They could do a lot of things.
The Windows Phone, BlackBerry, Pebble, and Samsung Watch have shown that attracting developers to build high quality apps for an OS is hard.
A compatibility layer would make a lot of sense, but at that point, why bother with the new OS?
That’s a great recommendation. I tried Paprika and a couple of others. Paprika is winning so far.
I grabbed it yesterday. It does a great job of pulling recipes off sites.
I’m trying it out now. It seems pretty great.
I’ll give it a shot. Thanks!
That looks amazing.
Their best simply wasn’t good enough.
The app now needs to validate the response from the back end. If the attacker can bypass the purchase check, what prevents the attacker from bypassing the response from the back end?
Google is removing features from Fitbits so people have a reason to buy Wear devices. Running a bespoke OS they’re able to get 5+ days between charges and had (roughly) the functionality of Wear.
Like another poster stated, Garmin seems like a better option.
That sounds really frustrating. What kind of phone is it?
The developer mentioned in the article complains about a:
worsening struggle with red tape, [other stuff], and rampant piracy
The article goes on to describe some of the costs of piracy to the developer:
Piracy doesn’t just mean lost revenue, Reichenstein wrote, but also increased demands for support, feature requests, and chances for bad ratings from people who never pay. And it builds over time. “You sell less apps through the [Play Store], but pirated users keep coming in because pirate sites don’t have such reviews. Reviews don’t matter much if the app is free.”
it sounds more like a poor choice of backend tech (syncing via Google Drive instead of your own server + allowing exports elsewhere)
I’d rather sync to Google Drive than some weird home grown service. My expectation (probably unfounded, but whatever) is that Google Drive is likely to exist for a while and, when it folds, I’m likely to have a couple of months to get my crap out of there. I’d feel less confident about some rando service from a company I’ve never heard of.
In theory, as a user, we should not at all dislike companies having to jump through more hoops to proof they’re not shitting our stuff out every orifice the moment we close an app.
I think the complaint is that there’s a heavyweight validation process (pay KPMG), a stupid review process from Google (suggesting a writing app should use read only access), and 90% of users aren’t paying for the app.
The last one is clearly the most important, since a robust income stream would justify the other problems.
I’ve seen a bunch of developers complain that piracy is rampant on Android. As in this case, the ongoing cost of pirates outweighs the income from paying users.
It’s shitty.
Gotta keep those waves away from their delicate grey matter.
That or their phone has shitty palm detection and will unwittingly treat their face as a touch if they hold it too close.
If it had worked, it would have been cool. Sadly, it often failed to register movements.
I love shitting on Python, but I feel like all those problems are present in libraries for other languages as well. There’s a tonne of that crap for JS/TS.
Similarly, I find a fair number of Rust crates (that I want to use) have virtually no doc or inline examples, and use weird metaprogramming that I can’t wrap my head around.
It looks like a pretty minor change, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
Yeah, I’d like to use the network, but the reviews are pretty bad. That and the lack of UWB makes it seem pretty weak.
Words would be so much easier to understand.