Related
This is not a thread bashing the Xoom or Android. I love them both.
I have moved my company to Droid (1's) and Incredible, and fought the IPAD in the enterprise at every turn.
I have also worked hard to install Linux on every desktop I can, where ever I can.
My question is, where are we going?
Android is perfect for a small pocket device. Small screen, limited resources, touch, and hopefully extended battery life. Tweaking and Developing Android allows us to squeeze even more functionality out of our powerful pocket computers. Adroid makes our phones cool. It is the hackers switchblade.
However, with the tablet form factor, we are all attempting to take an embedded device, with a purposefully designed lean Linux installation, and patch it back to a full fledge desktop operating system. We are slowing undoing Android on Xoom and turning it into a Linux Desktop without a keyboard.
Some very skilled devs have placed Ubuntu on the Xoom. I was thrilled when I heard the news. My very next thought was... Wait. Full Chrome, Full Codec Support, full everything! Its all ready to use, in a small Xoom shape and size. However, Ubuntu has poorly designed touch interfaces for most apps, and most things require a keyboard. (or right click mouse)
So. My question is. Why not continue to develop Linux, any flavor, ( I like debs) and create great user interface, that runs on X, and a great GTK with big touch buttons, et, so that we can run already developed software?
Why are recreating the wheel? Isn't Android going to simply develop into a full Linux Distro fork, that diverts talent away from the whole?
….And Discuss....
Plain and simply.. Linux is not Android. Android is not Linux. One does this and the other does that. One is Google owned one is not. One is made for handheld devices while one is not. Comparing apples and bananas never works no matter what the situation may be.
Each has its own purposes.
I somewhat agree. I think its more like a comparison between Red Delicious Apples and Granny Smith. They are both apples.
Comparing a Windows 7 Phone and Android is Apples and Oranges because have a different underpinning.
Both run the Linux Kernel. Both run several GNU packages. It is true that they have different interface layers, and Android relies alot of Java (Although Linux (GNU) can and does run Java as well.
I guess that is my point. Most of what needs to be written to run on a Linux kernel (Like Android's) to make a great terminal device (Which really is what Android is) has already been written, and vetted, some software since the 1970's. Why rewrite it in Java, using the Android framework, making it incompatible with the larger Linux Ecosystem? Or, if Java is key to app portability between architectures, why change the java engine so that it isn't compatible with the Java we already run on our desktops?
Again, I'm thinking out loud, not argue, but because I think something is missing from the community plan? What if all of the time put into the different Phone ROMS on XDA (based on Android) was used to make a more compatible, and universal Linux for Tablets?
remote sessions
I use pocketcloud and splashtopHd all the time on my xoom, barely worth it on a phone form factor, but this way I have full desktop support with touch ui integrated and at the same time I have all the great things android offers over desktop systems as well if I'm off the grid.
From what I've read android is a base of Linux but from the point of programs and interaction its all google design. Which is why we can Ubuntu nativley but will have the issues the op mentioned for drivers an ui interface, but I imagine as touch becomes defacto we'll see drivers and ui 's designed with more touch orientation integrated...win8 already looks to be shapping up that way from the looks of it. So possibly we'll be able to run future versions of Linux distros on the xoom, so long as the specs still meet the requirements
I totally agree with your point of view, I hear ya. But, the idea of having Linux on the tablets rather than Android... isn't that a battle between the big companies as to what OS they want to support on their own devices? Motorola and HTC are two big companies and they choose to support Android on their devices all the way. I guess if there would be a company out there that would prefer Linux OS on their devices we could very well see this as an ultimate possibility. One never knows.
>But where are we going?
The only people who can answer that are Google. They've yet to articulate a comprehensive roadmap for Android. The only strategy thus far has been to throw out a freebie to vendors and let them adopt it as they will.
The problem is that what vendors want (differentiation through proprietary enhancements) isn't what the public want (uniform UI, cross-product interoperability). Add to that are gaping holes in basic functionality in Android, like peripheral support--printers, scanners, 3G modems, etc.
I suspect that Goog themselves don't really know. If they did, there wouldn't be overlapping efforts like the Chrome OS (which is apparently DOA for now). Rubin bud needs to figure it out soon.
Win8 beta in Sept will determine the extent of Windows' viability for the mobile space. From simple extrapolation of Win7's capabilities + touch GUI + ARM support, it's a relative safe bet that Win8 will have a big presence in tablets next year.
The picture for Android-on-tabs is more vague. ICS should clarify things a bit, one way or another.
e.mote said:
>But where are we going?
The only people who can answer that are Google. They've yet to articulate a comprehensive roadmap for Android. The only strategy thus far has been to throw out a freebie to vendors and let them adopt it as they will.
The problem is that what vendors want (differentiation through proprietary enhancements) isn't what the public want (uniform UI, cross-product interoperability). Add to that are gaping holes in basic functionality in Android, like peripheral support--printers, scanners, 3G modems, etc.
I suspect that Goog themselves don't really know. If they did, there wouldn't be overlapping efforts like the Chrome OS (which is apparently DOA for now). Rubin bud needs to figure it out soon.
Win8 beta in Sept will determine the extent of Windows' viability for the mobile space. From simple extrapolation of Win7's capabilities + touch GUI + ARM support, it's a relative safe bet that Win8 will have a big presence in tablets next year.
The picture for Android-on-tabs is more vague. ICS should clarify things a bit, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ICE CREAM SANDWICH?
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium App
I think it is not so much recreating the wheel so much as trimming down and adapting.
X with gnome/kde is not currently a good fit for a touch screen only device. Even if the window manager could be adapted to work well for touch screen only, interaction with most applications would still be problematic. Getting application developers to go in a common direction is hard enough as is.... and you want to ask all of them to rewrite the apps to work in a touch screen environment? Still if you want to try this route you could get a meego or work in KDE embedded. The effort (as Nokia discovered, and Open Moko before them) is non trivial however.
Android, and by extension Android applications, are designed to work with a touch screen interface from the beginning. It is less work to extend the structure to support larger screens than the adaptation X based applications would have to go through.
Android is not a general purpose computing platform though. It was originally written to work in a cell phone environment, with the attendant limitations and advantages. I think this core concept has not changed with the introduction of the tablet. We are still dealing with a connected device whose primary purpose is the consumption of information. What I mean by this is that android is not meant for creation (such as creation of MS office documents, programming, photoshop, etc...) but consumption (playing games, reading mail, browsing the web, reading MS office documents, etc...)
Where I think Android should be going for the near future is refining and improving the ability to consume information:
- Make web browsing more robust, including html5
- Improve video decoding with better codec and container support.
- Make it easier to read documents on the device.
- improve resolution independence at the API level.
- Improve round trips from desktop to cloud to device and back. Make the device used neutral to the information being consumed. e.g. bookmark and open tab syncing in the browser. better dropbox like functionality for availability of files that have been worked on.
Where I want to see it going in the long run can be seen in a nascent form with the Atrix and the Lenovo U1:
- Based upon available resources (keyboard, mouse, monitor) shift from a touch screen interface to a conventional desktop interface. (extend what the Atrix does)
- Make it easy to extend the functionality of the core device by connecting it to resources. (extending the idea behind the Asus Transformer)
- In a perfect world I would like to see a full desktop OS run when requested and be able to use external CPUs (think Lenovo U1). In essence I would like the device to be able to be a boot disk for the user, connect it do a desktop for raw power, connect it to a laptop base for on the go functionality, and use just the phone/tablet for ubiquitous computing. This dream is still a few years from being practical though.
- Make the android OS an installable and user upgradeable OS just as desktop OSes are now. This is even further out but I can see a future where mobile device hardware and OS are separate. This might never come to fruition though due to the way carriers control the phone experience.
And tangentially we could see the Android platform espouse device centric ideals as seen in Japan currently.
- Use the phone as a payment system.
- Augment magazines and stores with tags to feed the phone contextual information.
To be honest I have not given it much thought. I am interested to see where Google is going with the platform however.
youngproguru said:
So. My question is. Why not continue to develop Linux, any flavor, ( I like debs) and create great user interface, that runs on X, and a great GTK with big touch buttons, et, so that we can run already developed software?
Why are recreating the wheel? Isn't Android going to simply develop into a full Linux Distro fork, that diverts talent away from the whole?
….And Discuss....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The main differentiator between Linux or other free 'nix-likes these days, and Android, is that Android enforces, encourages, and _guarantees_ a standardized uniform development platform, a single UI standard, standardized set of software in the platform, and a standardized user experience.
Linux et al guarantees none of this.
If you want those specific freedoms Linux offers you, then it is there, by all means. The beauty of having open devices like the Xoom and other devices with open bootloaders is you are free to make your choice.
I have a feeling that three to six months from now the whole picture will come to bare. We will have the "cloud" and chrome PC, Android phones, Android tablets, TVs, Google+, Google music all wrapped into one. Google is renaming blogger to Google blogs, picassa into Google photo.
It is scary a little but it seems like it is all coming together. It is almost there, each boundary has bumps but me thinks Google is trying to make it seamless.
JanetPanic said:
I think it is not so much recreating the wheel so much as trimming down and adapting.
X with gnome/kde is not currently a good fit for a touch screen only device. Even if the window manager could be adapted to work well for touch screen only, interaction with most applications would still be problematic. Getting application developers to go in a common direction is hard enough as is.... and you want to ask all of them to rewrite the apps to work in a touch screen environment? Still if you want to try this route you could get a meego or work in KDE embedded. The effort (as Nokia discovered, and Open Moko before them) is non trivial however.
Android, and by extension Android applications, are designed to work with a touch screen interface from the beginning. It is less work to extend the structure to support larger screens than the adaptation X based applications would have to go through.
Android is not a general purpose computing platform though. It was originally written to work in a cell phone environment, with the attendant limitations and advantages. I think this core concept has not changed with the introduction of the tablet. We are still dealing with a connected device whose primary purpose is the consumption of information. What I mean by this is that android is not meant for creation (such as creation of MS office documents, programming, photoshop, etc...) but consumption (playing games, reading mail, browsing the web, reading MS office documents, etc...)
Where I think Android should be going for the near future is refining and improving the ability to consume information:
- Make web browsing more robust, including html5
- Improve video decoding with better codec and container support.
- Make it easier to read documents on the device.
- improve resolution independence at the API level.
- Improve round trips from desktop to cloud to device and back. Make the device used neutral to the information being consumed. e.g. bookmark and open tab syncing in the browser. better dropbox like functionality for availability of files that have been worked on.
Where I want to see it going in the long run can be seen in a nascent form with the Atrix and the Lenovo U1:
- Based upon available resources (keyboard, mouse, monitor) shift from a touch screen interface to a conventional desktop interface. (extend what the Atrix does)
- Make it easy to extend the functionality of the core device by connecting it to resources. (extending the idea behind the Asus Transformer)
- In a perfect world I would like to see a full desktop OS run when requested and be able to use external CPUs (think Lenovo U1). In essence I would like the device to be able to be a boot disk for the user, connect it do a desktop for raw power, connect it to a laptop base for on the go functionality, and use just the phone/tablet for ubiquitous computing. This dream is still a few years from being practical though.
- Make the android OS an installable and user upgradeable OS just as desktop OSes are now. This is even further out but I can see a future where mobile device hardware and OS are separate. This might never come to fruition though due to the way carriers control the phone experience.
And tangentially we could see the Android platform espouse device centric ideals as seen in Japan currently.
- Use the phone as a payment system.
- Augment magazines and stores with tags to feed the phone contextual information.
To be honest I have not given it much thought. I am interested to see where Google is going with the platform however.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your vision for the future of android/tab computing is fantastic. I already have replaced my laptop for the type of on-the-road computing work I need to do...with my bt keyboard and mouse and the cloud, I am creating MS Word documents and printing when back in the office. It's a good start. I use my charging docks when I'm stationary so additional functionality from docking stations and connected peripherals would be welcome. I think the current size of the Xoom is optimal. It needs to stay small enough to haul around easily but big enough to be more than a toy or large phone.
It is already my favored way to consume information...I'm pretty happy with my browsing experience and have no real issues streaming music, video, reading news/books. I think that this will only get better.
>X with gnome/kde is not currently a good fit for a touch screen only device. Even if the window manager could be adapted to work well for touch screen only, interaction with most applications would still be problematic. Getting application developers to go in a common direction is hard enough as is.
It's the same with Win7. That Win8 will (reportedly) rectify this while Linux fiddles is the main weakness of open-source--getting everybody to agree on a direction. I expect that, as mobile computing diversifies, that Linux will, as before, follow Windows' lead.
>Android is not a general purpose computing platform though. It was originally written to work in a cell phone environment, with the attendant limitations and advantages. I think this core concept has not changed with the introduction of the tablet.
I agree with this.
>Where I think Android should be going for the near future is refining and improving the ability to consume information:
I disagree with this. Whereas the physical size of a smartphone is the main impediment, lack of an integral physical input device is the tablet's sole limitation in being a productivity device. This limitation is very surmountable.
On the demand side, looking at the app mix on the iPad should indicate that content creation on tablets have high demand. The clamor for Office-type apps is strong. The tablet may not yet be able to do heavy productivity, but it should be able to do light ones.
The impetus to productivity is, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the upcoming Win8. Ignoring its immense userbase for the moment, when a user has a choice between a tablet for consumption-only, and one that does both consumption and (light) creation, it's an easy choice. The smartphone killed the PDA/MP3 player/digicam/etc because it can do more than any one of these erstwhile devices.
More succinctly, Android doesn't have the luxury of a slow ramp.
>[various improvements for consumption]
I agree that these are probably what we'll see in ICS. They're incremental. I see them as insufficient in light of the upcoming competition.
>Where I want to see it going in the long run can be seen in a nascent form with the Atrix and the Lenovo U1:
This is where fragmentation rears its ugly head (as if it hasn't already). What you're referring to requires brand interoperability, which vendors are loath to do without a strong hand from the OS supplier. Google have yet to be that strong hand. To wit, both of the above examples only work within the respective vendor's product lines, and both are marketplace failures.
Fragmentation is the other issue Android needs to deal with. Other than the 18-month upgrade "pledge," I don't see much inclination from Goog to deal with this.
>- In a perfect world I would like to see a full desktop OS run when requested and be able to use external CPUs (think Lenovo U1).
>- Make the android OS an installable and user upgradeable OS just as desktop OSes are now.
Both of these are realizable with Win7 (on tablets) now, and I expect them to extend to Win8. The ideal desktop-tablet synergy I think will require better short-range connectivity, probably some flavor of UWB in the pipe.
Hello XDA,
imagine, for building specific model of dell, their technicians prepare a list of hardware pieces and then they test them and choose the magic combo based on price and characteristics of these HW pieces. It's pretty simple with regular desktop PCs.
I'd like to know if there is anything like this for mobile phones. I know about beagleboard, pandaboard (i've read about them, but never used them). Is there something that I could use to test different components from different vendors... e.g. try out some SOCs from TI or Qualcom; a camera chipset etc etc. Can somebody direct me in the proper direction? Basically I'd like to know who things like this are done and where to start from. I'm aminly interested in android related development.
Such HW boards are mostly proprietary and heavy guarded stuff of companies like Samsung or Motorola. There are probably generic sets aswell, like test hardware produced by Lauterbach, but rather targeted for any ICs, though expect it to be horrible expensive. I've also seen boards produced by TI and Silicon Labs compatibile with few of their components (like SoC+some RF chip+PMIC) allowing to choose optimal configuration.
But AFAIK it's more matter of careful analyse of IC's characterstics before you build something, than just connecting everything up in various combos and empirically testing what's working better and what's working worse.
Rebellos said:
Such HW boards are mostly proprietary and heavy guarded stuff of companies like Samsung or Motorola. There are probably generic sets aswell, like test hardware produced by Lauterbach, but rather targeted for any ICs, though expect it to be horrible expensive. I've also seen boards produced by TI and Silicon Labs compatibile with few of their components (like SoC+some RF chip+PMIC) allowing to choose optimal configuration.
But AFAIK it's more matter of careful analyse of IC's characterstics before you build something, than just connecting everything up in various combos and empirically testing what's working better and what's working worse.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Rebellos,
thanks for reply. I suspected something like that. At some time I remember seeing specs of some chips on TI and they provide all kinds of drivers test code etc even system images or stuff like. So, at least with TI chips, probably beagle-board is the way to go since it's their pet, I'm I right about that?
mtlgui said:
Hi Rebellos,
thanks for reply. I suspected something like that. At some time I remember seeing specs of some chips on TI and they provide all kinds of drivers test code etc even system images or stuff like. So, at least with TI chips, probably beagle-board is the way to go since it's their pet, I'm I right about that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PandaBoard is the OMAP4-based successor to Beagle, and TI also has heavy involvement in that project too.
Or perhaps wait to see what happens with OMAP5 - it's almost guaranteed there will be a ???Board based on OMAP5 similar to Beagle/Panda.
Yeah, PandaBoard might be called "TI dev platform" and seems like they are using it for testing various own ICs as it's extremally flexible (OMAP4 has many various interfaces and nearly all of these are breaked out on Panda)
I'd expect OMAP5 Panda-like successor available in few months.
I think they're all vendor-specific. Here's qualcomm's snapdragon dev boards. They've got the snapdragon 3 (galaxy s II cpu) and snapdragon 4 available through bsquare.com:
DragonBoard
So, as I have eluded to in the tittle, could Android Wear run on a MotoACTV, theoretically?
For those who don't know, the background of the MotoACTV is that it runs GingerBread 2.3.4, has Bluetooth LE, WiFi, 256MB RAM, etc... (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoactv for more info).
From my admittedly superficial look into Android Wear, I am assuming that the only hurdle here would be getting 4.4.2 or above running on the hardware?
im really excited about it hope motoactv receive a port of this os, altough i think it will not happen,
it will run on a 3.4 kernel http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=51260100&postcount=1
no chances for our small beast
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on the other hand in the post i mencioned it says "<d:gl-version>2.0</d:gl-version>" if it is what i this it is (http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/graphics/opengl.html) maybe android 2.2 is the minimum version API level 8.
fingers crossed
mrmabs said:
So, as I have eluded to in the tittle, could Android Wear run on a MotoACTV, theoretically?
For those who don't know, the background of the MotoACTV is that it runs GingerBread 2.3.4, has Bluetooth LE, WiFi, 256MB RAM, etc... (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoactv for more info).
From my admittedly superficial look into Android Wear, I am assuming that the only hurdle here would be getting 4.4.2 or above running on the hardware?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there s nothing yet about minimum requirement of AndroidWear it s on KK 4.4.2 and min API is 18 (JB 4.3)
there should be hack method for motoACTV to install custom rom on it
then need compatible ported AndroidWear
and ...
i think it s possible
:good:
Motoactv development
Is there any motoactv development currently? or a forum for the device?
Runawaywill said:
Is there any motoactv development currently? or a forum for the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if anyone needs a guinea pig here i am
Keeping my fingers crossed... would love to see some more options for this watch.
This would definitely be possible but whether anyone will invest the required time to do it or not is another question. The hardware in the MotoActv will be powerful enough to run Android Wear but without quite extensive work a lot of it wouldn't be compatible. I am aiming to bridge the gap in the meantime as I plan to work on a project to build a ROM with an Android Wear style experience (hopefully with ports of some of the actual Android Wear applications) on top the already functional Android Gingerbread base that we have.
I won't be able to start this properly for at least a month but I have ported the bootanimation from the LG G Watch system dump that was just leaked to help bring a very small part of the look and feel to the MotoACTV. See here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=53150797
I have a motoactv as well and am taking great interest in seeing android wear brought to it, even if its just for me till all options are out (moto360, asus, etc) if no one wants to try to make it I guess I can try but I have no previous rom making skills, if anyone is interested in helping me figure this out please do so we can get this going!
i too will participate in testing - this would be awesome! the motoactv should have been what all these smart watches build off of. i wish the new smartwatches had standalone GPS.
I have a motoactv, count me in too for testing!
tlnlion said:
I have a motoactv, count me in too for testing!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'm next!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
P.S. Any suggestions to solve the Motoactv.com sudden death? Where to save our workouts?
I have a Motoactv and would be willing to participate also, but why would you really want to use it with the Motoactv?
I was pretty sure Wear was pretty highly dependent on the microphone for Google now. In theory you could use a Bluetooth headset, but Google now was meant to use your phone with Bluetooth, and obviously you can only have one device connected at a time.
On a philosophical level, what I like about my Motoactv compared to modern smartwatches with Wear is that I'm free to use whatever app on the Play Store I feel like using no matter how sadistic, for better or for worse
Not completely tangential, but has anyone read Ron Amadeo's review of the Moto360 on Ars?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beautiful-outside-ugly-inside/
TL;DR - It's got an old processor that drags it down. (1GHz TI OMAP 3) and drains the battery quickly.
Doesn't the MotoActv have the same class of chip? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2170917
Could it be the same one, just overclocked? Would this help in getting Wear onto the Actv?
mjdyson said:
Not completely tangential, but has anyone read Ron Amadeo's review of the Moto360 on Ars?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beautiful-outside-ugly-inside/
TL;DR - It's got an old processor that drags it down. (1GHz TI OMAP 3) and drains the battery quickly.
Doesn't the MotoActv have the same class of chip? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2170917
Could it be the same one, just overclocked? Would this help in getting Wear onto the Actv?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it does seem that the internals are based on the MotoACTV (likely to bring the cost down) which sort of makes sense because they did say at one point that it was their reference platform for the 360 during development. They both use OMAP 3 chips, clocked at 600MHz in the MotoACTV and 1GHz in the Moto 360. This would indeed potentially make it easier to port Android Wear to the MotoACTV.
The thing is though, as @m33rkat pointed out above, the MotoACV lacks a microphone and so it would not actually necessarily be all that great with Android Wear as it is quite largely driven by voice commands. It would also mean loosing access to many of the sports features we have now such as the Motoactv.com sync, activity profiles and use of ANT+ sensors.
I think the MotoACTV might be better used as it is with Motorola's fitness software. I also wish Moto had used a newer chip in the 360 such as the Snapdragon 400 because the OMAP 3 is pretty damn old!
wollac11 said:
Yes it does seem that the internals are based on the MotoACTV (likely to bring the cost down) which sort of makes sense because they did say at one point that it was their reference platform for the 360 during development. They both use OMAP 3 chips, clocked at 600MHz in the MotoACTV and 1GHz in the Moto 360. This would indeed potentially make it easier to port Android Wear to the MotoACTV.
The thing is though, as @m33rkat pointed out above, the MotoACV lacks a microphone and so it would not actually necessarily be all that great with Android Wear as it is quite largely driven by voice commands. It would also mean loosing access to many of the sports features we have now such as the Motoactv.com sync, activity profiles and use of ANT+ sensors.
I think the MotoACTV might be better used as it is with Motorola's fitness software. I also wish Moto had used a newer chip in the 360 such as the Snapdragon 400 because the OMAP 3 is pretty damn old!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think this may be more interesting once the next version of android wear is released. The GPS and offline music playback support would be better suited for the MOTOACTV since it contains GPS and the storage capacity to allow offline music. Can you overclock the processor in the motoactv? I wouldn't be surprised if android wear can run at a slower clock speed. I could imagine using the headphones (wired/bluetooth) to control the OS while running. Sucks there'd be no vibrations.
biggiestuff said:
I think this may be more interesting once the next version of android wear is released. The GPS and offline music playback support would be better suited for the MOTOACTV since it contains GPS and the storage capacity to allow offline music. Can you overclock the processor in the motoactv? I wouldn't be surprised if android wear can run at a slower clock speed. I could imagine using the headphones (wired/bluetooth) to control the OS while running. Sucks there'd be no vibrations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah maybe. I guess it will depend on your individual use case for the device. As for overclocking the MotoACTV, yes that is possible.
Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring--I have a Motoactv and would also be up for testing. :good:
I'm trying to port it. I hope to have some thing running in a few days.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using XDA Free mobile app
AW
dproldan said:
I'm trying to port it. I hope to have some thing running in a few days.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would be great... count me in for testing.
Yes, count us in !
dproldan said:
I'm trying to port it. I hope to have some thing running in a few days.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hi there
just wanna know if it is possible or not to upgrade smartphone hardware like in desktop computer... etc ?
thx devs
With the exception of Project Ara, no. The reason for this is because, as smartphones are designed to be light on space, and extremely efficient, almost all of the components are directly soldered to the motherboard, and are so small that they're almost transparent when you look at them from the side. Therefore, until modular phones are available, this is both impossible and impractical.
Yes it actually is,but many people say its not.If you have phone like for example galaxy s 3 and yoy whant to have more ram you can find out ram fot galaxy s 4 and change it.It has the same size but im not sure is any phone service doing that.U can upgrade normal memory with SD card,if you still whant more you can buy bigger SD card.I think that noone needs SD bigger than 8gb
Sent from my SM-G355HN using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
QwerLoL said:
Yes it actually is,but many people say its not.If you have phone like for example galaxy s 3 and yoy whant to have more ram you can find out ram fot galaxy s 4 and change it.It has the same size but im not sure is any phone service doing that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So tell me more, I'm a little skeptical about what you said...
Knowing that the RAM is embedded in the same chip as the CPU and GPU (SoC) (Exynos 4412 4 on SGS3 and Exynos 5410 on SGS4). You are saying that the consumer or a repair shop can remove the 4412 from a his SGS3 and replace it with a 5410? Even if both chips aren't the same architecture? Are they soldered to the motherboard?
Would love to see some references...
U can upgrade normal memory with SD card,if you still whant more you can buy bigger SD card.I think that noone needs SD bigger than 8gb
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah obviously, not really an upgrade to the phone memory itself but more like adding on some parallel memory. And not all phones can use sd cards, even some high end phones can't.
Parallel memory isnt possible to add right now,maby it ll be possible for few years but not now :/ That what i said for RAM cant really help you.I said its possible to change ram but not like in home.There are some companies making phones with material you whant (u tell them how much ram and internal nemory you whant,soo its the same phone with changed ram memory) there are some Chinese companies what are doing that i hope you can understand what i was trying to say... Andswer for your first question is No you cant change ram and int mem by your self tell me what ever you whant about hardware and ...other rooting,unbricking things...
Sent from my SM-G355HN using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
so maybe forget about project ara as this phone will not have the design like iPhones... nexus phones with that gorgeous design... etc
Software UPGRADE
_PR3DATOR_ said:
hi there
just wanna know if it is possible or not to upgrade smartphone hardware like in desktop computer... etc ?
thx devs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My friend i tore up over a dozen android devices in last 6 months . To my suprise no two devices are using anything compatible with another. cleaning up bloatware and excess junk files along with some system tuning and i think youll be Suprised at what these devices can actually do and perform on a 15$ single core 4.0 ics device you can listen to music while downloading more while you browse the web and screen record it all at the same time. unless your trying to do serious graphical gaming on your phone while multitasking i think your good with anything 4. and up. System Tuner Pro rom toolbox pro check it out and enjoy my friend sd read speed has been default 128kb/s on my devices (a must change) Benchmark app hey
Android device are often using SoC solutions. (SoC: System on a Chip)
That means the whole system, CPU, GPU, RAM, wireless networks, bluetooth, Storage, I/O, GPS, Sensors, etc... are all integrated into one single chip. It is that what makes smartphones so efficient in power consumption and size.
There are other support-chips around the main SoC chip, but these usually handle lesser functions such as extra storage space, USB on the Go functionality etc...
Read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip
SysGhost said:
Android device are often using SoC solutions. (SoC: System on a Chip)
That means the whole system, CPU, GPU, RAM, wireless networks, bluetooth, Storage, I/O, GPS, Sensors, etc... are all integrated into one single chip. It is that what makes smartphones so efficient in power consumption and size.
There are other support-chips around the main SoC chip, but these usually handle lesser functions such as extra storage space, USB on the Go functionality etc...
Read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HI,
so, maybe is it possible to install a more powerfull camera module on a device like Htc One S?
For exapmle a front camera (from HTC One Mini) of 2Mpx instead of 0,3mpx camera of Htc One S.
Must I port libraries and Api to make it work? Or is it impossible?
Cusciolino said:
HI,
so, maybe is it possible to install a more powerfull camera module on a device like Htc One S?
For exapmle a front camera (from HTC One Mini) of 2Mpx instead of 0,3mpx camera of Htc One S.
Must I port libraries and Api to make it work? Or is it impossible?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically it is possible. But practically "doable" I'm not so sure of.
Most android-devices happen to use a common "camera interface" for the camera hardware-module.
But the layout, form factor, connector placement etc can be very different between the various Android models out there.
One cannot simply take a camera module from one model, and fit it inside another. Just the connector itself alone can vary heavily between models, not to mention the "flat flex cable" arrangement.
These reasons alone make it very hard to fit one camera module inside another device.
But let's pretend that one can find a camera module that does fit perfectly inside the phone in question, or that one is skilled enough to perform the modifications needed:
The Linux Kernel module.
Yep. The linux kernel need something too. It's not all plug'n'play with embedded situations such as smartphones. These devices aren't built for plug'n'play in mind. They are statically built. Once compiled, it's snug as a glove. Nothing more, nothing less.
But it's not all darkness around. Luckily the linux kernel is open source. Even when it comes to Android devices.
One can simply download the linux kernel source from the manufacturers web site, and import it to the Android Development Environment that one has prepared for this.
Next thing to fetch is the source code for the new camera module. This can be quite tricky, and is a show-stopper in many cases. Manufacturers often refuse to release these sources, and Android open source world end up with a "crippled state" for the module in question. Blame the hardware manufacturers for this.
But let's pretend that one have a camera module that happen to have its kernel driver "open source". Then one only need to download these sources, and patch them in.
Once the linux kernel has been patched, and the new camera module is available in the linux kernel configuration, one only need to enable it as a "module", and compile it.
Once compiled, one will end up with a "camera_module.ko".
This particular ko-file is what one need to transfer to the Android device in question, and tell Android init to load it.
Now... it should work... but it rarely does in real life. As you mention, there might be some special API and other stuff needed for the software in order to access the camera.
Once again: read the documentation for the camera module in question, and hope that the manufacturer of the camera module have used a commonly used API, and not a proprietary one.
That is enough of me babbling on about this. This is not supposed to be "absolute facts". These lines written are more meant as a general pointer of "what to expect if one tries".
Maybe someone else, more experienced in these matters, can shed some more light on this. I could be wrong.
SysGhost said:
Technically it is possible. But practically "doable" I'm not so sure of.
Most android-devices happen to use a common "camera interface" for the camera hardware-module.
But the layout, form factor, connector placement etc can be very different between the various Android models out there.
One cannot simply take a camera module from one model, and fit it inside another. Just the connector itself alone can vary heavily between models, not to mention the "flat flex cable" arrangement.
These reasons alone make it very hard to fit one camera module inside another device.
But let's pretend that one can find a camera module that does fit perfectly inside the phone in question, or that one is skilled enough to perform the modifications needed:
The Linux Kernel module.
Yep. The linux kernel need something too. It's not all plug'n'play with embedded situations such as smartphones. These devices aren't built for plug'n'play in mind. They are statically built. Once compiled, it's snug as a glove. Nothing more, nothing less.
But it's not all darkness around. Luckily the linux kernel is open source. Even when it comes to Android devices.
One can simply download the linux kernel source from the manufacturers web site, and import it to the Android Development Environment that one has prepared for this.
Next thing to fetch is the source code for the new camera module. This can be quite tricky, and is a show-stopper in many cases. Manufacturers often refuse to release these sources, and Android open source world end up with a "crippled state" for the module in question. Blame the hardware manufacturers for this.
But let's pretend that one have a camera module that happen to have its kernel driver "open source". Then one only need to download these sources, and patch them in.
Once the linux kernel has been patched, and the new camera module is available in the linux kernel configuration, one only need to enable it as a "module", and compile it.
Once compiled, one will end up with a "camera_module.ko".
This particular ko-file is what one need to transfer to the Android device in question, and tell Android init to load it.
Now... it should work... but it rarely does in real life. As you mention, there might be some special API and other stuff needed for the software in order to access the camera.
Once again: read the documentation for the camera module in question, and hope that the manufacturer of the camera module have used a commonly used API, and not a proprietary one.
That is enough of me babbling on about this. This is not supposed to be "absolute facts". These lines written are more meant as a general pointer of "what to expect if one tries".
Maybe someone else, more experienced in these matters, can shed some more light on this. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great Explanation! Thank You a lot! I think that is not in my capabilities to do that but.. maybe I'll try when I have some freetime
thank you
Hi guys, I am the owner of OXY SmartWatch, a new SmartWatch available in two versions: Round and Square.
Here a few preview renders of our final product:
{
"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"
}
This is our website:
http://www.oxytechs.com/
And our Google+ page where you can follow our progresses:
https://www.google.com/+Oxytechswatch
The watch is running Android 4.4 AOSP and we have built a custom version of Android that is more feasible for SmartWatches than Android WEAR. Plus we have custom Android Studio templates to work with our product and we give the possibility to install any ROM without breaking warranty or support.
In this thread I want to share with this community a preview of the Watch and our links.
We are also looking for Android Developers, Android Kernel Developers and iOS Developers.
We also accept candidates from remote locations so feel free to share with us at info[at]netarchitectures[dot]co[dot]uk your resume or feedbacks about our product.
If you want to join our Developer Program, follow this link:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/software/oxy-smartwatch-development-t3185452
The watches have:
CPU MIPS M200 Dual Core
512 MB RAM
4 GB Disk Space
Heart Rate Sensor
Vibration
AMOLED Touch display covered with Gorilla Glass
Speakers and Microphones
Magnetic contact charging mechanism
Gyroscope, Accellerometer and Magnetometer
Bluetooth 4.0 and BLE Compatible with iOS and Android and PC
Light sensor
400 mAh LiPo Battery
72 hours with BLE and 1 week without Bluetooth enabled
Stainless steel IPV6 water proof
Right now we are working at our website www[dot]OXYTECHS[dot]com and for the end of August you will be able to see the full product description, accessories and various demo.
The 15th of November 2015 we will open the PRE-SALE Campaign.
We have a batch of 5,000 pieces available per model, so a total of 20,000 pieces:
5,000 Round Stainless Steel
5,000 Round Black Stainless Steel
5,000 Square Stainless Steel
5,000 Square Black Stainless Steel
This project is related to the porting of IWOP (Ingenic Wearable Open Platform) for OXY SmartWatches.
The platform IWOP is available here for download: http://iwop.ingenic.com/.
OXY is giving hardware development kit to each developer who is willing to contribute to the platform.
Attached to this thread there are architecture views, UX mocks and interaction design about the OXY custom ROM.
More details related to OXY are available here: http://www.oxytechs.com/
OXY ROM is composed by:
A watchface manager
Home launcher
Control manager app
Settings app
Apps navigator
A set of utilities apps delivered with the product
XDA:DevDB Information
OXY SmartWatch V 1.0, ROM for the Android General
Contributors
raffaeu
Source Code: http://iwop.ingenic.com/
ROM OS Version: 4.4.x KitKat
ROM Kernel: Linux 3.10.x
Based On: IWOP
Some preview videos of OXY ROM:
Notifications Manager
Watchfaces Manager
Phone Calls Manager
Only IPx6, multiple (more than 3) actions to access key info and apps for "Probably 249 or 299"? Hard sell, even with custom ROM support.
On the square version, a bezeless display is easily possible if the PCB and battery are not larger in area than the display area.
Lokifish Marz said:
Only IPx6, multiple (more than 3) actions to access key info and apps for "Probably 249 or 299"? Hard sell, even with custom ROM support.
On the square version, a bezeless display is easily possible if the PCB and battery are not larger in area than the display area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Lokifish and thank you for your feedback.
The answer you mention is about the Black version, which is full Black Stainless Steel, including the wristband. Consider that only the wristband has a production cost of 28$ (without VAT) the price of 249$ does not look that bad to me. Think about OLIO SmartWatch, it's a full Stainless Steel watch with locked ROM and it's sold for almost 600$ a piece.
About the square version, we couldn't find ANY manufacturer in Taiwan, China and Singapore capable to produce a full baseless square display, only round can be baseless but if you know any manufacturer capable of making AMOLED display squared with Gorilla Glass I would be more than happy to get your help, we are still in the beta version of our product and any feedback is welcome and well appreciated.
The OLIO is also design by watchmakers, uses 316L SS, and has a water resistance 50 times greater than that IPx7 with no time limit like IPx7 has.
As far as the band, you can get decent quality folded SS bands for around $15-20 USD at full retail price.
A bezeless square display can be done. It requires an approach not seen in smartwatches though that makes assembly a little more difficult but is still doable. Also, "Off the shelf" designs simply don't cut it as it requires the "crystal" be cut a certain way.
Have your guys look over "U.I Design", "Why this Martian.. ", and "I bet your smartwatch..." links in my signature below. Feel free to pick my brain and use the information in the links. The minimum I ask is that you give proper credit if you use any of it.
Looking at your G+ posts, nice job with the Ingenic BTW. I designed and built a smartwatch using the same platform. Too bad I killed it during a 5 ATM water resistance test.
Hi Lokifish, again useful details and feedback.
You are right, a nice and decent band is probably available on AliExpress for less than 20 bucks, but we made our with a different manufacturer and for the first batch we ended up with a cost of 28$.
This is another reason why we want to get this project into the community, to get feedback and suggestions from people that faced these problems before us.
About OLIO, of course they used high quality materials, a nice design, but I personally disagree about the ROM and UX choices (but this is my personal feeling). The point for me it's about the price. Pebble manufacturer their watch for 18$ and sell it for almost 199$, now dropped to 149$ if I am not wrong.
We are a startup and we will probably endup in some incubators or crowdfunding website in order to start the mass production. Probably the price will be around 199$ on retail but again, the prices and costs we are facing are a bit different than the one faced by watchmakers that have been on the market for many years.
What we believe is different between OXY and the rest of the world is the community, we want to make an open product, we want to make the customer capable to install custom ROM, customize the body and more. This is where we see the added value that other watch makers do not have at the moment.
@Lokifish Marz - thanks for the reply and pointing out OXY ... I feel like there's ... just a little hope ... maybe
@raffaeu - please take into account Lokifish Marz's advice, he will be very valuable to you, from a historical, current & future point of view. You'll save a lot of time and effort.
There are only a few people in the world that can make a decent, let alone a 'good smartwatch', due to greed/profit, but it can be done with the right goals and vision. Always know your history! Courtesy to the Martian ... again
I'm not a techy as such, but an important aspect of a good product is the non-functional business aspects, how to make a robust watch and then marketing, communication, support, together with making a little profit of course. Techies alone can't do this (no offense). Out of desperation we started the Nowt Watch thread, please have read, some very interesting discussion. No doubt you're at a stage where you can't go back with your current products, but we can always better our understanding and add to our knowledge and experiences.
I purchased an Omate clone recently (I had to get it out of my system), some of the non-techy issues, charging it - a pain! Straps - awful! A companion watch, should still be like a stand-alone watch first, meaning, above all its a robust time-piece that many can/would use without a phone as maybe a sports and leisure watch.
I'm curious, what does OXY mean? You have my support if you want it. I used to be a software tester, as well as marketing, strategy, process ... all that boring important stuff. Good luck
@Lokifish Marz has some interesting articles and idea that we are taking into consideration. Our primary targets are:
make an open source product
build a brand and trust from the community
make a real watch, solid, durable and with style
We designed OXY to being able to run with a phone and without, in fact without the battery stay charged for almost 1 week. Secondly is the charger which is magnetic, so that our customers are not having the frustration of the USB cable pain.
We are here to get feedback, idea and of course help. Anybody is welcome to join us, we are also hiring so anything is possible. Of course we are a startup so we still need to pay salaries and bills but we are not willing to become rich but we are willing to build a trusted brand for IoT products and more precisely for smartwatch. I always say that OXY is a mission for me and not a company.
OXY is an acronym for oxygen, something that you need and that's required to humans to live.
Feel free to contact me @simple1i and we can discuss further our project. In the meantime I'll have a look at your links.
Oh I see Oxy. I do like the name Horology, that's what all good (smart)watch lovers are, there's an idea for a name of a smartwatch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you decided to used Android because it's the cheaper/faster (way to get it up and ready) option? Do you have Playstore on the OXY? Google can be very awkward about this.
Listening to the tech' community is a good thing, but for a 'fine dining' watch the experts are few, you need the Horologists, the real trick to to know what opinions to take on and what to discard. Then its a matter of goods ideas/functions vs costs. This might be a tough one to address, but the OXY needs to be either better then the Moto 360 2's (rumoured specs) or similar with a lower cost. So far I'm impressed. I am waiting to see what Pebbles does with the I/O port on the back of their watch, what hardware add-ons will they come up with? A good future proof strategy for them to expand functionality.
I'll be in touch.
@simple1i it was not easy, we had to search for conflicts with other trademarks, copyright and we also needed something simple to pronounce considering that our product will be sold worldwide. OXY sound easy but it is still a nice sound to pronounce
Our PCB is an extension of Ingenic Newton2. We had to modify the plug for the display because the original one was not enough for round and square displays plus we added an heart rate, a vibration motor a different Bluetooth and a Lipo battery of 400mAh. We changed the USB port and overall we came up with the cheapest but more flexible solution.
Why? Because we have a public AOSP for Android 4.4 and Linux which means that our product can fit any development configuration without any license problems. Just use git, download our AOSP and create your own smartwatch.
Google play will be added later, as I said our goal is to provide an open platform with a default set of apps but without any license or warranty limit. Our license and warranty will cover only the hardware, about the software our customers will be able to fully customize the product.
For sure v1 won't be perfect, for sure we will need time to build up a community but based on the fact that we have an AOSP on git, that you can easily make custom apps with Android studio and that our price range will be lower than other android smartwatches, I think and hope that our product will be well known very soon.
Finally, we will run a crowdfunding but our mass production is already set. A big, big advantage compared to other crowdfunding campaigns
Unless Google has retroactively changed a number of things and not published it, official Google Services support (certification, service framework, Play Store, etc) is a no go. A couple of smartwatch manufacturers found out the hard way, one of which made it into tech news because of it. That's just one of many sites that covered it and I was working directly with Omate at the time this happened. The only smartwatches with official support run Wear, which requires partnership status.
Here's a good place to start
@Lokifish Marz partnership status is a no go. Also Pebble tried somehow to have a sort of partnership with Google, even if Pebble does not run Android at all, but they go a big no. Regarding Android WEAR, we have submitted in June 2 requests including draw, project details, hardware details and more and we never got an answer from anybody. We know that our OXY can run Android WEAR, we also took apart the SDK of Android WEAR to see how it works and at the end we choose to stay Open Source and give up on Google WEAR for now. Then in the future anything can happen, we are totally open to any conversation but our mission is to make an Open Source Smartwatch, so having a smartwatch locked down by Android WEAR .apk is not our business model right now. The giant Samsung has left Android WEAR and also OLIO did not even approach Google at all. Why? Probably because Google is taking some business decisions that cannot fit all watchmakers out there right now.
About Google Play, that's a different story. Our current hardware is better than Asus Zenwatch and the Moto 360 v1.0, the only limit for Google Play is the resolution. Our Round watch has a resolution of 400x400 while the squared has a resolution of 320x320 and we are using the same displays manufacturers used by LG and ASUS. But again, when you talk about smartwatch, you open a Pandora Box. It is the new business for any manufacturer, Forbes announced an estimation of over 30 billion dollars business between now and 2020.
But again, we can manually install Google Play and it just works fine, so what's the point here? We need first to create a community, distribute our product with a basic ROM so that users can receive notifications, phone calls, download and create watchfaces and all the things you want to achieve with a smartwatch. We have already setup an Azure play store where any developer can grab our SDK and our Genymotion virtual image, create apps and distribute them via our Cloud.
Then, probably next year, we will see how the things go and we will be able to present again a request to Google for both, Android WEAR and Google Play.
Again, I have spent now almost 1 year in R&D and I feel confident that Android WEAR is a closed business. You must be a big firm otherwise is a no go for now. About Google Play I am more positive but only time will say. For now we are focused on our website and marketing campaign, building a community and customizing our existing ROM and SDK. Btw, if you look at the potentialities of OXY, we have already a more powerful product in terms of frameworks and hardware, than a Pebble, which has sold more than 1,---,--- pieces between 2012 and 2015. We also got a conversation with Cyanogen which gave us a go to customize Cyanogen for OXY but at this point is worth to have our own Open Source Android version and move from there with the help of the community.
I get the issues with Wear and Google, I've been there multiple times. I also agree that open source is needed for the development community. The issue with not having Google Services support (Play Store) on an Android based smartwatch is that a fully stocked app store needs to be in place and filled with all big names like Facebook, EAT24 and the like and properly formatted to the display/UI/UX. If not, it severely limits your customer base. That's why many of the Chinese based smartwatches have had a hard time getting traction.
Now if you have a long haul plan that brings in average Joe smartwatch and watch buyer on, lets say, v.2 that's great. Keep in mind that after the multitude of less than stellar attempts by others, both xda and G+ can be very unforgiving. Especially if crowdfunding is involved.
This is starting to get into areas where private conversation may be justified so lets table this until after you make a decision. Then we can pick it up elsewhere.
@Lokifish Marz you got the point and probably you got it because you have been there before us. The only big difference thing is that we want to build a smartwatch, I don't think it would be of any use having a squeezed Facebook or Google+ app on your 400 pixels smartwatch. We are focusing on other criteria.
Motion track so that you don't have to press a button to view the time, real time notifications that when received turn on the display and show the notifications on top of the watch and many other watch oriented functionalities. V1 will give to crowdfunders a working "companion", a smartwatch that is a smartwatch, a companion app that can download .apk and install them and a decent SDK that allows developer to create custom apps and watchfaces or customize existing functionalities.
I am open to have a nice conversation with you guys. This month I'll visit China and Taiwan soon, where we are manufacturing the watches but it would be nice to setup a private call/chat for when I'll be back. Probably you know better than anybody else other members of XDA that may be seriously interested and involved in the project.
Update
We are preparing some VMs on Azure running Ubuntu LT12 with our Android AOSP source code.
Right now we have 3 versions for the AOSP: Android Square watch, Android Round watch, Ubuntu Touch.
Compilation is quite easy, for Android is something like:
./build/smk.sh --preset=oxy_v11_wisesquare_iwop
./build/smk.sh --preset=oxy_v11_naturalround_iwop
Next step for us is to host the whole repository over a public Git and distribute the Ubuntu VM so that anybody can start to download the VMs (already synchronized) and contribute. As soon as everything is ready I will open a different thread and start to have private conversations with the people interested in the OXY project.
Re: Ingenic Newton2 - (someone made this point) you can buy the Newton1 or Newton2 as a devkit, but you cannot buy the modules wholesale. So this isn't truly a SoM - it isn't meant to buy off the shelf and integrate into a product. It's meant to be a reference design that you can either copy, or tweak, or modify in to suit.
In other words, with Newton, you're still going to need to have someone manufacture and assemble PCBs, and it'll require a normal (and expensive, unpleasant) certification process. A true SoM would come pre-certified, making that process a lot easier (you still need to do a certification, but one one that's much less rigorous and costs a lot less)?
simple1i said:
Re: Ingenic Newton2 - (someone made this point) you can buy the Newton1 or Newton2 as a devkit, but you cannot buy the modules wholesale. So this isn't truly a SoM - it isn't meant to buy off the shelf and integrate into a product. It's meant to be a reference design that you can either copy, or tweak, or modify in to suit.
In other words, with Newton, you're still going to need to have someone manufacture and assemble PCBs, and it'll require a normal (and expensive, unpleasant) certification process. A true SoM would come pre-certified, making that process a lot easier (you still need to do a certification, but one one that's much less rigorous and costs a lot less)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@simple1i You got the point. We bought Newton2 and made our watch using 3D print. Later we joined IWOP (Ingenic Watch Open Platform) which is a custom version of Android but more powerful than WEAR and better designed. At that point Ingenic gave us access to resources that are absolutely not available to private, so you can purchase the Newton2 dev kit but you cannot go far without their IWOP platform.
After that, we joined a partnership with two manufacturers, which are partners of Ingenic, and start to built our PCB and changed the Display (the display of Newton2 kit sucks, it has only 130 DPI).
About certifications, there are two phases. First you need to be sure that your PCB is ready for mass production, second, when the smartwatch is ready, you have to make IFC and CE at minimum, depending on where you want to sell. And this is the most painful part cause especially for CE, the process is long and full of obstacles. Consider that products like Pebble or other crowdfunded watches were shipped without any certification cause they were T2 prototypes expressly produced for the crowdfund campaign.
It looks like a nice piece of kit - in fact I love the design, it actually looks like a watch! Unfortunately, I'm not really sold on the idea of buying a 'smart' device where there's a very good chance of there being zero app development. Android Wear is rubbish right now (and of course, as you say, is a closed platform which creates big issues for us 'experimental' types and smaller organisations like yours trying to bring a device to market) but at least it's a group of companies working towards a common goal - in my mind that's far more likely to foster a community of developers than yet another smartwatch platform with a small userbase which will depend on yet another third party companion app and the headaches that creates with ongoing OS updates and trying to properly handle notifications and other interactions with the host device. I love the Pebble platform and larger ecosystem - I find the hardware and usage model vastly preferable to Wear (passively lit displays and buttons vs backlit displays and touchscreens, though I prefer the black and white ones, the Time lacks the contrast that makes the OG so easy to use AS A WATCH.) but they're odd looking devices which are 'obviously' not normal watches (not that I care, but I guess most people do) and the companion app has serious issues - they tend to get fixed fairly promptly but other app updates cause new issues pretty frequently - I still can't figure out how to stop it giving me notifications from the GMail app twice... What makes you think you could even do as well as a company who easily garners the kind of support they do on Kickstarter (and hence probably has a sizeable budget for a development team)?
Azurael said:
What makes you think you could even do as well as a company who easily garners the kind of support they do on Kickstarter (and hence probably has a sizeable budget for a development team)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Azurael you make a good point here.
I do not want to talk about WEAR because it's obvious that WEAR is the biggest market so far, but only because Google is pushing really hard to get tons of Watchfaces and Apps available for their platform. Also, comparing ourself to WEAR will sound very arrogant. We will never be able to become big like Google WEAR community and this is not the mission of OXY.
About Pebble, if you look at their backlog, most of the incoming releases have bug fixes and enhancements of the Firmware. And this is after almost 4 years (Pebble started in 2012). They sold their crowdfunding watch made of plastic, without heart rate, without AMOLED touch display and without microphone or speakers (1 version of pebble) for a range between 99$ and 149$. We will sell OXY for 199$ in PRE-SALE, and in my opinion that's a great deal compared to the hardware of the Pebble.
So, on our side we played the "partnership role" with Ingenic Semiconductor. Ingenic has developed an entire platform on top of Android AOSP called IWOP (Ingenic Wearable Open Platform). It is a set of APIs that allows you to achieve exactly the same results of WEAR but even more. It is designed specifically for Ingenic Hardware so it uses less energy, it is bug free because the hardware is tested and provided by Ingenic (so no issues with multiple smartwatches vendors) and it is already largely adopted in Asia. The advantage is that behind us there is a big hardware company which supplies already thousands of pieces to Chinese manufacturers, so it is in their interest to keep the platform up to date and bug free.
Of course we lack on apps, this is the only problem of OXY and I am totally aware of, but I am not worry about it. When Pebble came out, and same applies for WEAR, there were almost no apps or watchfaces available. After a couple of years of adoption the marketplace became bigger and bigger and now the two platforms are well known. Compared to Apple Watch, our SDK is way more powerful and more developer friendly.
We will play the same strategy here, except that we have already commissioned almost 100 apps to an external Software House in order to have a pre-set of free apps available on our platform as soon as we will be out with our PRE-SALE campaign. Than, we will start our "developer program" which will grant to each developer a free OXY smartwatch and access to all our documentation and articles. In addition to Pebble or WEAR with OXY you can also create your own ROM, your own Home Launcher and customize even the kernel. I am sure that many developers will be happy to put their hands on such a platform and get a smartwatch for free.
We have already discussed with Ingenic this topic and they are eager to expose their platform to the US/EU market, considering also that we will be the first company selling MIPS architecture in EU and US I feel confident that the gap about the lack of apps will be covered soon.
On the business plan, we will probably feed the platform for 2015/2016, so a low margin of profit will be generated but again this is not our plan (to generate money) but to make an open platform for smart devices. I think that it's important for us to explain exactly our mission in order to get the right amount of followers. Plus a bit of "viral marketing" would be beneficial too
Hardware talk
On the hardware side, could you have added more sensors if there was a need for them? And are any disadvantages for adding lots of extras sensors, like power consumption, over heating or less space to work on the PCB? Of course for every sensor you need an app for it.
Others might disagree with this view, that sensors make a device comes alive, the watch can sense more about its environment, just like a living thing. Also with the open source OS and SDK devs can make use of more of the sensors, making the watch a multi purpose device. I was hoping for a compass, it's one of those things that many won't use but like the idea of having it, just like a Swiss Army knife.
A barometer with a compass and heart rate monitor, could appeal to the sportsman. The Suunto watch gives nice weather icons to a good degree of accuracy. At least there enough sensors for the development of an app that can detect if the watch is being worn or not to stop certain functions like notifications and maybe even put the watch to sleep to save battery or have it on 'bedtime' mode.
Another advantage of having lots of sensors is that it makes the watch more of a stand-alone device.
If you talk about the Newton2 development kit the short answer is no, the long answer is yes, but with some re-design. We had to re-design the PCB of the Newton2 because we added an extra BlueTooth for iOS, an Heart rate sensor, a vibrating motor, a microphone and 5 speakers. Plus we re-designed the USB charge which is an extra PCB in the Newton2, while on our watch is into the same PCB.
Finally, the biggest and most complicated step is about the display. Newton2 use an MIPI interface specifically designed for their display, so in order to fit a Round and Square display from commercial companies like AMOLED Corp you have two options:
Make two PCB with two different MIPI, one per Display
Modify the displays MIPI to fit the same plug and play mechanism
We did not put a Baromoter because it is not easy to find a good provider and it does not deal well into mini PCB. About the GPS, we had one but we removed because it is absolutely battery drainer. If you run 3-4 hours with your GPS on the watch will end up without battery, while capturing the GPS from your Phone and streaming the amount of mt into the Watch app is way easier in terms of power consumption.
All weather apps that you see on Smartwatches are not using an internal barometer but they simply get weather conditions from a public HTTP API and stream the result into the Watch from your Phone.
What we have in additional is the WiFi so that you can run the watch in autonomous way, for example OXY can detect if you have internet on your watch, if don't then it grabs info from the internet of your Phone.
You can get fancy with sensors, we would to introduce in the future V2 more health sensors but it is early right now and you still have to deal with minimal space, each mm count.