131–140 of 174 posts
For work on Android I really need native split-screen support. Samsung-specific "multi window" is not a solution. A proper window tiler would be even better. Also the interface needs slim UI controls and slim window decorations, basically a "pro mode" theme-switcher for larger screens and mouse/keyboard users.
I don't understand why organizations still want implement an IT paradigm which has done nothing but fail at its primary goal but has held back innovation and made workers miserable.
I love the name "Google Play for Work."
Awkward naming aside, it seems like this is very similar to what Apple did in iOS2.0 with iOS Enterprise Developer program. "Google Play for Work allows businesses to securely deploy and manage apps across all users running Android for Work, simplifying the process of distributing apps to employees and ensuring that IT approves every deployed app" Leaving aside exactly how it's done, the end goal is the same: If I am…
What Google does is different: the company IT can decide which apps are allowed and they can automate installation, e.g. company xy wants to install Salesforce, Trello, and 5 other apps on company devices in addition to the OS apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check out AIDE.
I use AIDE and a git client on my tablet to read and run code. But it is a long way from having the refactoring, linting, and good error reporting of a highly mature Java IDE. Could be used to fix a problem in a pinch, but it would need tons of work to match Android Studio or Eclipse.
It has been possible to install real Linux distros on Android for a while (X and all), with no root required. So you can install and run Android Studio if you so wish. It probably will be slow, but it can be done - today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The name is silly, but it makes sense. Google Play is effectively a package manager. "Google Play for Work" is an enterprise-controlled package manager.
Oh yes, it makes perfect sense if you ignore the fact that "Google Play is a package manager" doesn't make any sense. Google Play should be a thing on which you play, not manage packages. It could have been called "Google Package Manager for Work."
It makes totally sense. Google Play is a package manager like apt-get, npm, etc. and Play is a nice name which covers many uses case since it's a playful synonym for "start" or "to start something": "start a game", "start a program", "start an app" or "start work"
The term 'package manager' would be to long and is not learned among the mainstream but again it's exactly this, check Wikipedia:
"A package manager or package management system is a collection of software tools that automates the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing software packages for a computer's operating system in a consistent manner. It typically maintains a database of software dependencies and version information to prevent software mismatches and missing prerequisites."
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=9111350&goto=item%3Fid...
I love the name "Google Play for Work."
Awkward naming aside, it seems like this is very similar to what Apple did in iOS2.0 with iOS Enterprise Developer program. "Google Play for Work allows businesses to securely deploy and manage apps across all users running Android for Work, simplifying the process of distributing apps to employees and ensuring that IT approves every deployed app" Leaving aside exactly how it's done, the end goal is the same: If I am…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The name is silly, but it makes sense. Google Play is effectively a package manager. "Google Play for Work" is an enterprise-controlled package manager.
Oh yes, it makes perfect sense if you ignore the fact that "Google Play is a package manager" doesn't make any sense. Google Play should be a thing on which you play, not manage packages. It could have been called "Google Package Manager for Work."
Now they had to name an app store for work why not name it "play $anything"?, doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even beyond that though, if an iOS app requests ALL possible permissions, it doesn't have the same capabilities that an android app does.
I consider that a weakness of iOS as a platform. There are some pretty cool and useful things you can do with an Android app that you just can't do on iOS, period. Android's permission-granting model does leave much to be desired, though.
I value my privacy and the privacy of those I have information about on my device over some "feature" that "could be cool" but will almost certainly be exploited. http://news.yahoo.com/android-malware-only-pretends-turn-185...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just for the sake of clarity, do you mean that there are more apps that are sandboxed on iOS or that all apps have a higher level of sandboxing on iOS?
More "sandboxed" in the sense that iOS apps start in a small sandbox that gets progressively and opportunistically larger. Instead of demanding all permissions upon installation, they demand them contemporaneously with attempted access to certain resources. The idea is that user consent is more informed. In contrast, Android apps demand all of their permissions up front.
With Android, you grant an app access to everything it asks for, or you aren't allowed to install it. This seems obviously inferior to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are some pretty cool and useful things you can do with an Android app that you just can't do on iOS, period. Such as?
First things that comes to mind: Intercepting calls before they go out through the main dialer, and instead using some form of VoIP. Intercepting an incoming SMS that's used for phone number verification, rather than requiring that the user switch to their SMS app and manually enter a code. For that matter, replacing the SMS app with something better. Reasonable app backgrounding support for any purpose you can think…