is great enough as it is no need to pull Android down.

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

Slightly old info, circa ~1.5, but from an android dev at a google presentation earlier this year, dalvik has some optimizations, but also some serious drawbacks compared to c. For example, the GC takes 100-300ms to run, which means you have to take dramatic steps not to alloc/dealloc memory while maintaining framerate (meaning java collections really can't be used).

The NDK is only callable through JNI (and JNI calls are 30% slower than local calls), and doesn't have access to the main API, so you're still working through java to an extent.

Choosing java as your primary programming language has advantages, but you'll never match truly native c for speed, and given the limited battery/clocks on phones, it makes it an odd choice. I guess allowing generally less-skilled masses to write apps outweighs the performance implications, but it's why I'm torn between the Droid and something faster,

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.