Database Users

Skyfire - A Must Have Browser

Hi, Have probably missed it, but have not seen any mention of Skyfire on these forums. I came across it by accident and it is brilliant!!!
Have been very dissapointed with the lack of real web experience with IE & Opera due their lack of support with Flash etc - well Skyfire delivers on all counts....from BBC iplayer to adult webcams, it does the lot lol.
Its free and you can get it here http://www.skyfire.com/
By the way, Im nothing to do with them, just a new and very happy user wanting to share.

LIAR! STOP TRYIN TO GET US TO BUY UR LOWSY PRODUCT...
i tried it, wasn't it impressed tho. i'll stick with opera for now. thx for the share tho

A must have is Opera Mini 5.
Skyfire sucks compared, maybe I'm wrong but I don't really care:
Opera are the kings and even if some browsers are still beta, they beat everything.
Sorry...

I have beem using it since its earliest alfa and most of the users here have it installed. It has nice capabilities, but extremely frustrating interface and behaviour. The sharpness of the displayed items leaves a lot to be desired as well.
I use it primarily to watch youtube videos when I don't want to turn CorePlayer on and for checking out trailers.
Opera is still better overall.
P.S. Opera Mini = worst browser ever, even worse than IE.

orelsi said:
P.S. Opera Mini = worst browser ever, even worse than IE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahahaha!
That's hilarious!

doministry said:
Hahahaha!
That's hilarious!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
!suoiralih s'thaT
!ahahahaH

Opera Mini 5 kicks ass.
The only advantage of Skyfire is it's flash capabilities, the rest is deep crap.

orelsi said:
!suoiralih s'thaT
!ahahahaH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't eat yellow snow.

Maybe opera lacks of flash capabilities but is there someone who can gave me a link which does not work properly in opera because of flash?

doministry said:
Don't eat yellow snow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
..........
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

Skyfire renders all on server and sends only picture of the result. That's why it uses low resolution only. In high res the amount of data transferred would be bigger than anything else, and speed would go down too. So skyfire does not have a bright future ahead I'm afraid, as resolution of devices goes up.
I use Opera mini too. It's not great, but it works, and I don't have full data plan.
Opera Turbo in Opera mobile looks promising too.

Skyfire is great for flash and plugins, but qualitity of rendered pages is awful. I rather use opera mobile and youtube app for youtube.
Opera mini is also great browser. I use it when im on data plan due to its very small data consumption.
Opera mini 5 looks great but it kinda lost feel of light browser.

matejdro said:
Skyfire is great for flash and plugins, but qualitity of rendered pages is awful. I rather use opera mobile and youtube app for youtube.
Opera mini is also great browser. I use it when im on data plan due to its very small data consumption.
Opera mini 5 looks great but it kinda lost feel of light browser.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it's amazing.
The speed it blazing fast. The look is high tech.

Skyfire looks like garbage on high res devices (it is only optimized for QVGA). Even worse than Opera Mini. If you want flash get opera mobile and flash addon.
If you want fast browser upgrade it to 9.7 w/ turbo or use opera mini. I think skyfire is a total waste of memory.
They says "It renders server side" like I care. I care that it is faster, but it is not faster than Opera Mini or 9.7 (both of which compress via their servers) and Skyfire looks and feels terrible to use.
I want someone to tell me why these threads keep popping up about an old browser that everyone knows about. I mean there isn't a new version that makes this somehow relevant.
I have a browser I want everyone to try, its PIE. It's also old and irrelevant and a total waste of time.

I use CorePlayer for YouTube videos. The quality is superb and the playback is flawless.

The best browser hands down was Mach 5. It's unfortunate it was just a demo and only runs on a Japanese server

The problem with Skyfire is that it isn't really "great" at anything...
-General navigation speed, Opera Mini is far faster as far as server-side rendering browsers go.
-Video/image quality is quite bad compared to youtube app, etc.
-A lot of "can't connect to server" errors if you are in low signal areas, which interrupt your browsing experience a lot.
-Selecting items and fields seems slower than most other browsers.

So let me get this right.....
When i posted this thread it was to make people like me aware of Skyfire because I have only seen one passing mention of it on this site.
I wasnt suggesting for a moment that people ditch all other browsers in favour of Skyfire....just that they add it to their armoury.
The main reason I am delighted with it was its ability to play full flash content such as the full BBC iplayer site, not the poor relation, the mobile iplayer site.
I will freely admit that I am not that experienced in the world of mobile apps etc so I may well be overlooking the obvious - are people here telling me there are other browsers like Opera capable of this? If so, I would ditch Skyfire straight away!!
Help would be appreciated.

html5 over flash

is html5 preferable over flash and if so how?
I remember when October of 2009 was going to be the latest arrival of flash, I can't remember farther so maybe it was even earlier. Anyway, after all of the BS by Adobe and all the anticipation by consumers, has flash taken so long that the competition has caught up? After all the crap Adobe has put android users through, are we actually going to feel "stuck" with flash? Or is html5 not that big a deal? I read somewhere that its smoother and takes less power, which, in the mobile world, would skyrocket its popularity passed that of flash (as long as I've been waiting for it , and as long and callously as Adobe has strung me along, I think I'm already getting tired of flash)

What's your FPS on these two sites?
http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/html
http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/flash
Original article: Link

Flash is on the decline and HTML 5 is on the rise. There is still definitely a benefit to supporting flash for some time going forward however. The sheer quantity of flash content and developers means that, at least for the time being, supporting flash on a mobile device opens doors. It also opens into potential problems and unwanted advertising, but it can be controlled.
Eventually HTML 5, or some other technology, will overtake Flash but not for a while yet. The browser support and developer talent are not there yet. Even once the support and talent are available there will be a large biomass of consumers who simply do not upgrade quickly.
TLDR: Flash on mobile has some legs yet, but its dominance is waning.

Interesting benchmarks. On desktop Chrome at least html5 is 45fps here, and flash is 35fps average. Can't try on the Nexus yet, but maybe in a month

Clarkster said:
Interesting benchmarks. On desktop Chrome at least html5 is 45fps here, and flash is 35fps average. Can't try on the Nexus yet, but maybe in a month
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmm. On Firefox, 64bit Linux HTML 5 was 11fps, flash 118fps.
EDIT: odd ran the tests a second time and HTML 5 pulled up to 18fps. Flash stayed steady ~115fps

wow the first link will only animate when i move the mouse... and it settles at around 14 fps.
2nd link i get over 500 fps...

Paul22000 said:
What's your FPS on these two sites?
http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/html
http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/flash
Original article: Link
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I better try as soon as I get home

I tried those test Paul on the King's Desire ROM, html5 was horribly laggy.. Flash was much more appealing.

DMaverick50 said:
I better try as soon as I get home
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Html5 link working here on my N1. Getting 11Fps

http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/flash/?particles=5000

will android be able to support html5? i mean full support as apple is planning to get

Paul22000 said:
What's your FPS on these two sites?
http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/html
http://themaninblue.com/experiment/AnimationBenchmark/flash
Original article: Link
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That benchmark seems terribly biased : I get 11FPS on the html version and 1.2FPS on flash... But in my experience flash is usually faster than javascript animations.
Anyway, I don't think it's only a matter of performance, they have pretty much nothing in common : HTML5, javascript and SVG are web standards, which means you can create websites and "webapps" with these technologies.
Flash is just a program which allows you to do animations, and it happens to be able to be embedded in your browser. So it might allow you to do more things, be faster (in spite of my results on the strange benchmark), but if you decide to go that way, quake live is even better than flash ^^

flak0 said:
Html5 link working here on my N1. Getting 11Fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There we go, I'm getting 6. What causes the difference?

So if it turns out the only difference is that html is better for battery life, you think there will be a way to choose to use it on our phones once flash is implemented? Just curious, ill be happy with either one I'm sure

DMaverick50 said:
So if it turns out the only difference is that html is better for battery life, you think there will be a way to choose to use it on our phones once flash is implemented? Just curious, ill be happy with either one I'm sure
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The battery life is an assumption but not an absolute fact. I think what flash is being used for and how good the AS/HTML5 programmer is would make a difference. Either way we won't know till Flash comes to the N1 and we do some tests.
Same answer on the ability to turn flash off. I am reasonably certain there will be a way to disable flash but we won't know for sure till it comes out. Switching between Flash and HTML 5 would be a site developer requirement though, nothing on the phone would enable that as a possibility.

BlueScreenJunky said:
That benchmark seems terribly biased : I get 11FPS on the html version and 1.2FPS on flash... But in my experience flash is usually faster than javascript animations.
Anyway, I don't think it's only a matter of performance, they have pretty much nothing in common : HTML5, javascript and SVG are web standards, which means you can create websites and "webapps" with these technologies.
Flash is just a program which allows you to do animations, and it happens to be able to be embedded in your browser. So it might allow you to do more things, be faster (in spite of my results on the strange benchmark), but if you decide to go that way, quake live is even better than flash ^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point here is that HTML5, no matter how much Steve Jobs wants it to take over, it's just not there yet.
It's still years off from being able to replace all of Flash's capabilities.
Here are my results using the Desire browser:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
I get the same ratio of results in Chrome on my PC.
Can you guess which one is which?

DMaverick50 said:
So if it turns out the only difference is that html is better for battery life,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you read this?

Wow, it seems I'm the only one where HTML5 was faster. I'm running the latest development Chrome, and the latest Flash beta, so that could explain it.
Being Chrome's HTML5 keeps getting faster and faster and there may be a bug in the Flash beta. Not sure.

The thing about HTML5 that people miss is that once the specs are finalized it will be better than flash for a lot of things because it is a completely open specification that anyone can implement. There's no waiting on Adobe to get flash player ported to your platform or device. And no waiting on Adobe to improve the player on devices that it performs poorly on. The people making the device or platform have control over the way their HTML browser behaves and fits in to their system. With flash they do not.
WebKit compiles on almost every platform, while flash does not. Where is the 64-bit flash player for example?

Having to take a step back and program for every friggin browser and giving up some content control will keep HTML 5 at bay for awhile.
Only Mac users complain about Flash because Jobs refuses to give them access to hardware necessary.
HTML 5 already has fragmentation with browsers wanting to support different standard codecs. HTML has a long history of empty promises they need to make up for.
Mobile phone browsing is still secondary and will be for years. HTML 5 has to win on the desktop front first and it has some things going against it.
HTML5 - 10-12 fps on FF or Chrome
Flash 60-70 fps on FF or Chrome

a500 resolution??

I'm new to the tablet scene and I'm really starting to love this one alot, Although I never had anything to compare it with. One thing I am noticing though is the resolution seems a bit lacking. Is this a setting or some tweak i can fix this with or thats just how it is. I tried searching but searc is down right now. Any feedback would be great, Thanks!!

It's 1280x800, same as all the 10.1" tablets released recently. What do you feel is lacking about it?

FloatingFatMan said:
It's 1280x800, same as all the 10.1" tablets released recently. What do you feel is lacking about it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it just seems a slight pixelized, images that are super clea on my phone or pc arent as crisp on my tablet . ill try and see what comes up in a screenshot.

steal25 said:
it just seems a slight pixelized, images that are super clea on my phone or pc arent as crisp on my tablet . ill try and see what comes up in a screenshot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you seeing that on a phone app? If so, the tablet will often rescale such apps, which pixellates their graphics. Try on an app designed for tablets, or an image.

I think, maybe, the OP is referring to panels pixel density.

gammaRascal said:
I think, maybe, the OP is referring to panels pixel density.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
basically just photos and the net, or for example XDA on the net(not the app) the avatars are a little pixelated, just slightly nothing major, but im just wondering if thats how it is or should i try and exchange it?

steal25 said:
basically just photos and the net, or for example XDA on the net(not the app) the avatars are a little pixelated, just slightly nothing major, but im just wondering if thats how it is or should i try and exchange it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They look fine on mine, are you using the stock browser? If you're using Firefox, don't bother. Its renderer is garbage.

FloatingFatMan said:
They look fine on mine, are you using the stock browser? If you're using Firefox, don't bother. Its renderer is garbage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yep thats what im using, besides the stock browser is there anything you recommend?

Been real happy with Dolphin HD as a browser. I really love Firefox but what it does on the tablet to images just is no good.

PC PaiN said:
Been real happy with Dolphin HD as a browser. I really love Firefox but what it does on the tablet to images just is no good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ill have to check out dolphin and see how that works out, i use firefox on everything,it is a shame what it does to images though. Im on the stock browser now and everything is much clearer.

steal25 said:
Ill have to check out dolphin and see how that works out, i use firefox on everything,it is a shame what it does to images though. Im on the stock browser now and everything is much clearer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've tried them all, and to be completely honest, I always go back to the stock browser. Opera Mobile is quite good (not mini), but I don't like the way it does a few things.
Firefox is truly terrible on mobiles, they really managed to completely screw up image rendering on it.

FloatingFatMan said:
I've tried them all, and to be completely honest, I always go back to the stock browser. Opera Mobile is quite good (not mini), but I don't like the way it does a few things.
Firefox is truly terrible on mobiles, they really managed to completely screw up image rendering on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seconded - i have tried them all and I always return to the stock browser. Have yet to find a web page I frequent that stock browser does not work great for.

FloatingFatMan said:
I've tried them all, and to be completely honest, I always go back to the stock browser. Opera Mobile is quite good (not mini), but I don't like the way it does a few things.
Firefox is truly terrible on mobiles, they really managed to completely screw up image rendering on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 here too: the stock browser simply seems to work the best out of all the various browsers available. I would like to use Firefox, but I seriously hate how it screws up images on a device designed with viewing images in mind!
Besides, I quite like the bookmarks widget on my desktop and Firefox doesn't offer such.

On stock browser here as well - I've never tried any other.
QuickPic has also been the ideal image viewer for me - the stock image viewer isn't all that hot and shows a lot of compression artifacts and pixelation.

WereCatf said:
+1 here too: the stock browser simply seems to work the best out of all the various browsers available. I would like to use Firefox, but I seriously hate how it screws up images on a device designed with viewing images in mind!
Besides, I quite like the bookmarks widget on my desktop and Firefox doesn't offer such.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't you set those bookmarks to open in Firefox or whatever browser you want?

lord_voldemort666 said:
Can't you set those bookmarks to open in Firefox or whatever browser you want?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but it would only open the bookmarks I've made in the stock browser, the widget wouldn't show any bookmarks I make in Firefox itself. That kind of defeats the whole idea.

I too agree after installing all browsers the stock browser is best overall.I like Oprah for its speed seems to load pages much faster but that tab in the top left corner is not so user friendly to get to things.well for me anyway. I have not tried any of them since 3.1 update.well other then stock
As far as resolution no issues here at all.most stuff on web and produced for web graphics.will not be without pixilation to some degree

erica_renee said:
I like Oprah for its speed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
She's fast, true enough, but I wouldn't want her on MY tablet!

WereCatf said:
She's fast, true enough, but I wouldn't want her on MY tablet!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lololol
My thoughts exactly!

WereCatf said:
She's fast, true enough, but I wouldn't want her on MY tablet!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmao seconded.

Chrome browser for android.....beta release ...Now

www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/02/chrome-android/
Update: NO flash will be made for Chrome browser ...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/249829/no_flash_for_chrome_on_android_adobe_says.html
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium

Requires 4.0 to work.. could someone try it using cm9.. I still on miui.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium

dang - about time!
downloading now

txtmikhail said:
Requires 4.0 to work.. could someone try it using cm9.. I still on miui.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Works VERY WELL! I have lived by miren browser... this blows miren out of the water... very snappy to load pages! My new favorite browser! Now they just need to make it work on something other than ics and it'll be the only browser I need!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

I agree, its pretty snappy and it feels like it should have been there all along.
I like it very much.

I just downloaded it and I really like it so far. The tab system is really smooth and good looking and there are a bunch of nice optimizations (like the magnification bubble that pops up when clicking on small links, like page numbers on a thread). The desktop bookmarks is SUPER laggy though, it takes a good 15-20 seconds for it to load and let you click on something.

Been using this on my PC's for years and I love it on my phone. Fastest browser yet! I just hope they come out with a dark version. Previously I used the dark dolphin mini and blacked out miren, chrome is soooo bright!
- Sent from my OG Epic 4G runnin fine on CM9 -

Working very well on CM9
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

I always wondered why the google OS was missing the chrome browser.

does not support flash

s89281b said:
does not support flash
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what. Flash is a dead technology and if you really need to use it don't install the old browser.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App

brooksyx said:
So what. Flash is a dead technology and if you really need to use it don't install the old browser.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sites like this would like to have a word with you.

Blad3 said:
Sites like this would like to have a word with you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its only a beta, I'm sure more features will be implemented. Leave a review on the market to include flash just please don't give it a negative rating, its a great browser.
- Sent from my OG Epic 4G runnin fine on CM9 -

Review video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWMXJqOSP6Y

it isn't allowing me to install running cm9 a1

Blad3 said:
Sites like this would like to have a word with you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How often do people go to Kongregate on their phones through the browser to play games? There's enough apps with similar games, and you will still have the stock browser with flash if you really need it. I find that I barely use it in the browser. The Chrome browser is really well put together and will only get better!

HTML5 is just about ready to bust out; youtube has a whole branch for it. I am thinking really soon HTML5 will get the big push. (in that non-computer geeks will know it exists)

i agree flash is out dated but alot of sites still use it. thought it deserve a mention for people like me that dont want to have multiple apps for one purpose cluttering their phones. chrome beta is a great browser but until flash is completly gone it wont work for me. just my prefrence.

Running this on CM9-alpha1 and loving it! Tab management is the best I have seen to date, very clean. Also, syncing bookmarks and history is a huge plus. I type "f" in the address bar and it auto-suggests straight to the Epic 4G Android Dev page on XDA, just like it does on my laptop and desktop.

brooksyx said:
So what. Flash is a dead technology and if you really need to use it don't install the old browser.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Irrelevant. It is a browser's job to show me web pages. If there's an old page with useless flash content, it is the responsibility of the browser to render it.
Regardless, I downloaded this earlier and wonder why it hasn't been part of Android all along, or why it wasn't just an update to the stock browser. Google now has two very similar mobile browsers for Android.

New mobile os "Sailfish OS" thoughts?

I dont know if anyone else has seen the news on a new os called sailfish.. by a company called jolla. I guess they are from old meego times..
Looks like they want it to run on all devices.. and even hope for andtoid apps support..
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Anyone interested.. maybe a port would be neatvto try,.. the two latest nexus phones are perfect because they have no nav buttons.. and the ui is buttonless.. all gesture and swiping.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/21/jolla-launches-sailfish-os/
Sdk.. https://sailfishos.org/wiki/Main_Page
Sent from my GT-N8000 using XDA Premium HD app

I don't see much of an opening for a new player in the Smartphone war but good for them for trying.

The name alone is awful. I wouldn't want it on my phone.
FireFox OS maybe.

It's free software, and no DRM, unlike Android. But like Replicant, it won't get market share.

Couple interesting features worth discussion IMO:
"true multitasking" was the main focus. Active programs can be pinned to the homescreen as tiles
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They also showed off a feature called "Ambiance," which uses colors from a picture you select to tint the UI
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

I loved MeeGo on my Nokia N9 and its swiping setup. I would love to be able to use it on my Nexus (Sailfish, that is). MeeGo has way better multitasking than Android has.
In my opinion, MeeGo is the OS that just is the most fun to use. Albeit more limiting than Android.

dannejanne said:
MeeGo has way better multitasking than Android has.
In my opinion, MeeGo is the OS that just is the most fun to use. Albeit more limiting than Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But without any apps to multitask with.
That's why I don't see room for a new player at this stage of the game. Android, iOS and even WP8 to a lesser extent are just too established for a newcomer to compete.

063_XOBX said:
But without any apps to multitask with.
That's why I don't see room for a new player at this stage of the game. Android, iOS and even WP8 to a lesser extent are just too established for a newcomer to compete.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. Though I am not an app person myself. It did have a good Spotify app (homebrew, that could actually search your own offline lists), a working Whatsapp (also way more customizable than any other whatsapp app) etc. It has a fairly strong dedicated community supporting it.
I hope Sailfish can handle Android apps as they claim. There's a Android logo 0:50 into their official introduction movie. I don't thing it will ever get "big". But a nice alternative for phone nerds like me.

Hi,
i'm one of the interested ones.
There is not really a lack of Apps. If we belive what they say, a lot of Android apps should run native on Sailfish. On the other hand there is a good system to port them.
There are not only the Nexus without software keys. The new Motorolla don't have them too. They're also open for developers.

I'm more of a breadfish guy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuf2nvDWCJY

bardzogrozny said:
Hi,
i'm one of the interested ones.
There is not really a lack of Apps. If we belive what they say, a lot of Android apps should run native on Sailfish. On the other hand there is a good system to port them.
There are not only the Nexus without software keys. The new Motorolla don't have them too. They're also open for developers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Problem is, Google will not license the play store to them.

So you think it will be to hard for ordinary users to install apps? Don't you think they will create an own store application wich uses the google account of the user to install apps?
Otherwise there is only left to port them.

Props to them for trying. I agree I don't see google letting them into the play store, because frankly it won't help their sales at all. If they deny them play store access, that new os will fade away and be forgotten. If they let it in, then it has potential to grow and be a competitor for google thus taking away from more android licenses being sold.
It will be neat to see, maybe spark ideas for the main 3 os companies to license from and improve. They should change the name so it doesnt sound like you are saying 'selfish' with a strong accent
bardzogrozny said:
So you think it will be to hard for ordinary users to install apps? Don't you think they will create an own store application wich uses the google account of the user to install apps?
Otherwise there is only left to port them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will probably function like sideloading apps, youll have to download them to local storage and manually install them. Easy for us, but my parents? Heck no. lol

Looks like Metro and Android had a baby.
Meego should have been alowed to evolve under Nokia.

I think the buttonless ui is defintely interesting.. i would love to see a port attempt and just try itout..
I know i wouldnt use it daily driver.. but as a technerd i would love to try it out
Sent from my GT-N8000 using XDA Premium HD app

Trekfan422991 said:
I think the buttonless ui is defintely interesting.. i would love to see a port attempt and just try itout..
I know i wouldnt use it daily driver.. but as a technerd i would love to try it out
Sent from my GT-N8000 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the design too. But i would try to use it productive.
I hope the version for Tablet will be as good as this for phone.

adrynalyne said:
Problem is, Google will not license the play store to them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're on XDA and that's what you are worried about?

Some of these features are looking really good! Hope to see it running on my phone very soon.

I can foresee this being ported to Nexus devices. Really looking forward to it.

good os but no devs
hi about the playstore u can hack it to the os and make it think it is running on android and using android phone not a real problem
u can install blackmart alpha or 1mobile market it looks like playstore
the real problem is there is no devs are working on this os!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why i think the android is boring sometimes and had to change it but when i look where to go the ios i hate it (don't ask why) cus i hate this apple but she has a cute phone only the 4s maybe some android ports make it good
tizen looks like bada
bada is app less (no apps)
webos who is care about it
firefox os its only for firefox browser in my mind
wp7/8 it is not open source
so the future os i think sailfish is
thanks.