Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How about some Android graphics true facts?

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#81

Post by jan_g »

mgkimsal wrote: post #63
mbell wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Might also be why the "mainstream" is primarily using Apple iPads/iPods/iPhones vs the myriad of Android devices available. Which mainstream? Last time I looked Android market share was substantially higher than iOS.

The mainstream who shop at stores where every single appliance/device has "works with your iPod/iPhone!". The mainstream who go to hotels that have iPod docking stations in the room alarm clocks. The mainstream who go to fitness gyms that have iPod/iPhone docking stations in the workout equipment.

Ah, but you are conflating UI performance with something else. My point is, that UI performance is not an issue (at least hasn't been for a while). Other things, like high quality apps, ubiquitous docking stations in cars/hotels/..., on the other hand are quite important. That is, for vast majority of users, geeks who type 40+ words/minute on miniature screens don't count.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#82

Post by gnaffle »

maximusprime wrote: post #46
maximusprime wrote: post #14

Hardware rendered vs software rendered??? :/ It's all just software. The only thing that matters is how fast it is.

Downmodders: Can you explain why? My point is, software is rendering the graphics. Either it's software running on one chip, or it's software on another chip. That's irrelevant. What matters, is how fast the graphics are rendered.

I'm not downvoting you, but you're implying that the difference between hardware and software rendering is irrelevant which it certainly is not.

What's interesting is not only how fast the graphics are rendered, but the graphics performance compared to power usage. If the software stack doesn't give you a big performance / watt advantage when using a GPU, that's the fault of the software stack and will make that stack perform worse compared to one that does make use of hardware acceleration.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#84

Post by adgar »

D_Drake wrote: post #13

So, in summary, "We have hardware acceleration, have had it for a long time, but it isn't the reason android interfaces are almost universally clunky. We actually have no idea why that is." I don't use any apple products but I get tired of Google touting how much better 4.0 is when most people are locked into phones running 2.2 or 2.3 for years into the future.

> We actually have no idea why that is.

Way to take what started as a reasonable post and trash it with a needless, baseless insult.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#85

Post by adgar »

nknight wrote: post #19
apetrovic wrote: post #16

I'm really, really sick of hearing Google engineers saying that there's nothing wrong with Android rendering. No offense, but post like this one makes them looks like idiots. Just put any newest and fastest Android phone with dual-core CPU next to iPhone, or even worse WP7 which essentially works on two years old hardware, and everyone can see the difference. I don't care if it's software or hardware, I'm not interes…

You seem to have read a much different post than I did. Where did she say there's nothing wrong? The post is relating facts about "how graphics rendering works on Android", it says so right at the top. I see absolutely nowhere that it says anything like "there's nothing wrong".

It seems that when you've decided what the article says before you read it, it makes forming opinions (and avoiding cognitive dissonance with respect to your existing ones) a lot easier.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#86

Post by rbanffy »

ugh wrote: post #9

Those are some nice technical details and it’s right to correct them when someone gets them wrong. They ultimately, however, don’t matter†. If scrolling on one device makes me want to throw the device at the wall while on another device I don’t even notice that I’m scrolling, then that’s a problem. I’m looking forward to trying out an Android 4.0 device to see whether I still want to throw it at the wall. That’s the…

You must realize nothing Google does to Android can fix a crappy phone. But, since Android is open-source, the manufacturer itself can change it and fix their problem. If they are nice enough, they may even submit the patch back to Google so similarly poor designs can benefit from it.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#87

Post by foobarbazetc »

ars wrote: post #83
foobarbazetc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's irrelevant, since the GPU does all the heavy lifting.

Clearly you didn't read the article.

Yes, I did. It's full of excuses for sub-par up front planning on the part of the Android team (much like the reliance on SD storage early on -- LOL at that bit of idiocy. I still see emails from people complaining that the on disk size of an app is a whole 3 megabytes. Mean while, in iOS land, Infinity Blade 2 is 800 Mb).

I also develop some of the biggest apps on both platforms and know more about their internals than I'd like.

I'm replying to this: "It has a much higher resolution than iPhone 3GS. In fact, it has six times more pixels." That has zero to do with the article.

There's nothing in my answer that's incorrect. Sure, your Galaxy Nexus can now sort of scroll reasonably smoothly (the one on my desk is okay, but still lags). But that's because of the GPU which is something like 6x faster than the GPU in a 3GS. And the fast dual core CPU helps, too.

That doesn't mean that Android hasn't come a long way in ICS. But it'll never catch up to iOS in terms of rendering performance/latency. It's an impossibility due to the underlying architecture.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#88

Post by orijing »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #77
mrich wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple makes compromises, too. On the original iPad scrolling can be really laggy (probably only after installing a couple of apps, so you won't notice it in the store). Meanwhile, the current generation of dual core Android phones have hardly any lag issues anymore.

The number of apps you have installed has no significance what so ever on scrolling. Just FYI.

I think he means the number of apps running in the background. For example, if you have the Groupon app making constant push notifications to you, that's expensive.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#89

Post by gareim »

untog wrote: post #80
gareim wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did I say that was wrong? The guy had the idea that Android has greater market share than iOS, I stated my belief that he was wrong, and then I got downvoted. Some of you guys are too trigger happy with your downvoting buttons. If you're going to downvote, at least explain why so everyone is wiser in the end.

I think people probably want you to cite some sources for what you're saying. Because pretty much every article I've read says that Android has a significantly larger market share: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-15/tech/30400455...

Ahh, that's a good point. I usually like to leave others to google it up, but I guess it really is stupid for me to not put a source down since then I could just be making things up.

I may be mistaken for what these stats show, since things are very confusing with Android vs iOS. Some places claim one way and other places claim the other. I think the ones that claim iOS have a larger share are counting iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads. Here's two sources that show iOS having greater share:

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/01/ios-market-share-balloons-in-o...

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201011-20111...

The second one (not sure about the first) is getting their stats from web hits, so how accurate it is, I do not know. I think aside from Apple and Google, no one really knows the real market share.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#90

Post by gareim »

gareim wrote: post #89
untog wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people probably want you to cite some sources for what you're saying. Because pretty much every article I've read says that Android has a significantly larger market share: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-15/tech/30400455...

Ahh, that's a good point. I usually like to leave others to google it up, but I guess it really is stupid for me to not put a source down since then I could just be making things up. I may be mistaken for what these stats show, since things are very confusing with Android vs iOS. Some places claim one way and other places claim the other. I think the ones that claim iOS have a larger share are counting iPhones, iPod…

I found a better source arguing that iOS is ahead (at least in February of 2011):

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/A...

This is now 3 sources claiming iOS has greater share than Android, and even if they are a bit outdated, it's proof that the 60% share vs 15% share cited in many articles refers only to the phone wars (most articles I've seen eventually mentions the words "smartphone").

Post reply on HN