On Sep 19, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:30:18 -0700 > "Skarpness, Mark" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> That misses the point of compliance - the simple marketing concept is >> "MeeGo compliant apps run on all MeeGo compliant devices". There's >> nothing bad about apps that don't meet the criteria - they just don't >> come with that promise. > > Several people have pointed this out before, and I will point it out > again: > > A compliant app will not be guaranteed to work on all compliant > devices. It cannot be guaranteed to do anything useful, and from the > cosumer point of view a correctly installed app that doesn't do > anything is not "working". > > This of course happens because perfectly good devices can be so > different that the support hardware for the app isn't there in some > cases. > > This can't be fixed in the user interface, whether it is called a UI or > a UX or something else. An app that uses GPS or accelerometers for its > main purpose won't work on a device without GPS or accelerometers. If a > store sells such a meego compliant app to a customer, the store will > have to deal with an unsatisfied customer. A stupid unsatisfied > customer, certainly. But unsatisfied nonetheless. You are right...the compliance spec profiles will include minimum hardware capabilities to address this problem (e.g. what hardware capability is required for a MeeGo compliant handset, netbook, etc....) > > > A second point is that "compliance" and "non-compliance" are quality > labels, no matter how many times we say the aren't. > > For you and me and the well-informed insiders this may not be the case, > for the general public it is. > > Bernd > >> _______________________________________________ >> MeeGo-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev > > > > -- > Bernd Stramm > [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
