xl tops out at 7, regular at 6
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Am I crazy to think that Switch will do worse than Wii U if it doesn't run Android?
- Thread starter Shogmaster
- Start date
xl tops out at 7, regular at 6
Muskieratboi
Member
You do realise that Sony's Phones run android, right? And most released in the last 3-4 years have support for PSNow, Remote Play, and even play some select PS1 titles Natively?
It didn't help sales of these devices at all, but they still have em.
OP is suggesting we go the other way.
Twilight Princess
Member
I only need a good browser and YouTube on the switch. Although if it can run android apps, it'd be great.
DerekOfTheDykes
Member
I mean, the social media wildfire, media coverage, and youtube trailer statistics should be enough to prove at a glance that the Switch is a very well communicated concept that is clicking with a large number of people. The idea that it is fundamentally flawed as a premise, or poorly communicated, or something that will fail even worse than the Wii U, is almost an indefensible position.
This isn't a thread about genuine concern for the Switch as a concept or its ability to find an audience for that concept, it's clearly devolved into an excuse to complain about it not having the Play Store even though people already have Smartphones that will win that battle for attention almost every time.
Playstation 4 does just fine as a dedicated gaming device without running Android or the Play Store, which is the point he was making. A game console is very different in purpose from a smartphone or tablet, so bringing up Sony's smartphones as evidence that Playstation actually needs Android is basically a non sequitur.
WiiU browser is really good - so we should be fine on that front.
LastCupOfSorrow
Banned
I thought we were talking about consoles only, my mistake.
345triangle
Member
this isn't true, or at least isn't any more. amazon used foxconn for the fire phone the year following that article, for example. also look at a zillion chinese OEMs that ship android-based phones without google services because the company doesn't operate in china.
AOSP is already out there, pandora's box has been opened, it's done. google can't do anything about it.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Yup, both the Wii U and N3DS browsers are superb. Slick, 60fps interfaces, great touch scrolling physics, support for HTML5 video, superb video controls, everything a modern browser should be on bespoke console hardware.
Didn't know that, thanks.
Still, there are another dozen reasons not to use Android, and for the reasons stated in the OP it really isn't worth it and would actually detract from the device than contribute to its appeal.
With great power comes great responsibility...
Android might sound like a great idea at first. Open, well established operating system, tons of app support etc..
But there are downsides. You have about one major revision a year, any special features of phones or tablets need drivers, to use Android as you do on phones in the first place, you probably have to have very much phone or tablet like hardware (can't see high end mobile cameras making their way into the Switch for example) and if you don't keep up with supporting the ever evolving OS and hardware, you're looking at a legacy Android after as little as two years. Which means sooner or later, apps won't run anymore, the shiny new featuers are not supported etc..
That's ok for todays phone ecosystem, where people tend to switch a phone about every two years. Doesn't sound like it's suited well to a system that's supposd to be sold and maintained for 6+ years, as you have it with consoles. Take up a 6 year old Android phone with the official latest firmware it received and try using it next to a recent one. Without very active support, it'll probably feel rather obsolete.
Android might sound like a great idea at first. Open, well established operating system, tons of app support etc..
But there are downsides. You have about one major revision a year, any special features of phones or tablets need drivers, to use Android as you do on phones in the first place, you probably have to have very much phone or tablet like hardware (can't see high end mobile cameras making their way into the Switch for example) and if you don't keep up with supporting the ever evolving OS and hardware, you're looking at a legacy Android after as little as two years. Which means sooner or later, apps won't run anymore, the shiny new featuers are not supported etc..
That's ok for todays phone ecosystem, where people tend to switch a phone about every two years. Doesn't sound like it's suited well to a system that's supposd to be sold and maintained for 6+ years, as you have it with consoles. Take up a 6 year old Android phone with the official latest firmware it received and try using it next to a recent one. Without very active support, it'll probably feel rather obsolete.
MoogleWizard
Member
Yes, you're insane.
Always-honest
Banned
This. Keep that filth away from my Nintendo.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Did some research and it is still true:
not Foxconn, it was a subsidary of Foxconn who built the phone for a subsidary of Amazon, thereby working around the OHA restrictions
They didn't really try to hide it, but they did the motions of some shell companies at least so they were maybe technically in the clear if you squinted enough.
D13Michael
Neo Member
If it'd run on Android Nintendo would indeed be crazy. Like insane. Like totally dumb. Not sure if the Switch is a great move or an instant fail - but with Android it'd be doomed right away.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Android supports Vulkan now. Should take care of that, no?
https://developer.android.com/about/versions/nougat/android-7.0.html#vulkan
EDIT: And Shield/Tegra already supports it as well: https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-android
Toadthemushroom
Member
Good reminder that Nintendo wouldn't just be ceding control over to Google, but Nvidia too. Nothing better for Nintendo than giving a competitor's platform (Shield) free games.
Pretty much.
Sniffynose
Member
It could have no features other than playing games and be fine, everyone has a fancy phone in their pocket now and doesn't need a second device to do those other things with.
Starting with the Droid X Moto phones werent so easy to hack unless it was designed to be more open.
I think HTC started locking their phones down tighter too. Its not days for all Android phones. Some are months and to get it fully cracked some took years or the OEM actually opening them up. Sony with the PS3 had a console that was kind of open, then cracked, then locked down then cracked again, and yet their Android phones are some of the most developer friendly with how open they make them. If they wanted to they could go the Moto route but choose not to.
Those thinking about Android as a bad idea or confusing ppl, I dont even know if many know the OS on the Fire is Android. Or that failed MS Nokia phone had Android.
Key thing is both are forked versions.
Like some have said , access to the apps is whats key not the OS itself. And could go along way for some to think about the Switch replacing their tablet or as their first tablet.
There is a reason MS is working more with Google with apps instead of trying to convince ppl to buy Win Mo. There is a reason BB setup their phones/OS to run Android apps. And thats what the OP is talking about.
I just hope Nintendo doesnt do what Sony did with the Vita and downplay to damn near omitting it could play mobile games, use mobile apps. Nintendo could have their own store like Amazon and the Vita does.
If anybody is thinking to replace their tablet with probably comparably low price game console, that's their problem. The tablet and phone market is a race to keep up or drive ever evolving OS versions and hardware standards with a yearly release cycle. High end hardware slowly starts to become obsolete after as little as two years and you're looking at devices guaranteed to be much more expensive than the Switch.
Why would Nintendo join in on that race against all the big players in that space, which have years of experrience there, established customer bases and a history of successful products, that focus an decidedly non-game related USP, e.g. stylus support or high end mobile cameras. For all their attempts to expand into the non gamer market with their consoles, Nintendo has always been about games. Not about the best calendar app, video chat, camera, photo editing, browser software navaigation app.
So it's not about running Android OS itself but running android apps on the Switch via the Google Play Store correct?
I don't see any reason why Nintendo would give away 30% of revenue on purchases they could be earning on the eShop by having Google take it from Nintendo by having the Play Store on the Switch.
Nintendo have had their own "apps" since the DSi, the Switch is not running on exotic hardware as some posters over the days and other threads seem to think that ARM is foreign to developers. Things will get ported to and be optimised for the Switch and be sold on the eShop.
Nintendo have had apps like Netflix since the Wii, and will probably get apps on the Switch just like Twitch on PS4/Xbox One etc. Nothing is going to make it difficult for those companies to port their apps over to the Switch unless the Switch bombs and becomes another Wii U.
It's highly questionable whether it's even going to come with support for mobile internet for starters. What use is Whatsapp & Co. withouth that?
Edit: While we're talking about general messaging functionality however, I agree. Nintendo needs to wake up and provide in-system and cross game chat and messaging functonality. Having to rely on second devices just to talk to friends while playing Mario Kart online with them is not where it's at today.
gingerbeardman
Member
I can't see myself buying it if it does run Android.
Already its doing better than the Wii U, for one thing everyone who seen the ad understood that its a new system and not an accessory. For second it is the only place to play new Nintendo games, the 3ds was imo Wii Us biggest competitor. Why buy a new more expensive device to play MK 8 when you have MK 7, M3DW when you have M3DL, Smash 4 when you have Smash 4 etc. Not saying it will do amazing or anything.
Good point. I wouldn't wanna pay for 4G just for Switch. Wi-fi, though.
SerTapTap
Member
Even as their most expensive portable ever, this is more or less arguing their new handheld will sell worse than their worst selling non-Virtual Boy home console. I simply don't see it.
I figure it's ARM at this point, so porting should be sorta easy, but I see no major advantage of running ACTUAL android beyond likely piracy and making porting complete garbage easier.
We don't even know if it's a touch screen. Android's entirely library could be almost completely worthless on it.
I figure it's ARM at this point, so porting should be sorta easy, but I see no major advantage of running ACTUAL android beyond likely piracy and making porting complete garbage easier.
We don't even know if it's a touch screen. Android's entirely library could be almost completely worthless on it.
i'm convinced that the switch will either A) run android apps/games in some capacity or B) have its SDK specifically designed to allow for very easy porting of ios/android apps/games to it, not so different from what Microsoft has done to try to entice app developers to port their stuff to the Windows app store.
I really think Nintendo is gunning for the ios/android market with the Switch in some shape or form. It's not quite a phone or a tablet, but it's trying to wedge itself into that market because the ecosystems are very lucrative, and the hardware design and use scenarios of the Switch line up very well with tablet/phone users. I think Nintendo will try to emulate them as best as it can.
I really think Nintendo is gunning for the ios/android market with the Switch in some shape or form. It's not quite a phone or a tablet, but it's trying to wedge itself into that market because the ecosystems are very lucrative, and the hardware design and use scenarios of the Switch line up very well with tablet/phone users. I think Nintendo will try to emulate them as best as it can.
And Switch being powered by Nvidia Tegra makes very possible that there are some good tools for that.
You seriously think they'll drop certain games from the digital market only sell the the cart version? You're crazy. And games on carts hasn't stopped pirates.
exactly. the most thrilling of this deal is Nvidia doing APIs (and tools?)
Wafflecakes
Member
No thanks on Android.
The more posts I read from the OP, the more it appears that the main narrative here is that he really wants the Switch to be an Android tablet replacement literally - which means running a stock Android OS which can run any Android app thrown at it, which also means an entirely open platform which can be hacked and customized from day one. For a Nintendo platform.
All I can say to that is.... lol.
All I can say to that is.... lol.
friskykillface
Banned
I'm not buying switch to play android games so who cares if it doesn't have android support
It'll have your standard apps like Netflix , twitch etc but nothing like what OP wants
It'll have your standard apps like Netflix , twitch etc but nothing like what OP wants
It's Reyn Time!
Member
I said in one of the other threads that if you're trying to sell a games console which looks like a tablet to people who use tablets, it had better function like a tablet. That means at minimum it needs a solid browser, a decent App Store equivalent, Netflix etc. from day one.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. In fact of all the current gen consoles the wiiU browser is still by far my favorite.
Similar threads
- Poll