cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Kemp <drk...@google.com>
Subject Re: Widening the window (was: The Deprecation of Froyo)
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:03:43 GMT
It seems that part of the problem here is that there is a industrial
developer community that we do not have good data about. What about polling
that community specifically to get usage numbers and version support for
apps not deployed through the store? That data could be used to augment the
store data for better decision making.
We have a conference coming up where we might be able to get the word out,
we would just need to make a convenient way to collect and sanitize the
data.




On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

> I always forget about enterprise until Kevin Hawkins from Salesforce brings
> up some enterprise-y issues. Which reminds me of a conversation I had with
> a Cordova dev/shop that is still using BB 5.0 Cordova for banking apps in
> Nigeria (their platform is used by a majority of banks there). Because
> thats what most people can afford/use there. Blew my mind a little bit.
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Ken Wallis <kwallis@blackberry.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I completely understand this argument, but there is one angle that makes
> > this very murky, and I think talks mostly to Marcel's argument:
> Enterprise.
> >
> > I deal with this everyday, trying to get any sort of metric around
> > Enterprise apps.  It is almost impossible.  But the anecdotal evidence
> from
> > our enterprise support teams is that there are a LOT of enterprise apps,
> a
> > LOT of which are using HTML5, there is huge interest in Cordova/PhoneGap,
> > and these are apps that you are really never going to know about.
> >
> > If the only thing we look at is the public app stores, then we are really
> > only focusing the Cordova effort on Consumers and consumer apps.
> >  Enterprise is a different beast, but I think should be considered a very
> > important beast for this community.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Ken Wallis
> >
> > Product Manager – WebWorks
> >
> > BlackBerry
> >
> > 289-261-4369
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Joe Bowser [bowserj@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:14 PM
> > To: dev
> > Subject: Re: Widening the window (was: The Deprecation of Froyo)
> >
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Marcel Kinard <cmarcelk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Starting off, specifically, I'm asking if we can keep Android 2.2 in
> > Cordova head. For how long? Until the OS usage in these markets drops
> into
> > the "doesn't matter" threshold. I suspect that will not be just a few
> > months. And does the definition of "keep" mean "actively support" or
> "just
> > avoid breaking it"? I'm open to suggestions. If I'm the only person
> asking
> > for this, I understand I need to have some skin in the game.
> > >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > In fact, I'll say hell no. We base our deprecation of Android
> > platforms on the good old Android Pie Chart found at
> > https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html.  The pie
> > chart shows which people actually download applications on the Play
> > Store.  I don't care about Android 2.2 devices that don't connect to
> > the store because they don't connect to the store and Cordova isn't
> > distributed to these people.  These people don't matter because they
> > don't use apps, whether it be Cordova or a native Android application.
> >  Supporting users who will never use apps is insane!
> >
> > Now, the Chinese market was problematic until recently, because Play
> > was blocked until a month or so ago.  That being said, I think the
> > Android Pie Chart is a very solid way to tell whether the version
> > matters or not because these are the people who download apps.  In
> > fact, if I was an application developer, I'd want to know about the
> > people who actually buy apps and in-app items, and what they run, and
> > I wouldn't support any of the freeloaders.  That's where the group of
> > android developers who tweet about minApiLevel=14 come from.
> >
> > If we don't use the Android Pie Chart to determine what to support,
> > what do we use? Stories from the guy who hasn't upgraded their phone
> > in years? The fact is that the store is the only real way that we can
> > have any metrics on people who actually use apps, including people who
> > use Cordova apps.
> >
> > Finally, one of the big problems with supporting old versions for so
> > long is maintaining old devices.  Devices eventually break.  When you
> > install and uninstall something on a phone enough times, things get
> > weird, and even when you factory reset the device, things tend to not
> > work the same after three years of testing.  We have one Android 2.1
> > device and one Android 2.2 device.  They tend to not work on the
> > device wall for some weird reason, and it's time consuming to run
> > mobile-spec on them such that it's not a worthwhile use of time to
> > actually make sure that we don't break Android 2.1 and 2.2 in the real
> > world.  When is the last time anyone else who works on Android tested
> > on Froyo?  Does anyone remember the last time they tested Eclair when
> > we claimed to support that?  The emulator doesn't count!
> >
> > So, no, I see zero value in extending our deprecation window larger
> > than it currently is.  We should support users who actually use apps,
> > not people who don't.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> > information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> > solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
> non-public
> > information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the
> intended
> > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> > please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
> > your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> > transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
> unlawful.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message