[Dodopremier]

What do you think about that ?

- Apparently Android player allows to start and run only one Android app at the same time.
- RIM wants Android developers to remove all Android reference in converted app (just wants to hide it's Android app).

What about the user experience and UI consistency ? User can run many "native" app but can run only one "android app"... What about multitasking if user wants to run 2 or more apps that are Android converted ? I think the user will be lost...

Or may be the final OS2 will allow multi instances of Android player and then true multitasking experience will all apps....

Sorry for my poor English

[collapsed]

You can run more android apps. Seriously, do you people even test something before stating a false truth?

[Dodopremier]

Sorry but Android apps are run in the SAME window on OS2 Beta. The native apps are run in DIFFERENT windows (one window for one app).
When you want to switch from one Android app to another it's the same window that is used by the new android app. It's NOT possible to get 2 or more Android app windows in the multitasking carousel.

[collapsed]

/facepalm.
THat doesn't mean you can't run 2 or more android apps. I used kanji draw & EUdict at the same time (both android apps) You can switch by swiping down frm the top and selecting your app from the bar that appears at the bottom of the screen.
So yes you can.

[Dodopremier]

/facepalm.
THat doesn't mean you can't run 2 or more android apps. I used kanji draw & EUdict at the same time (both android apps) You can switch by swiping down frm the top and selecting your app from the bar that appears at the bottom of the screen.
So yes you can.

Yes that's true. Multitasking (or something like iOS multitasking : i think the android apps are freezed in the background) is possible with the bar at the bottom of android player. But sorry that's NOT the same User Experience than the native apps multitasking switching.

I think RIM can't manage multiple instances of Android player / sandbox. It would have been perfect if they could. In fact multitasking with Android apps is like iOS multitasking (It looks like but that's not true multitasking compared to PB native apps multitasking).

I'm talking about user experience and UI consistency. And sorry new PB users should be confused about that...

[collapsed]

It's pretty much the same experience as on an android device. Their multitasking proccess is also rubbish

[Dodopremier]

It's pretty much the same experience as on an android device. Their multitasking proccess is also rubbish

Yes or like iOS does multitasking. I love my PB so I hope we can enjoy more and more NATIVE apps with the PB / QNX true multitasking.

[mcbarrett]

I agree with Dodopremier in the fact that it would be a much better user experience if each Android app was run in a separate Android player instance (window).

I'm sure the main reason its not done that way is down to the amount of resources each Android instance would require.

[diegonei]

I agree with Dodopremier in the fact that it would be a much better user experience if each Android app was run in a separate Android player instance (window).

I'm sure the main reason its not done that way is down to the amount of resources each Android instance would require.

It seems that a single Android Player eas up over 300mb of memory. Launch two and the PB would crawl to a halt.

I agree, individual windows would be best, but for the moment, we deal with a virtual machine like ANY OTHER out there.

And OP, search next time, this has been covered plenty of times.

[Dodopremier]

If I was RIM I will use the following trick to improve user experience :

- Befrore switching from Android app N�1 to Android app N�2 I'll make a screenshot of app N�1 and store it as a jpeg image.
- Then I use that screenshot to make app N�1 visible in PB multitasking carousel. I'll add a text like "application paused" on that screenshot.
--> This image then can be "copied" to a native PB/QNX instance window (without android player large memory footprint). This window will just handle a jpeg image of app N�1. Then I'll use that window as a "link" to restart the true android application in android player.
- of course we'll have to manage the "killing" of "window links" when we quit the relative Android app. But this could be done.

Working like that for all started android apps we can really improve user experience. The only visible difference between android app and native ones is that they will appear paused.

I programmed various soft with Pascal Object a few years ago and i think this could be done. What do you think about that ?

[jonty12]

I agree with OP that this is going to be a major issue. I sense the press is going to be really cruel with this one. The user experience is entirely different (this is based on using Beta OS 2) using android apps compared to native. There is no disguising them. It will be very difficult, though it shouldn't be it will be, to explain to non-techie people that they have to learn two distinct navigation methods. It really is a jolt to the user to have things so different. To then say that developers have to hide references to Android is making the situation worse. Why? At least if I know that it's an Android app I can choose whether or not I want a native substitute before I download (or worse, purchase).

I have only been using Android apps where there is a gap in native functionality (e.g., Kindle, PDF reader, LiveProfile) as I much prefer the usability of native apps - if I wanted Android navigation and UI, I would have purchased an Android tablet. Using the beta 2.o I've known up front what's Android and what's not and I could avoid it as much as possible. The current plan makes that not possible as I won't see what's Android until I run it. This will make me, and many others frustrated users.

If, and only if, they were able to start multiple instances of the player as the OP suggests is the better course of action this hiding Android idea would be a good one. As it is, it's quite a bad idea.

[Thunderbuck]

"Major issue"? Really?

Can you guys give me a use case where this is a real problem? It's not perfectly consistent, no. Granted. But you know what? Even with that inconsistency I'd STILL put the Playbook's user experience over any Android tablet I've used.

[Dodopremier]

@jonty12
Fine we are thinking the same way !

All here are PB fan and/or techie people. What about new users? PB OS is really the best multitasking OS available on tablets. With Android player done like this, RIM will lost the users they are trying to gain with Android app support....

What do you thing about the "trick" that i describe in my previous post?

[Thunderbuck]

Let me expand a bit further:

Android Player isn't there for users so much as it is for devs. It's a dangling carrot; an incredibly easy way to dip your toe in the waters of a new platform if you've already got an app. Presumably, the hope is that as Android devs find success on the Playbook that they decide to write native code.

It's supposed to be reasonably easy to use, not a seamless transition. Were I in charge of platform management, I'd WANT there to be visible differences. If users wanted Android tablets, there are plenty of nice cheap ones available.

If Android apps ran seamlessly, where's the incentive to developers to build for QNX?

[Dodopremier]

"Major issue"? Really?

Can you guys give me a use case where this is a real problem? It's not perfectly consistent, no. Granted. But you know what? Even with that inconsistency I'd STILL put the Playbook's user experience over any Android tablet I've used.

I agree of course. But don't forget that UI design and consistency is the only way to succeed (Apple iOS is the best when we talk about that)

[Thunderbuck]

btw, I don't know if you followed RIM's OS 2 demos at CES, but they never even USED the word "Android"... That should tell you something.

If a user needs Android apps, why are they buying a Playbook?

[biggulpseh]

If I was RIM I will use the following trick to improve user experience :

- Befrore switching from Android app N�1 to Android app N�2 I'll make a screenshot of app N�1 and store it as a jpeg image.
- Then I use that screenshot to make app N�1 visible in PB multitasking carousel. I'll add a text like "application paused" on that screenshot.
--> This image then can be "copied" to a native PB/QNX instance window (without android player large memory footprint). This window will just handle a jpeg image of app N�1. Then I'll use that window as a "link" to restart the true android application in android player.
- of course we'll have to manage the "killing" of "window links" when we quit the relative Android app. But this could be done.

Working like that for all started android apps we can really improve user experience. The only visible difference between android app and native ones is that they will appear paused.

I programmed various soft with Pascal Object a few years ago and i think this could be done. What do you think about that ?

Wow, that's literally the exact same process I thought of in order to make it work. The only reason I thought they might not be doing that would be due to some technical problem.

I can't help but agree with you when it comes to the UI experience. Here we have this awesome UI built around the ability to multitask, which is one of the biggest selling features of the device. Now, that whole paradigm is disrupted, because we can't switch between apps horizontally, it has to be done via a vertical swipe, they by selecting from icons. It becomes confusing because it sandboxes your android apps from your native apps, even though RIM has done their best to make it look as if (when downloading and launching) Android apps are no different.

I think at some point in the future, RIM will be able to overcome the android technical limitation and be able to run them much like you described, but for now, to the layperson unfortunately it is not intuitive and ruins the amazing UI experience.

[Thunderbuck]

I agree of course. But don't forget that UI design and consistency is the only way to succeed (Apple iOS is the best when we talk about that)

...and you notice Apple isn't bothering to support Android apps in ANY form (not that they have to, admittedly).

Would it be better for RIM to drop the support altogether rather than present "inconsistent" support?

[biggulpseh]

BTW... I know this might not seem like a big deal to some here, but realize if you're coming onto a blackberry fan website, you're an ethusiast. To the regular person, it is confusing and unacceptable.

Kevin did an interview with chris smith at devcon america, and back then you can tell they were concerned about the current implementation, as was kevin:

Q: Will the Android App Player experience look the same on the consumer release of PlayBook OS 2.0/BBX phones as it does right now on the developer beta of OS 2.0?
A: Not sure, but hopefully it will be changed from the current implementation. Right now the Android App Player opens as one app on the PlayBook. If you open additional Android apps, they load within the App Player (and you can toggle between them within the App Player) instead of opening multiple app instances as do other apps on the PlayBook OS. Personally I think this is a big issue as it breaks the user interface consistency on the PlayBook - so I think it's smart that they not release it as it is to consumers. They need Android apps to feel as native PlayBook as possible, which to me means running multiple app instances of Android apps at the same time, and being able to toggle between them with the standard gestures. It appeared to me that RIM is aware of this and working towards that goal. Other features are being implemented to help with this native feeling - for example, if Android apps require the keyboard, they popup the PlayBook's keyboard, not the Android keyboard. We're told a lot of "magic" is happening at the QNX level to interface Android into QNX for hardware and software calls.

[Dodopremier]

@Thunderbuck
I could agree with you as a developer but not as a user. Users just want good apps and a good experience. you are talking about "cooking", user just want a good meal and a good time

Do you really want to say to customers : "yeah here sometimes you'll have bad experience because we are supporting developpers to write native apps" ?

Users do not buy a developer tool they buy a user tool. And not a beta one.

RIM must think customer not techie or developer. It's the same mistake that was done with a OS1 without mail client,...

[Dodopremier]

...and you notice Apple isn't bothering to support Android apps in ANY form (not that they have to, admittedly).

Would it be better for RIM to drop the support altogether rather than present "inconsistent" support?

Apple is the LEADER in the tablet market. RIM just have to save the PB. Apple can make choices (and sometimes some bad ones as an insolent company) . RIM must be better as a challenger.

[jonty12]

"Major issue"? Really?

Can you guys give me a use case where this is a real problem? It's not perfectly consistent, no. Granted. But you know what? Even with that inconsistency I'd STILL put the Playbook's user experience over any Android tablet I've used.

yes I can. I've actually only tried to explain how to use Android apps to one other person. As I used the leaked Android player, then the beta, the experience is now acceptable to me (not good, acceptable). I think that's mostly because it's now so much better than it was with the leak.

That other person is My wife, who is not a techie (and thus represents that vast majority of the user population). She now takes claim to my old 32 GB PB. She uses it for reading text books for her master's program. She has no trouble using Kobo and quite enjoys it. Problem is one of the texts was only available through Kindle/Nook - no Kobo. I tried for more than two hours to get her comfortable opening up and navigating Kindle via Android player and switching between that, Kobo, and her mail. Bottom line, no go, and I had to get her the hardcopy text. It would be the same experience with most of her family as well as anyone with a similar experience base/user expectation. It's not that it's not "perfectly consistent", it's that for the non tech savvy it's not consistent at all.

So yes, if you remember how a power button that's used at most once a month became a "major issue" in the press, this will be so much more major it's not even funny.

As an aside, I agree with all your points about RIM trying to use this to convince developers to come to the RIM side, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of the user experience.

[Dodopremier]

We are all talking about OS2 beta. May be in the final release all will be fine : A multitasking window for each Android app

[missing_K-W]

Android vs PB multitasking is pretty much summed up if you own or have used the PB supporting the Android player...

The Android player isn't emulating Android....it "is" Android, just a gutted version....However being Android it incorporates Androids "multi-tasking". Hence we can clearly view how native PB multi tasking is leaps and bounds ahead of Androids implementation....All anyone has to do is use Native PB app's and Android Player apps in parallel to view Androids limited nature....this ends the debate when one views with there own eyes....No technical analysis necessary...

This clearly should end the Android vs PB "multi-tasking", debate....just pick up a PB and see with your own eyes

Androids implementation of multitasking is limited...look with your own eyes.

[Michel Souris]

What in the world is all this concern about "multitasking" ? I couldn't care less. The Android world has multiple excellent apps, in all areas, many free, and I want access to them. I use one app at a time, that's all my brain is good for, and multitasking is a ridiculous concern as far as I can see.
Downloading can still take place in the background - other than that who cares if multitasking can occur. Memory is limited, isn't it?