[itwascasper]

Okay so I know there were several threads questioning whether or not the android app player continues to use memory even after it has been closed, now I've personally experienced it. I opened a sideloaded version of Pandora and closed it after i finished rocking out. To my surprise, the music never stopped. I tried opening other android apps to see if that would shut it down and free up the memory but no luck. I guess this could be another reason RIM wants to stop side loading, if thats what the issue is. As much as i want to have access to a good variety of apps, I really don't want to disrupt performance as a tradeoff.

[bounce007]

Well the massive memory usage by the Android Player is not related to side loading because you can download android apps from app world. So stopping side loading would not remedy this 'very strange' thing.

[bohbohboh]

there are so many things wrong with this android player i wish rim would just pull it. i had to restart my pb in the month the player came out more times than i ever had to in the year leading up to it.

[bounce007]

there are so many things wrong with this android player i wish rim would just pull it. i had to restart my pb in the month the player came out more times than i ever had to in the year leading up to it.

RIM doesn't need to pull it. If a user finds several issues with it, then don't use it. SIMPLE.

[itwascasper]

RIM doesn't need to pull it. If a user finds several issues with it, then don't use it. SIMPLE.

I don't think that really makes sense. I think if someone sells something with a feature that doesn't work properly then they (RIM) should fix it as opposed to saying don't use the feature like you suggest. If it doesn't work properly then they should take it out until it's fixed.

[bohbohboh]

RIM doesn't need to pull it. If a user finds several issues with it, then don't use it. SIMPLE.

you are absolutely right. Unfortunately your suggestion is COMPLETELY FLAWED on many grounds. it's like telling me not to breathe in nitrogen in the air since i don't need it.
why don't you suggest that to rim, give us a CHOICE on whether to use it or not.

1. allow DISABLING of the android player to prevent unnecessary resource consumption
2. LABEL android apps on appworld so i can DECIDE whether to use it or not.

UNDERSTAND now?

[bounce007]

I don't think that really makes sense. I think if someone sells something with a feature that doesn't work properly then they (RIM) should fix it as opposed to saying don't use the feature like you suggest. If it doesn't work properly then they should take it out until it's fixed.

If someone really wanted android apps they would buy an android tablet... and if not using the android player doesn't make sense (as you say), and you're still tired of it being buggy on the PlayBook SELL IT! That makes sense.

Research before you buy.

[kbz1960]

How about RIM polish up the player and dev do a little more than just port and nothing else.

[jonty12]

I agree with you that they need to label which are android and which are not but most android apps explicitly or implicitly state that they are android apps in the review.

Either way, when you have downloaded the app and realize that is an Android app, you still have a choice to not use it after the first run. No one is forcing you to continue using it.

But, as I said, once installed the damage is done in some cases. Uninstall is often a very messy affair leaving traces that shouldn't be there (except with sideloaded apps using the new DDPB installer which is pretty clean - but this doesn't apply to AppWorld) leading to the need to at best reboot, at worst debrick.

So yes, you can choose to not run the app again, but often that choice is too late in the game. Better to know not to install to begin with by knowing the type of App.

[bounce007]

How about RIM polish up the player and dev do a little more than just port and nothing else.

That's a great suggestion. But until then you have the CHOICE to not use android apps! Simple.

[JamesDax3]

If someone really wanted android apps they would buy an android tablet... and if not using the android player doesn't make sense (as you say), and you're still tired of it being buggy on the PlayBook SELL IT! That makes sense.

Research before you buy.

Damn so hostile and serious. smh

Look, RIM added the feature so they need to:

A. Remove it.
B. Fix it.
C. Give us the option to disable it.
D. Label android apps on the App World so that we can decide if we want to download them or not.

Telling us to not use it makes no since at all when have NO idea if we are installing an android app or not.

Get over yourself.

[JamesDax3]

That's a great suggestion. But until then you have the CHOICE to not use android apps! Simple.

But you don't have that CHOICE. So it's not simple.

Stop being such a tool.

[itwascasper]

If someone really wanted android apps they would buy an android tablet... and if not using the android player doesn't make sense (as you say), and you're still tired of it being buggy on the PlayBook SELL IT! That makes sense.

Research before you buy.

I'm not saying the android player doesn't make sense, I'm saying advertising a feature that doesn't work effectively doesn't make sense. Personally I rarely use android apps, but I'm sure there are others who are dissatisfied with a feature that they paid for. Yes they can choose to cut their losses and sell as you suggest, but don't you think there should be some level of accountability from the manufacturer? I understand there are bugs that come with new software, I just want them to be fixed. Is it really too much to expect a manufacturer to deliver on an advertised "feature"?

[bounce007]

Damn so hostile and serious. smh

Look, RIM added the feature so they need to:

A. Remove it.
B. Fix it.
C. Give us the option to disable it.
D. Label android apps on the App World so that we can decide if we want to download them or not.

Telling us to not use it makes no since at all when have NO idea if we are installing an android app or not.

Get over yourself.

So another comes to attack me? The moderator might have to clean this thread up AGAIN because of you.

I am not being hostile, you must have some incredible computer to sense hostility behind your screen.

If you were intelligent you would see how you have a choice to use or not to use Android apps... if you were intelligent.

But you don't have that CHOICE. So it's not simple.

Stop being such a tool.

Again... IF you were intelligent you would see how you have a choice. Stop bashing another user for his opinion.

[JamesDax3]

So another comes to attack me? The moderator might have to clean this thread up AGAIN because of you.

I am not being hostile, you must have some incredible computer to sense hostility behind your screen.

If you were intelligent you would see how you have a choice to use or not to use Android apps... if you were intelligent.



Again... IF you were intelligent you would see how you have a choice. Stop bashing another user for his opinion.

You are clearly the one lacking any intelligence in this debate. You should not have to wait until you download and install an App before you find out if it's an Android app or not. Now of course you can choose not to use it once you've found out but why should have to do that after the fact?

smdh

[bounce007]

I'm not saying the android player doesn't make sense, I'm saying advertising a feature that doesn't work effectively doesn't make sense. Personally I rarely use android apps, but I'm sure there are others who are dissatisfied with a feature that they paid for. Yes they can choose to cut their losses and sell as you suggest, but don't you think there should be some level of accountability from the manufacturer? I understand there are bugs that come with new software, I just want them to be fixed. Is it really too much to expect a manufacturer to deliver on an advertised "feature"?

I understand where you are coming from. Some people might have bought the PlayBook because they only HEAR that it will run android apps and they spend their hard earned money on something that is not extensively explained. RIM needs to do better in explaining that the android apps are not optimized for the PlayBook they are merely just converted files to run on the PlayBook. I get it.

But if this was a consumer's sole reason for buying a PlayBook - runnign android apps - then he/she should have just went with a kindle fire or other android tablet. I doubt that anyone in their right mind did this.

RIM needs to polish the android player. There are many users who accept it for what it is and get on with life.

All I am saying is if there are problems with the android player, don't use it. We don't have to. Is this too hard to see?

Some posters here are acting as if android apps are the only apps for the PlayBook and they have NO CHOICE but to use them. Ridiculous really.

[bounce007]

You are clearly the one lacking any intelligence in this debate. You should not have to wait until you download and install an App before you find out if it's an Android app or not. Now of course you can choose not to use it once you've found out but why should have to do that after the fact?

smdh

I pity you...

[JamesDax3]

I understand where you are coming from. Some people might have bought the PlayBook because they only HEAR that it will run android apps and they spend their hard earned money on something that is not extensively explained. RIM needs to do better in explaining that the android apps are not optimized for the PlayBook they are merely just converted files to run on the PlayBook. I get it.

But if this was a consumer's sole reason for buying a PlayBook - runnign android apps - then he/she should have just went with a kindle fire or other android tablet. I doubt that anyone in their right mind did this.

RIM needs to polish the android player. There are many users who accept it for what it is and get on with life.

All I am saying is if there are problems with the android player, don't use it. We don't have to. Is this too hard to see?

Some posters here are acting as if android apps are the only apps for the PlayBook and they have NO CHOICE but to use them. Ridiculous really.

What's ridiculous is the fact that you can't see that we can't choice not to use the android apps until we have already downloaded and installed which is something we should not have to do. Is that too hard to see?

smdh

[JamesDax3]

i pity you...

rotflmoa!!!

[itwascasper]

All I am saying is if there are problems with the android player, don't use it. We don't have to. Is this too hard to see?

Some posters here are acting as if android apps are the only apps for the PlayBook and they have NO CHOICE but to use them. Ridiculous really.

I too understand your perspective but I also understand what everyone else is saying about having android apps being properly labeled. Many times I've been genuinely excited about finding new apps in app world only to be disappointed when I run it and see the android bar at the bottom. In that sense we have no choice because we don't know what it is until it's installed and we try to use it.

[bounce007]

What's ridiculous is the fact that you can't see that we can't choice not to use the android apps until we have already downloaded and installed which is something we should not have to do. Is that too hard to see?

smdh

I believe you meant choose.

I will let you figure out how you have a choice. It's blatantly obvious. I hope you do.

[JamesDax3]

I believe you meant choose.

I will let you figure out how you have a choice. It's blatantly obvious. I hope you do.

LOL

Thanks for the correction. And the only thing blatantly obvious is that fact that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

How sad.

[bounce007]

I too understand your perspective but I also understand what everyone else is saying about having android apps being properly labeled. Many times I've been genuinely excited about finding new apps in app world only to be disappointed when I run it and see the android bar at the bottom. In that sense we have no choice because we don't know what it is until it's installed and we try to use it.

But knowing it's an Android app after you first open it. Are you forced to use it again?

BlackBerry needs to label them yes. Fait accompli!

But we are not forced to use the app again.

My, we have gone so far off topic. I apologize OP.

[Denus]

I also bought a few non-native games and apps from the store without knowing it (devs are really quiet about this detail).

It's true that I have the choice to delete those apps to avoid the android player.
I mean...what for choice is that?

[JamesDax3]

But knowing it's an Android app after you first open it. Are you forced to use it again?

BlackBerry needs to label them yes. Fait accompli!

But we are not forced to use the app again.

My, we have gone so far off topic. I apologize OP.

So at last he sees and agrees with what has already been said many times on these last 2 pages. smh

Perhaps there's hope for the boy yet.

lol