My ideas for changes to the way apps work.

[hakmanplayer]

I won't be supporting the repo spec because I wrote and made a spec for updates over a year ago with Pandora apps. That's the one I'll be using as it's solid and works.


Almost all the messages in this thread are writting from a dev point of view. Take the dev hat off. Casual games don't care about your repo spec, they just want a way to download apps and have them work, ideally from a SINGLE repo, Pandora apps, which has been online and working for over a year.


Now I believe they need a beautiful apple-style GUI which does everything for them, and thus the Pandora 'just works'.


This may mean hacks to emulators and such, but I'm quite confident it can all be done neat and tidy.


Of course you're free to use whatever you like, and since the people reading this thread are mostly developers you will probably never need my GUI anyway, but I'm not thinking about you, I'm thinking about the people who are now returning their $500 Pandora consoles because they 'can't make it work'.


That, to me, tells me things have to change. No compromises, huge changes.

Ups. Yes, there are.


ED, could you refund my donation please?

I don't think a lot of you people want this machine to become popular and widespread because then you loose your self anointed importance!!!!

 

[WizardStan]

I won't be supporting the repo spec because I wrote and made a spec for updates over a year ago with Pandora apps. That's the one I'll be using as it's solid and works.

If you had such a spec, why didn't you present it when people from the forum were discussing ways to improve the experience for the user?

Almost all the messages in this thread are writting from a dev point of view. Take the dev hat off. Casual games don't care about your repo spec, they just want a way to download apps and have them work, ideally from a SINGLE repo, Pandora apps, which has been online and working for over a year.

No, that is not how it works. Casual gamers don't care about repo specs because they don't need to see it. A well designed spec will be completely invisible to them. No one really cares whether a website uses MySQL or Oracle for it's database, it just needs to store my data and bring it back when I ask for it, and if it does that it works. But to the developer, there are benefits, choosing one over the other makes it easier to do certain things which will actually make the end user experience better. You are thinking about the end user only, while those developing the repo spec are thinking about both the end user and the developers who will be enhancing it.


If you implement the repo spec (or even present your own shared communication solution and convince people it is superior) then not only will Johnny Apple be able to use your AppStore and it will just work exactly the way you think it should for them, but it also gives them the choice of browsing to another repository using your frontend, or visiting another frontend that they may prefer and still being able to access the apps that have been uploaded to the AppStore.


You say the average consumer doesn't care about the repo spec, but they will start caring if you tell them the reason they can't get SuperDuperGame++ is because it was uploaded to a different repository and you chose not to implement the standard communication specification.

That, to me, tells me things have to change. No compromises, huge changes.

Everything is compromise, Craig. You have to give up something to get something. Your ideas give up freedom of choice in favour of complete control. I don't like that, not when there's no reason to maintain such a tight control.

 

[hakmanplayer]

This is a business first and foremost. Ideals are fine but cash is what matters in the long run.


The Pandora will be for the guy/ girl that wants to press a button and "whooop there it is, whooop there it is!" and the tech savoy developer who wants to tinker and contribute.


Have it your way = Murder King.

 

[Caine]

Almost all the messages in this thread are writting from a dev point of view.

Naturally. We are talking about software development as this is the development section.

Casual games don't care about your repo spec, they just want a way to download apps and have them work, ideally from a SINGLE repo, Pandora apps, which has been online and working for over a year.

Understandable, but that is a front-end matter. Nobody is arguing that the front-end is optimal or that it wouldn't benefit from improvement. So far the majority of the work seems to have gone to getting a proper back-end setup. Time to improve the front-end. You're absolutely right about that.

Now I believe they need a beautiful apple-style GUI which does everything for them, and thus the Pandora 'just works'.

This may mean hacks to emulators and such, but I'm quite confident it can all be done neat and tidy.

And this needs good standards, interfaces and protocols such that it can be built into applications. The REPO spec is one example of such a standard to realizing a solid back-end.


Many argue it would be a valid protocol to utilize as back-end mechanism which you can utilize to build your fancy apple-style GUI. You seem to disagree, so please indicate what is missing and why it does not suffice such that it can be improved.

but I'm not thinking about you, I'm thinking about the people who are now returning their $500 Pandora consoles because they 'can't make it work'.

Everyone is. Your main point so far seems to be a single-click install. I would imagine a change to the front-end not unlike apps.openpandora.org which allows users to browse categories, shows images of applications with their descriptions, ratings and perhaps user comments. In the back it can utilize the REPO spec (or some similar standard) just like the PNDstore does.


In a way this is similar to the difference between the ubuntu software center vs synaptic. Both of them rely on aptitude/apt-get.


On the emulator side I have similar ideas. I'm currently thinking about an interface/protocol to externalize rendering of emulator menus from the emulator itself altogether. If such an interface would be supported, a generic and uniform interface can be developed which fits with the actual environment (CraigLauncher, Minimenu or XFCE) being utilized.


My longer term goal is still to incorporate all of these ideas into XBMC which would present a simple, uniform interface with large touchscreen targets to end-users.

 

[Scntrblob]

I won't be supporting the repo spec because I wrote and made a spec for updates over a year ago with Pandora apps. That's the one I'll be using as it's solid and works.


Almost all the messages in this thread are writting from a dev point of view. Take the dev hat off. Casual games don't care about your repo spec, they just want a way to download apps and have them work, ideally from a SINGLE repo, Pandora apps, which has been online and working for over a year.


Now I believe they need a beautiful apple-style GUI which does everything for them, and thus the Pandora 'just works'.


This may mean hacks to emulators and such, but I'm quite confident it can all be done neat and tidy.


Of course you're free to use whatever you like, and since the people reading this thread are mostly developers you will probably never need my GUI anyway, but I'm not thinking about you, I'm thinking about the people who are now returning their $500 Pandora consoles because they 'can't make it work'.


That, to me, tells me things have to change. No compromises, huge changes.

I wish you much luck and hope you succeed. Really, I do. Because you won't if you don't come up with something that is better than what we have now and if you really create something superior everythings fine.


Anyway, I think you won't.


...or there is a complete different community that doesn't use the forums but prefers apps.openpandora.org and didn't vote here:


The train has left, hasn't it?

 

[Caine]

This is a business first and foremost. Ideals are fine but cash is what matters in the long run.


The Pandora will be for the guy/ girl that wants to press a button and "whooop there it is, whooop there it is!" and the tech savoy developer who wants to tinker and contribute.


Have it your way = Murder King.

Except that we don't have any standard development environment, no GUI guidelines, no standard key-bindings. The majority of software consists of ports of desktop software without involvement of the original authors. You can't expect all that to work in a unified way out of the box. The unified vision is good (although ill defined as well at this time), but no matter what hat you wear while looking at it, it will require a LOT of development.


We need to formulate the vision. Make proper specifications and develop the software together or it won't happen.

 

[EvilDragon]

The Pandora is primarily a gaming console. Not all gamers [at least un the USA] know or even have herd of emulation,ROMS, etc.,. The Pandora is 'user friendly' for tech savoy people like yourself.


The problem is people like you cannot see past their ball sacks to see the other half ; the not so tech savoy.

We all agree that the Pandora has to become more userfriendly, that's for sure, but there are various ways of doing this.


Right now, various devs spent months just thinking about the specs and defining them, which opens the path to MAKE the Pandora more userfriendly.


The approach I (and multiple devs took) are:


1. Think about what would be great and nice. We thought a simple system similar to modern phones (like iPhone) where you can simply click on an app to install it or get a description, screenshot, etc. and work yourself through different categories would be ideal. This is our goal. (DONE)


2. Define all the needed specs to reach that goal - but in a way to keep them flexible. If in the near future more options and features are needed, the old stuff needs to stay compatible. This is what we did. (DONE)


3. Start coding the BACKEND. The backend it the techy part: It does ALL the communication between the repo and the software on the Pandora. It is there to handle all the basic functions, this has nothing to do with the user. (MOSTLY DONE)


4. Then work on the FRONTEND. The frontend is basically what the END USER will use. It's the UI. It will use the functions of the backend to get all the needed information and handle the functions for the user in a user friendly way (i.e. like on the iPhone, the Appstore program you rung). (BASIC WORK HAS STARTED, BUT IT'S NOT PRETTY YET)


The advantages of doing it like this are the following:


* Devs can easily use the backend and code a new frontend (GUI). So it's possible to quickly code various tools to install software, with different features and looks. As long as it uses the backend or follows the specs, it will work without any problems.


* Multiple sources are easily possible (like with Ubuntu). If someone wants to offer special packages, he can create a website following the defined specs and everyone on the Pandora could use their favourite frontend to install or update the stuff from there as well


* As defined specs are flexible, the whole system is future proof. Adding new stuff without breaking old things is possible.


* Everything is documented. Any dev can work on it. If some devs leave the scene, others can continue. As long as their stuff follows the specs, it will just work.


The disadvantages of doing it like this are:


* It takes a while. You need to carefully think about what you're doing and write that stuff down, so others can collaborate or continue to work on stuff someone left.


* Specs can be a bit complicated. The more features you include, the more complicated it becomes.


Right now, the status we are in is:


Steps 1 - 3 are pretty much done. The backend is getting some tweaks here and there, but it works.


Step 4 is currently being done. PNDStore exists which can automatically install and update programs directly on a Pandora which is connected to the net without any knowledge.


All you need to do is select the game you want to install, click on "INSTALL" and that's it.


It's not yet pretty, but the basic interface is working without any issues.


So the only one missing in this whole thing is a nice looking UI.


The one we have is fully functional and it couldn't be any simpler (Select game, INSTALL or REMOVE. Or choose to UPDATE all apps. That's it. Simple as that).


Other things to make the Pandora more user friendly are:


* Create a nice Tutorial which should be on the main website - as well as an optional quick tutorial on the unit itself (both being worked on).


* Solve the issue with datafiles... some games or emulators need datafiles. Those can't be delivered WITH the games, they need to be installed by the user. How to make this easier is something we currently are discussing.


So the most important step for us was the defining of the specs. If they are good, everything coded around them is compatible and just works.


This is being used in Linux desktops, for example:


If you are a Linux user, you might know there are different GUIs: KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc.


You can select whatever GUI you want on your PC, you will always have all your apps and programs in the startmenu.


This is because there are standard specs (FreeDesktop).


If one of those GUIs did implement their own specs, then either this GUI wouldn't show all apps or the other GUIs wouldn't show all apps.


Whatever would happen, the user wouldn't just understand where his apps have gone. They wouldn't appear in the menu.


Now Craig chooses his own way. He plans on redoing it completely new.


This is not a bad thing, if he comes up with something that works way better then what we have here, I'm sure no one would mind using it.


Time will tell what the users want and what will be more userfriendly.


He plans to keep it as simple as possible, also in the backend (no complex specs like we have).


This has the advantage that his code itself will be simpler and can be written faster.


However, it may lack features that may prove useful sometime in the future. But as we don't know if we ever need these features, this might be fine as well.


I think both ways are good - let's see what will work out for the users.


If Craig wants to try to improve it by doing his own GUI, then sure, why not? If it's better, great!


Anything that anyone does helps the other.


Craig mentioned some things regarding user friendlyness on this thread (i.e. standard rom paths, PNDs work in root folder as well) which we picked up and have either included them or are discussing about how to properly include them.

 

[Mr_Loon]

... ideally from a SINGLE repo ...

So if the Pandora users are overwhelmingly using Milkshakes Repository what then? Would you be able to make your front end deal with that?


Also, please publish details of your update spec, I'm sure it would be of great interest to the geekier end of the Pandora user base, please consider making things like this public in future, it could be of great benefit to the community.


As said before, all the best with your endeavours, but please don't take your eye off less glamorous but equally important aspects of the user experience, official website (esp. the ordering page), TV out cables, quality control etc.


My gut feel is that you should concentrate on your real market which is geeks & techies rather than IMHO a fictitious market where 'Casual Gamers' stump up $500 for a device like the Pandora. Plenty of my techie friends are interested in the Pandora, not one of my 'Casual Gamer' friends would pay anything like $500 for a Pandora, all they say is 'I could get an IPad 2 / Ipod Touch for that price'.

 

[craigix]

Well little do you realize not everyone has experience using emulators on a pc or dealing with linux for that matter.


Nobody has said he writes the emulators or he alone is responsible to make them more user friendly.

this is a niche console, yes it does what a pc does, pc's and macs/linux distros also dont make it any easier for emulators so why would the Pandora need to be any different?


you cannot say the pandora is not user friendly if the only real reason for that is not being able to get the gist of setting emulators up (being new to emulators and all this is to be expected).

The Pandora is primarily a gaming console. Not all gamers [at least un the USA] know or even have herd of emulation,ROMS, etc.,. The Pandora is 'user friendly' for tech savoy people like yourself.


The problem is people like you cannot see past their ball sacks to see the other half ; the not so tech savoy.

Unfortunately I think you're right, some people here would have us go tits up rather than actually allowing huge changes to the way the Pandora works.


Although I keep saying that it's an open system and they DON'T HAVE TO USE MY GUI they just keep repeating the same old moaning.


Yet it is me that has to make this work AS A BUSINESS, and when people start sending their Pandora back because they can't understand the software on it things have to change very very quickly.


For some reason some people just cannot think outside their devbox, here is an idea, give your Pandora to your Gran, ask her to try to use it.


See what happens.


Now speak to her and ask her the things it could have done to help the experience along.


Now you're starting to get somewhere.


(note that she won't be mentioning repo specs)


This whole thread is a perfect example of why open source will never defeat Apple, MS etc. your priorities with software are in the wrong place.

 

[WizardStan]

Unfortunately I think you're right, some people here would have us go tits up rather than actually allowing huge changes to the way the Pandora works.

Or, more likely, they want the Pandora to succeed and want to make sure a solid ground work is laid, and seeing you toss aside that ground work because "you know better" is extremely disheartening, and then to suggest that anyone that disagrees with you only does it because they want to see you fail is even more so.

For some reason some people just cannot think outside their devbox, here is an idea, give your Pandora to your Gran, ask her to try to use it.

Here's another idea: LISTEN TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING INSTEAD OF MAKING UP YOUR OWN STORIES ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WANT TO CRUCIFY YOU!

(note that she won't be mentioning repo specs)

And when I asked my mom how she wanted her website to behave, she just said she wanted it to remember people when they came back. I obviously should therefore NOT waste time debating the pros and cons of cookies vs a database because she didn't mention those, I should just hack something together and hope everything works and that her requirements won't change at all.


Because there's obviously only one way to do something ever.


Jesus Christ Craig, you have no idea how angry this whole martyr thing you're trying to pull is making me, and there's nothing I can do to prove otherwise. If I voice my displeasure by pulling my dev donation, or taking apps off your official site and vowing not to upload anything ever again, then you can simply use that as "proof" that I'm out to make you fail, which is the exact opposite of true.


All I can do is tell you that you are not God. You are not perfect. Your idea could be great, and maybe it would have been 6 months ago before the community went ahead and started implementing their own solutions, and months from now it could very well be too late.


Here's another thing: how can you be talking about standardizing emulators and then complain when people try to standardize the way they get those emulators?


And to cut you off, no you aren't trying to standardize, you are trying to dictate. This is you being Microsoft telling the standards comity how it will be and then getting upset because they're even thinking of discussing something else.

 

[bzar]

I nominate ED for the most informative post of the month.

 

[double7]

I don't think a lot of you people want this machine to become popular and widespread because then you loose your self anointed importance!!!!

If i understood you corrcet, then no, there is another reason.


My understanding was that the pandora will be a open source device. Open source basic is working together and sharing. That is what the devs are doing now with the repo specs.


Craig stated he will not support them, will not use their specs and he will do his own thing.


But as far as i understood craig will use their work, he will modify the emulators to make them fit better into his fruity system configuration. He will use them, but is not willing to give back.


That is in direct opposition to the open source spirit.


If it is a single dev who choose this way it would not be that important - but it's Craig himself, it's OpenPandora Ltd. which i see in duty for some kind of uniting and coordination of all the supporting developers. I thought, that's what this forum is for.


I would like to support the pandora, i did my donation before the premium pandoras came out and donated because of the critical situation that was published at that time and i knew i would never get any direct benefit of this donation, i just wanted to help the project to survive. Then the prempas came (premium pandoras) and i had to see that other "donators" upgraded and jumped the queue. It doesn't make me feel good, but i did what i can and i'm still waiting for my pandora.


I would not like to support Craig for the strict denial of working together.

I won't be supporting the repo spec because I wrote and made a spec for updates over a year ago with Pandora apps. That's the one I'll be using as it's solid and works.

We probably would be supporting your specs... if they were public 1 year ago...

This is a business first and foremost. Ideals are fine but cash is what matters in the long run.


The Pandora will be for the guy/ girl that wants to press a button and "whooop there it is, whooop there it is!" and the tech savoy developer who wants to tinker and contribute.

The tech savoy developers are scared away by Craigs canceling of the co-operation. I don't understand why craig isn't offering jobs to the existing developer team, they already know the pandora, they proved that they could make things run and he is wasting such a big potential that is a shame for a buisnessman.

 

[milkshake]

Unfortunately I think you're right, some people here would have us go tits up rather than actually allowing huge changes to the way the Pandora works.

Or, more likely, they want the Pandora to succeed and want to make sure a solid ground work is laid, and seeing you toss aside that ground work because "you know better" is extremely disheartening, and then to suggest that anyone that disagrees with you only does it because they want to see you fail is even more so.

For some reason some people just cannot think outside their devbox, here is an idea, give your Pandora to your Gran, ask her to try to use it.

Here's another idea: LISTEN TO WHAT WE ARE SAYING INSTEAD OF MAKING UP YOUR OWN STORIES ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WANT TO CRUCIFY YOU!

(note that she won't be mentioning repo specs)

And when I asked my mom how she wanted her website to behave, she just said she wanted it to remember people when they came back. I obviously should therefore NOT waste time debating the pros and cons of cookies vs a database because she didn't mention those, I should just hack something together and hope everything works and that her requirements won't change at all.


Because there's obviously only one way to do something ever.


Jesus Christ Craig, you have no idea how angry this whole martyr thing you're trying to pull is making me, and there's nothing I can do to prove otherwise. If I voice my displeasure by pulling my dev donation, or taking apps off your official site and vowing not to upload anything ever again, then you can simply use that as "proof" that I'm out to make you fail, which is the exact opposite of true.


All I can do is tell you that you are not God. You are not perfect. Your idea could be great, and maybe it would have been 6 months ago before the community went ahead and started implementing their own solutions, and months from now it could very well be too late.


Here's another thing: how can you be talking about standardizing emulators and then complain when people try to standardize the way they get those emulators?


And to cut you off, no you aren't trying to standardize, you are trying to dictate. This is you being Microsoft telling the standards comity how it will be and then getting upset because they're even thinking of discussing something else.

Well Said, I think you summed up the majority of the commuitys feelings and of course spoke total commen sense.


@ craig why do you keep repeating yourself, we already understsand things need to improve just telling us to stop talking about specs isnt going to help, we are creating specs etc so in future the general "rugular gamer" doesnt have to.


you do realise we are trying to achive the exact same thing!!!


The way you explain yuorself is that "you are" doing that but "we are" doing something else - this is NOT TRUE


its not COMMUNITY VS CRAIG, its more like GRAIG VS COMMUNITY.


just stop and think for ONE second, stop talking complete and utter dog shit, and talk to us we can help you and you can help us.

 

[Caine]

Craig, do I understand you correctly if I interpret your complaint as an objection to the priority currently assigned to the front-end? I.e. the community chooses to develop a solid and well designed solution and places focus on the back-end first before building the front-end whereas you want to hack together a front-end ASAP and will improve the back-end later on if required.


I understand such a point of view from the business perspective as users are harmed by the lack of a simple front-end right now. However, the back-end is about finished. Now is the time to build a front-end and not using the back-end to do so will only slow it down, not speed things up.

 

[skeezix]

I think the thread needs to stop, to die. Man


Craig is going one way; with good intentions. He wants to do it his way, and by doing so he is not saying everything else is shit, though thats the way it comes off from his mouth Conspiracy will suggest he wants demonic control end to end like Steve Jobs, but whatever, I dont' think thats it. He's got a lot of catching up to do, and he used to do lots of code, so maybe he just wants to get his hands dirty again. Fine and good


Choice is never bad, multiple options are good; fine, let him go. If he just did it silently and came out 5 months later with something working and nice, it'd be cool. ITs just that he put this thread together, and doesn't know how to say things without causing a mess, so stirs up trouble. (The implication that he is working to make his easy to use and has his own working update protocol implies that everyone else is working towards crap and has stuff that doesn't work; his protocol hasn't been seen and the community stuff _does_ work.) I dont' think he meant to suggest it, but thats what he did. Its just his way


(Yes, I'm trying to ease over this current crisis, I try to do that


--


Lets just leave it before it gets worse; Craig can make his own thing, maybe it'll be awesome; everyone else can work on something else. Its great, maybe someday it too will be awesome.


Its okay to have Burger King and McDonalds both, right?


Lets just try to stop pissing off every dev whose worked hard to build this thing, shall we?


--


Man, yet another nasty week of drama


jeff

 

[maiden]

So much rage...


I do not understand why people gets so angry.


what is the point in getting angry at what other people do on a open system?


If you do not like other peoples solutions, make your own.


Why are you getting angry at each other? I do not understand.. please explain why it is so frustrating that Craig makes his own "app manager".

 

[Pickle]

So much rage...


I do not understand why people gets so angry.


what is the point in getting angry at what other people do on a open system?


If you do not like other peoples solutions, make your own.


Why are you getting angry at each other? I do not understand.. please explain why it is so frustrating that Craig makes his own "app manager".

No one really has an issue with Craig doing his own thing.


But i think the frustrations are that developers working on the software distribution solution believe that they have or are going to have the vision that craig brought up in the beginning of this thread. I personally think the people working on the repo, store, etc has good thing going and are only going to get better. I dont really understand why craig is so opposed to these solutions, and why things need to be started from scratch?

 

[WizardStan]

Why are you getting angry at each other? I do not understand.. please explain why it is so frustrating that Craig makes his own "app manager".

As I've said, if Craig were just any other person making his own thing I don't think there'd be any problem. He'd make his thing and people would be free to use it or not as they see fit.


Craig isn't just any other person, though: he is the face and voice of OpenPandora. Whatever he comes up with will no doubt be implemented into the official App Store that he's been trying to promote. It will be the default repository that new users will be presented with. If it's not at least comparable to what the rest of the community comes up with to solve the same problem, these new users will be missing out.

 

[MarioPandio]

 

[Gerix]

tl;dr We should be using portage, and you know it!