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

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#91

Post by mgkimsal »

jan_g wrote: post #81
mgkimsal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think so.

My position is that "mainstream" users - the type of people who care about the apps, docking stations, ubiquity of the platform, etc - also care about UI fluidity.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#92

Post by usaar333 »

Symmetry wrote: post #62

I seem to recall hearing that one of the main drivers of people's preferences for Android or iOS scrolling is how far you have to move your finger before scrolling starts. The delay in space, rather than in time. I can understand why Andoid would have theirs set as they do, but I also understand how someone used to iOS could find it unpleasant.

That actually changes in Android 4.0 (Tested ICS on my Nexus S.. scrolling nearly instantly starts)

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#93

Post by usaar333 »

tseabrooks wrote: post #18

Not to be a jerk... But this still doesn't address why every Android home screen I've seen (including new 4.0 devices) looks like a laggy piece of shit when sliding around between different screens.

Launcher Pro has near zero lag on even older devices.

ICS definitely has little scrolling lag (tested on Nexus S)

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#94

Post by cbs »

divtxt wrote: post #25
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…

It blows my mind that people can't understand that scrolling "feels right" is a show-stopper feature for a touch interface. Meanwhile, at Apple, they would have got it right in version 0.1, and Steve Jobs would treated that as prototype quality and made the team do 10 better variations.

people can't understand that scrolling "feels right"

Am I the only person in the world for whom the inertia of a scrollable area at rest, tending to stay at rest _is_ what feels right?

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#95

Post by cbs »

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.

>Either it's software running on one chip, or it's software on another chip. That's irrelevant.

No, its not irrelevant. The terms have meaning, regarding the separation. And while it may technically be a misnomer, feigning ignorance to the misnomer to try and point out the misnomer to people who already know about it is not only arguing semantics, but doing so in least constructive way possible.

To address your other post that its all marketing speak, well no, not really. In discussions, what gets called hardware or software conveys meaningful information, but it is highly context sensitive to the bits being discussed at the time, because technically all computing is some combination of hardware and software.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#96

Post by nl »

gareim wrote: post #90
gareim wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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").

There is no real confusion, except what you seem to be trying to create.

The BRG report is using one companies analytics product (which is embedded in apps). Plainly that is more popular on iOS than Android, but we've seen that before - most people on Android use Google Analytics, so 3rd party analytics aren't reliable when comparing them.

Those Comscore stats are nearly a year old. A more recent one shows Android at ~46%, iOS at 28%: http://www.bgr.com/2011/12/02/android-steals-blackberry-shar...

The Statcounter stats clearly show Android and iOS are within a couple of percent (note how Android was above iOS a month or two ago). Given that the iPAd is the most popular tablet on the market (and people browse the web on tablets a lot more than on phones) this makes it even more likely that Android is ahead in units.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#97

Post by Dylan16807 »

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.

It's not very complicated.

Software rendering means that it's handled detail by detail by software on a general-purpose computation device.

Hardware rendering means that the software instead initiates complex actions on swaths of the screen at a time by triggering highly-specialized hardware.

One method is orders of magnitude faster than the other, but limited in scope. It's a fool's errand to try to conflate them.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#98

Post by D_Drake »

adgar wrote: post #84
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.

The non-smoothness of android interfaces is a gigantic hulking monstrosity of an issue. I deal with it dozens of times a day, and have been for years now on multiple phones. It is the sole reason why anyone cares whether android does hardware or software graphics acceleration. No one would care if there wasn't a problem for which they picked software acceleration as a cause.

The post spends pages on how hardware acceleration in android is just fine, but it completely ignores the actual problem. This is like a man in court for a DUI who bases his whole defense around the fact that he has a legitimate driver's license.

Going from Heinlein's razor, I assume that google does not know the cause of the problem. The alternative is that google is deliberately trying to mislead us by ensconcing the clunkiness issue within the hardware acceleration issue in the belief that by disproving the software acceleration claims they can nullify the elephant in the room: poor user interface performance.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#99

Post by nodata »

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…

Samsung Galaxy S2: no scrolling problems at all*

* I have up-to-date firmware. Maybe that helps.

Re: How about some Android graphics true facts?

#100

Post by ars »

foobarbazetc wrote: post #87
ars wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> "it has six times more pixels."

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

The article: "There is still a limit to how much the GPU can do." (And the rest of that paragraph.)

Yes, having 6 times more pixes is very relevant. The GPU needs to be 6 times faster and have 6 times the bandwidth.

> 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.

Conclusion: You did not read the article - you just skimmed the first paragraph.

Post reply on HN