[kwlug-disc] Google purchases Motorola (Mobile)?

unsolicited unsolicited at swiz.ca
Thu Aug 18 15:43:16 EDT 2011

Khalid Baheyeldin wrote, On 08/18/2011 2:52 PM:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:22 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>> Today's Android phones ... is the OS truly multi-tasking / pre-emptive?
> They are Linux, so true multi tasking.

Not so, based on what I've read. OR, the reading I did I didn't pay 
close enough attention to to distinguish pre-emptive from multi-tasking.

In some ways, splitting hairs (talking of multi-tasking). But important.

For example, the Palm, as I understand it, does not multi-task. But it 
can hold multiple tasks in various states. Then rotate among them, 
given appropriately behaved apps. (Let alone signals, etc.) Task 
switching is not multi-tasking.

Multiple tasks do not simultaneously run. (Back to splitting hairs, 
nothing actual runs multiple tasks simultaneously, it just switches 
between them REALLY fast.)

The key, on Palm, is that it is not pre-emptive - the OS can not yank 
control back from an app.

The problem is very apparent on Palm. I will never go back to 
non-pre-emptive if I can possibly avoid it.

>> If not, will such benefit of QNX brought to the RIM handsets be ... market
>> changing?
>> If so, and such benefits accrue significantly to Android on RIM, will RIM's
>> handsets not be something to keep a very close eye on?
>>From an end user point of view, and even a developer, I think these are the
> wrong questions, since they focus on a few narrow technical aspects only.

Not so. Pre-emptiveness has a long history of being very important, 
and have significant impact upon the user experience.

If you put two things in front of me, one preemptive, one not, I'll 
take the preemptive one every time - even if it costs (some) more.

And every user I've ever talked to wherein I've been able to 
demonstrate the issue, has agreed.

Besides - otherwise, why buy QNX?

> What really matters is the size and how dynamic is the ecosystem.

In theory, RIM will be tapping into whatever Android ecosystem there is.

It matters the user experience of running those apps, which is 
depending upon such aspects as multi-tasking and preemption.

> Hands down, Android has a far superior ecosystem than Blackberry. There are
> hundreds of thousands of apps (available in the market, most of them free,
> many at a reasonable cost), no need for expensive development platform or
> licenses (Eclipse and free downlaod of SDK), and a myriad of handsets with
> different features.

Yes, but, at least in theory, RIM will be Android. No?

So the question, all things being Android, will be why buy RIM Android 
instead of some other Android. Including Google/Motorola Android. 
[Which I'm not sure I would trust, and would probably choose any 
non-Motorola Android, because of that.]

> Apple has a similar sized ecosystem, or even larger, but only on their own
> handsets, and only via they own app store. You can't have an iPhone with a
> physical keyboard since Steve Jobs decided for you that it is not good.

Yes. Known. Google -> Android -> RIM -> QNX. Impact thereof?

So, I'll accept your point, that all are multi-tasking. From googling 
around not long ago, and I forget what / where, Android and iPhone 
both multi-task, but accomplish it in different ways / approaches. And 
neither, IIRC, are pre-emptive. Both have pros and cons.

Pre-emption is important.

Thus, my question / speculation, that RIM Android, running QNX, may be 
significant (competitive advantage). If it's pre-emptive - which I 
don't know.

More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list