Editorial

Android Market device restrictions: pointless and annoying

I’ve never been a big believer that Android device and operating system fragmentation is an issue. Sure, it’s always nice to have the latest version of Android running on your device, but as long as it doesn’t restrict your experience all that much then I don’t really worry about it as “crippling” the Android platform. Most of the time you can do the same things as your Android neighbour, and that’s all that matters.

Oh wait, except when it comes to Market restrictions. This is one area of Android that recently has been annoying me greatly: why on earth do developers restrict their applications only to devices they know work? Often the case is that the application works perfectly fine on the devices they restrict, yet they must, for some reason, disallow people from purchasing and downloading the apps to their device.

One particular example that springs to my mind is Rockstar Games’ recent port of Grand Theft Auto III to mobile devices for the 10th anniversary of the game. I really like the GTA franchise and recently I thought that I would get this game on my (relatively old) Samsung Galaxy S. I wasn’t really expecting it to work or be supported on my device because in the original announcement Rockstar said they would only support the latest dual-core phones, which the Galaxy S is not.

Every time my device is "incompatible" I mentally shoot the developers

As expected I can’t buy or install GTA 3 on my phone because Rockstar have restricted it from my device. Normally I would be fine with this, but then I notice something strange: the Market tells me I could have installed GTA 3 on several of the devices I have reviewed in the past such as the Sony Ericsson Xperia Ray and HTC Flyer. If it works on these two single-core devices then why can’t I install it on my Galaxy S?

Even more annoying is that I know for a fact that my Galaxy S is more capable of running this game than the Xperia Ray. The Ray has a 1.0 GHz Qualcomm MSM8255 chipset inside with the Adreno 205 graphics chipset, and my Galaxy S has a 1.0 GHz Hummingbird chipset with the PowerVR SGX540 GPU. From benchmarks I have taken in the past I can see that my Galaxy S is around 30-60% more graphically capable than the MSM8255 with a similar resolution and CPU clock speed. It's also similar, in terms of GPU power, to the supported LG Optimus 2X (with Tegra 2) and Galaxy Nexus (with the same SGX540).

GTA 3 is also a single-thread game, optimized for the single-core processors of 2001 in the PlayStation 2 and Xbox. I highly doubt that Rockstar modified the core engine of the game to support more than one thread, as that would be a massive task. So as my device is single-core, dual-core devices only will use one core and my device would be similar in performance to these then there is absolutely no reason why the game should be restricted from my Galaxy S. It even uses the same ARM Cortex-A8 CPU and PowerVR GPU architecture as supported devices.

To make matters worse, I looked on XDA-Developers and there are countless reports that the game does work, albeit not as smooth as some would like. But that’s the same as what can be expected on the Xperia Play, according to this review; a Rockstar-approved and supported device. What gives?

Looks good? Well I wouldn't know what it's like to play...

It’s not just Rockstar that imposes these pointless Market restrictions either. Just the other week Gameloft’s new Modern Combat 3 was on sale and I thought I would pick it up, but no, my Galaxy S isn’t supported again but the (slower) Xperia Play/Ray is. I go in to Plants v Zombies and this game will run on my Galaxy S but not the Galaxy Nexus with similar (and better) hardware. Dead Space is restricted from the HTC Flyer but not the slower Xperia Ray. Shadowgun is available for all my devices except the HTC Sensation, despite the description saying it supports Adreno devices.

As a tech and mobile enthusiast, I see absolutely no reason for developers to impose restrictions on devices, or only allow devices they know work, other than to save a bunch of negative reviews. And in the case of many 3D-heavy titles this doesn’t work, just check out the many 1-star reviews of GTA 3 from “supported” devices.

Developers should only impose restrictions on devices they know absolutely don’t work at all, either while they work on a fix or because they are too slow. All other times they should allow users to decide for themselves that the app doesn’t work by trying it out, and if they can’t put up with black screens or choppiness, report it to the developers (in case they can fix it) and then refund the purchase. This would work especially well if the refund window was at least two hours and not 15 minutes.

Instead I sit here, unable to legitimately purchase and play a number of games I am confident would work on my device because of developers imposing restrictions. A lose-lose situation that can be fixed. How annoying.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple's walled garden cracks, fake Camera+ app found

Next Story

Neowin Member Reviews: BitFenix Raider Case

82 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I agree to some extent. What i HATE with a passion is when it says that THE CARRIER has blocked my phone from gettin an app. and my phone is not carrier locked or anything. Why do they determine what they hell I install or not?

And the growing list of Android fragmention issues get more public attention. Android is fragmented in ways that failed OSes of the late 80s and early 90s that died from fragmentation could not even imagine.

Yet peole run out to buy the latest Android phone with more hardware than is needed to run Windows 7 PCs, and hope this phone will at least not crash 'as much'...

Sad.

I have a similar problem-- I have a cruz tablet and I get -- just when I want to download the application for my university - No phone associated with the account... This is not a phone..but should run fine on the tablet.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

This article is hilarious. It sounds like the author of this article wouldn't like minimum system reequirements on desktop games either.

At least when microsoft evolved the desktop hardware ecosystem they came up with some metrics for performance that customers eventually grew to understand.

While I admit the closed nature of mobile hardware breaks my analogy, Google could have done a better job for their customers and their customers.

I'd feel compassion for Android users, except I don't. I've been opposed to Android from day 1.

It's gotta be a pain in the ass for developers to keep adding new phones to their "supported" list because new Android phones come out *every week*.

It's kind of hilarious, the idea. You can have the most new, most powerful phone, and you can't run an app on it because the developer hasn't updated his supported list in a few months.

What happen if you bought it but it can't run on your device...... then you are forget or it's too late to get the refund?

Let's say we all design these great apps but we make sure that when they are uploaded to the app store that it is marked as compatible with no devices. That way no one can complain as no device will work with it. Fragmentation be damned!!!!

dont make me start... I have my eyes covered of rage because of this operating system fragmentation. Make me wanna destroy my phone and buy, somehow a lumia or a 4s. You wont do me this again, google, you WONT.

I'm glad this article pooped up. Feel stressed because your 2 year old phone is aging already? And people say that hand-held devices such as PSVita and N3DS are dying. Yeah.... at least it can handle recent games for 5 years without worrying about it being displaced in less than half of its life span.

I know I've deviated from the original discussion point. But I thought this was a necessary example.

Please, delete the comment above. I spoke too much rubbish and garbage. After reading all the comments I can see why people are infuriated with this thing. And Yeah, I kind of agree with the option of overriding the spec check and install the app anyway.

I don't think its pointless. Id rather the developer, or the market let me know that the app isn't going to work on my Hero. Just look at the excellent "System Requirments" lable on PC games....this does not guarantee it will run smooth, just that it will...well, "run". Google is actually saying, this app will not run good on your phone, so whats the point, get out of here...However, I would like the option to buy the app, and this is not the case. During Google's $0.10 sale, I was denied even buying the app just like I like the option to buy the game even if my system cant run it These are apps that I probably wouldn't even have considered had they not been $0.10. I was able to nap ReaditLater, an excellent syncing app.
I get books that are "free" on Amazon all day long...will I read them, probably not, but I MIGHT...consider the Humble Bundles. I have bought every bundle since #2, but have probably actually played %25 of them as most of them didn't really interest me, I was more interested in the bang for your buck aspect.

I don't care about fragmentation but also dislike when I am unable to get an app because it is 'not available in my country' or 'not compatible with my device'....

simply, I vote with my money - not gonna buy it, while if it was available I'd likely do that (GTA3)
their loss

In the end it doesn't matter much as Android users just don't use their smartphones (as many reports have shown in the past).

Study Shows People Barely Use Android apps.

Average App Session Lasts About 1 Minute

A new study entitled "Falling Asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle--A Large Scale Study on Mobile Application Usage," looks at mobile application usage behavior, and yields some surprising results. Users spend nearly one-hour (59.23 minutes) on their devices, but the average application session, which means opening an app to closing it, lasts little more than one minute, or 71.56 seconds." The study looks at which types of apps are used when, and pontificates a bit on why that is.

The study used AppSensor, a virtual application sensor that uses large-scale deployment of appazaar, a feedback-based mobile app recommender system. It looked at application usage from over 4,100 Android-powered devices. Android provides the required openness that AppSensor needs to run as a background service, which is not possible on Apple's iPhone. Each app is categorized into only one category.

Researchers discovered two types of findings: basic descriptive statistics and contextual descriptive statistics. The former revealed that an average app session lasted little more than one minute....

http://www.readwriteweb.com/ar...on_lasts_about_1_minute.php

[quote=alexalex said,]In the end it doesn't matter much as Android users just don't use their smartphones (as many reports have shown in the past).
[/quote]

Why dont you point this out:
[/quote] Android provides the required openness that AppSensor needs to run as a background service, which is not possible on Apple's iPhone.[/quote]
Instead of putting what you put on top? Stop loving a platform it is not good.

We dont use a app at all because most of the apps used run as background services.

I understand why this is done, however i agree its annoying. It would be nice if there was an option to switch any restrictions off for power users who understand it might not work perfectly on there phone.

Piracy is usually the answer if you want the game in situations like this, if the developer will not let you buy the game and you know it works fine on your phone then what else can you do?

alexalex said,
The problem isn't only with games but with simple applications a well.
A friend has a Samsung mini s5570 (Android 2.3.4). Recently he tried to install a simple app that displays nearby free wi-fi hotspots, WiFi Finder ( https://market.android.com/det...re.android.finder&hl=en ), and the app was incompatible with his phone.

I know what you mean, I used that program on my Iconia Tab A500 (HC 3.2.1) for ages (and it works great) all of the sudden, it's no longer compatible with my device and can't install it...makes no sense at all

Xerxes said,

I know what you mean, I used that program on my Iconia Tab A500 (HC 3.2.1) for ages (and it works great) all of the sudden, it's no longer compatible with my device and can't install it...makes no sense at all


This actually is a odd glitch that happens now and then. Try going to the market's site http://market.android.com/ and install it from there. It will problably work.

or people can stop trying to run crap that isnt supported by thier phone, thats like me trying to play crisis on my nokia e71 and having a whinge

This is annoying on my HD2, I have to make it fake the device to be a device that supports that app. It just adds an annoying step in the process.

zivan56 said,
This is annoying on my HD2, I have to make it fake the device to be a device that supports that app. It just adds an annoying step in the process.

well considering the venerable HD2 doesn't officially support Android to begin with, your hardly in any position to complain about device restrictions

Xerxes said,

well considering the venerable HD2 doesn't officially support Android to begin with, your hardly in any position to complain about device restrictions


Yup, even though the Android OS is free, Google's ecosystem is not. Anyone using the Android Market on an unsupported device is already breaking terms. If they want to stay legit, they can use the Amazon Appstore, I suppose.

OMFG...an article about Android that actually discusses fragmentation. And look what we have here....a bunch a whinny ass people that are trying to justify why this is happening. And yet you are all quick to jump for joy every time a new poll comes out that states that what the Android usage is.

Maybe as this continues and more and more handsets get shutout for no apparent reason then google will actually get off their ass and fix the mess that is considered to be an app store and os.

BlendedFrog said,
OMFG...an article about Android that actually discusses fragmentation. And look what we have here....a bunch a whinny ass people that are trying to justify why this is happening. And yet you are all quick to jump for joy every time a new poll comes out that states that what the Android usage is.

Maybe as this continues and more and more handsets get shutout for no apparent reason then google will actually get off their ass and fix the mess that is considered to be an app store and os.

The problem is more on the OEM side, they keep insisting on releasing waves of devices in quick succession (with varing specs) without much thought beyond profit. However, OEMs are starting to realize that this practise is self destructive and actually hurting themselves (and Android in general). Some have pledged to bring an end to this, time will tell if it works out.

Edited by Xerxes, Jan 22 2012, 9:03am :

BlendedFrog said,
OMFG...an article about Android that actually discusses fragmentation. And look what we have here....a bunch a whinny ass people that are trying to justify why this is happening. And yet you are all quick to jump for joy every time a new poll comes out that states that what the Android usage is.

Maybe as this continues and more and more handsets get shutout for no apparent reason then google will actually get off their ass and fix the mess that is considered to be an app store and os.


This is not the same fragmentation issue that you people usually whine about which does not exist.

This is hardware side; The OS version has little to do with this.

I think its necessary to have that sort of quality control. Specially for games like GTA which are quite expensive. Can you imagine how an end user will feel if they pay around $9 for a game and then find out that it doesn't work well with their phone?

I wouldn't fully understand these issues, coming from the opposing fruity side of the mobile world (where they don't lock out devices to begin with, but OS versions instead)

However, it seems like using a whitelist of devices is not the way to go. Two problems: one, it's probably a bit silly to expect a developer to have a ton of Android devices at their disposal for testing. Second, if you've got a game like Plants vs. Zombies that runs on everything BUT the newest Android phone, would it be up to the developer to constantly check for new devices and whitelist them? What if they stop supporting the game or slow down support to every few months?

Perhaps the solution is two-fold. I understand Android will always have a problem - or an advantage, if you see it that way - of running on a very diverse (or fragmented) ecosystem. If they're going to mimic the diverseness of the PC world, then they might as well borrow a page from Microsoft's book and implement some first-run benchmarks on the device, and use a benchmark 'score' to determine if a game is compatible or not on a phone. That easily does away with whitelists. Then you've got only minor things to worry about, such as (possibly) resolution sizes or supported hardware features on a device.

Doing so will allow developers to have just a few devices to test with, and they can simply report a 'baseline' and 'recommended' score to the Android Market. Benchmarks offered by the OS will also help (lazy) reviewers with phone reviews

If not that, then as others mentioned above, allow people to buy the game on an unsupported device, but just throw up a large warning before they purchase the game.

Edited by Denis W., Jan 22 2012, 7:58am :

Ok, after a little thinking...they probably exclude the original Galaxy S because of the crappy default file system (RFS) they use on the phone. The file system is slow and after rooting and applying the lag fix (EXT4), the phone doubles in speed. So I can see why they would exclude the S1.

wow this article was a total waste of time.

"I looked on XDA-Developers and there are countless reports that the game does work, albeit not as smooth as some would like." yeah cause people love to pay for stuff that barely runs on their phones.

Ok, so a developer restricts their software to devices they know will work & have decent performance...people complain.
Developer allows any device to run their software, regardless of performance, and those with inferior devices complain...can't win.

naap51stang said,
Ok, so a developer restricts their software to devices they know will work & have decent performance...people complain.
Developer allows any device to run their software, regardless of performance, and those with inferior devices complain...can't win.
You can win by letting power users override the restriction.

You wouldn't believe the amount of bad reviews a developer can get for not preventing older (and incompatible) hardware from downloading the app/game. Some times to avoid that the developer has to cut some devices that may run the games (maybe not as well as it's meant to though).

That's the number one problem with Andoid for developers though, it's very hard to know what devices support your applications and most end users are not very knowledgeable about their device so you can't count on them to know if it will work or not (and you shouldn't anyway)

Rudy said,
That's the number one problem with Andoid for developers though, it's very hard to know what devices support your applications

I wish I was a smart developer that knew of some way to test my application across many devices. Hmm I wonder if one exists?


http://www.apkudo.com/

UndergroundWire said,

I wish I was a smart developer that knew of some way to test my application across many devices. Hmm I wonder if one exists?


http://www.apkudo.com/

A solution that is currently in private beta isn't really a solution

Google should release tools that help with this

DomZ said,

A solution that is currently in private beta isn't really a solution

Google should release tools that help with this

I never said it was a solution.

DomZ said,

A solution that is currently in private beta isn't really a solution

Google should release tools that help with this

How cute, like Google would do something inventive or something to help developers. Why?

If Google was going to help developers they would have rebuilt the Android API set or provided a real development framework. It is silly when 'kids' can develop WP7 Apps, yet Android developers are jumping over each other to find usable custom frameworks to build from because Android provides so little functionality.

j2006 said,
Another reason why I love Windows Phone

Dude, all Windows Phone devices are basically the same HW wise, so this wouldn't be a pose a problem.

That is until devices with more powerful HW come about in the future. Then you'll have the same problem.

SharpGreen said,

Dude, all Windows Phone devices are basically the same HW wise, so this wouldn't be a pose a problem.

That is until devices with more powerful HW come about in the future. Then you'll have the same problem.


Actually, you won't because the MS licensing model doesn't work like Android. MS is requiring a lot of things that makes sure that the overall user experience is the same on any WP. As said before, you have to support up to 4 points at the same time on the screen, Android only requires 2, so if you build a game which requires 4 points, then you are sure that it works on all devices.

SharpGreen said,

Dude, all Windows Phone devices are basically the same HW wise, so this wouldn't be a pose a problem.

That is until devices with more powerful HW come about in the future. Then you'll have the same problem.

1 - This is no longer true, as there are several hardware configurations, addtionally even in the same hardware class there are performance differences based on RAM speeds and Flash speeds, etc.

2 - The reasons Apps 'work' is because of the 'standard' specfications Microsoft has set. So a developer just has to make sure the App works well on the 'standard' specifications, and it will ALWAYS work well on all devices.

Sure future advancements will create a small niche of 'gaming' fragmentation, just like occurs on Windows PCs, but this is a tiny portion of the App market, and when it does start to cause users to need a faster phone, based on the specification lifecycle, they will be at the end of their 2 yr agreements 90% of the time, as Microsoft has planned out the rollouts.


This comes down to Google not have a f-in clue what they were doing, slapping crap together and callng it a mobile/phone OS, and instead of trying to fix the fragmentation that has been ongoing and looming since Android jumped from v1.6 to v2.0/2.1.

When it comes to an ecosystem, an development platform, and a general device OS model, Android is crap that would be shame Apple or Microsoft if they released a closed development future OS model, and then did nothing along the way to fix the real issues with the platform.

Want to know why WP7 will overtake Android in a few years? This article is one good reason out of 100s...

It is wrong to blame developers for the device restrictions in the market, as Developers can't possibly research every OEM variation, nor can they flag the App properly.

Developers that are not from the JAVA and Linux world and haven't seen 'easy' development tools in a while literally 'gasp' at the horrid development tools and capabilities Android offers. This is where Google has problems, because Windows and iOS developers are put to the task of creating an Android version of their software and about **** themselves when they see they have to do everything for the OS, and load the App with tons of redundant code that the OS should be offering.

And this doesn't even scratch the lack of VM/Page and performance issues Android has that are literally laughable to OS engineers, and would have been made fun of in 1990, let alone in 2007 being the feature set of a 'modern' OS. The next time Android dumps your Launcher or Messaging App because you ran of out RAM, remember this is IMPOSSIBLE on WP7 and any other modern OS. (Seriously, can you imagine the desktop version of Windows just randomly closing Apps without saving users data when it needs more RAM, really?)

/rant off

thenetavenger said,
lots of stuff

I wish neowin had a feature where I could subscribe to your comments only. Then I'd have a clue about what stories are worth my time.

Come on mate, you basically explained it yourself that it shows as not compatible because it is an unsupported device where the game runs like Rubbish on it. It is not good business practice to tick the box for everything when it is going to lead to a poor customer experience because it doesn't play as it should, and is never going to get fixed. This is not a problem with the Android Market either, these controls are necessary for developers otherwise you really will have "fragmentation" where people plonk money down on an app that doesn't work. It's not the user's responsibility to check that it is compatible, it is the sellers'.
If you want to run it unsupportedly - fine - but you have to use an unsupported method of getting it installed to do that. You have no right to make an article to complain about a 100% correct process, unless you are a WP7 fanboy (like most of Neowin) that is trying to get Google to sabotage their own platform by making all apps available on the market to all phones, even ones with known incompatibilities, that would really drive WP7 sales if such a user experience were to happen.

Simon- said,
Come on mate, you basically explained it yourself that it shows as not compatible because it is an unsupported device where the game runs like Rubbish on it.

It also runs like rubbish on supported devices, so its not like the developers actually check which devices it runs on and tick the boxes appropriately. They tick ones they have tested on, and if it runs (no matter how well) then its good to go. If they haven't tested they think it doesn't work and make it unsupported.

Simon- said,
Come on mate, you basically explained it yourself that it shows as not compatible because it is an unsupported device where the game runs like Rubbish on it. It is not good business practice to tick the box for everything when it is going to lead to a poor customer experience because it doesn't play as it should, and is never going to get fixed. This is not a problem with the Android Market either, these controls are necessary for developers otherwise you really will have "fragmentation" where people plonk money down on an app that doesn't work. It's not the user's responsibility to check that it is compatible, it is the sellers'.
If you want to run it unsupportedly - fine - but you have to use an unsupported method of getting it installed to do that. You have no right to make an article to complain about a 100% correct process, unless you are a WP7 fanboy (like most of Neowin) that is trying to get Google to sabotage their own platform by making all apps available on the market to all phones, even ones with known incompatibilities, that would really drive WP7 sales if such a user experience were to happen.

Actually, he has every right. It's called freedom of speech. Aside from that, I actually agree with him. There should be an option to bypass and install the app anyway.

Scorpus said,

It also runs like rubbish on supported devices, so its not like the developers actually check which devices it runs on and tick the boxes appropriately. They tick ones they have tested on, and if it runs (no matter how well) then its good to go. If they haven't tested they think it doesn't work and make it unsupported.


That's just hearsay that the Developers simply tick the box no matter how poorly it runs, and even if it is true, is a problem with Developers not the Android Market.

An IOS developer could easily make their app "iPhone 3G compatible" even if it runs like rubbish on that device too. Same could happen to WP7 when next generation of devices come out that has different hardware.

If the developer ticked the box for a device that it doesn't run well on, either they are not doing the right thing, it did run well enough when they tested it, or they plan to fix it in the immediate future. This is oppose to not planning to fix it at all, as they have already decided not to support it.

Also "your opinion" of what phone should have better performance is completely irrelevant because every game is different and it depends on how the game ACTUALLY performs, not what you think it should perform.

And the GTAIII engine for iOS and Android WAS rewritten for these platforms, there is no evidence to suggest that it is not multithreaded or doesn't take advantage for multiple cores. They did a good job too to keep all the resources files bit for bit compatible so that a large proportion of the 3rd party mods still work.

This article: pointless and annoying

nekkidtruth said,

Actually, he has every right. It's called freedom of speech. Aside from that, I actually agree with him. There should be an option to bypass and install the app anyway.


Right to free speech (well actually that doesn't exist in Australia) - Yes, Right to make unfounded accusations/Libel - No.

Edited by Simon-, Jan 22 2012, 6:41am :

Simon- said,

That's just hearsay that the Developers simply tick the box no matter how poorly it runs, and even if it is true, is a problem with Developers not the Android Market.

That's what I'm saying. The problem is with the developers and not the Market, although changes to the Market itself could help the issue.

Also, I guarantee the GTA 3 engine was not entirely rewritten, just modified to run on ARM. Adding in multi-thread support would be much more difficult than modifying it for ARM core instructions

Scorpus said,

Also, I guarantee the GTA 3 engine was not entirely rewritten, just modified to run on ARM. Adding in multi-thread support would be much more difficult than modifying it for ARM core instructions


Are you a Rockstar Games developer? Do you have a source for this information? Do you have any basis to actually prove this to be the case or is it just a guessing game because you are annoyed that your phone is not good enough to run GTAIII even though you 'think' that it is?

Simon- said,

Are you a Rockstar Games developer? Do you have a source for this information? Do you have any basis to actually prove this to be the case or is it just a guessing game because you are annoyed that your phone is not good enough to run GTAIII even though you 'think' that it is?

Uh....his phone IS good enough for it. As has been mentioned several times, here in the comments and in the article.....I think you need to quit 'roid raging simply because you "think" the article is pointless.

Scorpus said,

It also runs like rubbish on supported devices, so its not like the developers actually check which devices it runs on and tick the boxes appropriately. They tick ones they have tested on, and if it runs (no matter how well) then its good to go. If they haven't tested they think it doesn't work and make it unsupported.


As an app developer, I personally would feel more comfortable with only allowing my apps to deployed to devices where I know with little to no doubt that it will work. But I also agree that there should be some form of "power user" red button to override that restriction, while at the same time preventing a rating and/or review, to solve the issue of n00bs complaing about the app not working their unsupported device.


Which is full of people having problems getting it to run.
As I said before, if you want to run it, install a compatible ROM and sideload it outside the Android market. Android Market is not designed to allow you to install an Unsupported App which requires an Unsupported ROM to make it work.

Your source for a Front Page Neowin article is an XDA member with 6 posts who reckons "Of course it will run smoothly on Galaxy S... It's 1 thread optimized game and actually does not require dual core device."

Simon- said,

Your source for a Front Page Neowin article is an XDA member with 6 posts who reckons "Of course it will run smoothly on Galaxy S... It's 1 thread optimized game and actually does not require dual core device."

It runs on an Xperia Play as "supported", which is a single-core device. It runs on ARM Cortex A8 devices and PowerVR SGX540 devices so therefore it should run on the Galaxy S. I'm not going to pirate the game either to get it to work, all the developers need to do is untick "unsupported" and be done.

And there are more posts in that thread saying that it works for them, or perhaps you didn't want to look

Scorpus said,

It runs on an Xperia Play as "supported", which is a single-core device. It runs on ARM Cortex A8 devices and PowerVR SGX540 devices so therefore it should run on the Galaxy S. I'm not going to pirate the game either to get it to work, all the developers need to do is untick "unsupported" and be done.

And there are more posts in that thread saying that it works for them, or perhaps you didn't want to look

This is still an illogical methodology. Whether the game is supported or not is not definted solely on being Single or Dual core. There are other factors as well including the particular CPU and GPU models, not just it's speed, but also it's featureset; optimisations for that particular CPU or GPU model that work better with the particular game, the currently supported Android version for the device, and most importantly how the game actually plays when the Stock ROMs are taken into consideration.

You are calling for a Supported channel to offer an Unsupported solution. I'm sorry but that is not going to happen. If you want an Unsupported solution, you will need to go through an Unsupported channel. Here are some instructions how to install Apps to an Unsupported device from the market: http://www.redmondpie.com/how-...et-for-unsupported-devices/ . No Piracy required. If it is good enough for you to run it unsupportedly, then it is good enough for your to obtain it unsupportedly.

I skimmed through a few pages, I'm not going to go though 22 pages though. From what I saw, there was discussion on people having particular problems getting it to run and which Custom ROMs work best to get it working.

nekkidtruth said,

Aside from that, I actually agree with him. There should be an option to bypass and install the app anyway.

This sums it up nicely.

From my brief time on the Beyond3D forums, a lot probably has to do with the various GPUs involved and what features they support. It's not just about raw performance.

Nexus- said,
Well this stems from the greater issue of fragmentation. Figure out how to fix that and you fix this.

The Galaxy S phone was and is a popular phone and should of been included. I know for a fact that GTAIII works great on the S1 since I had it installed on my rooted Vibrant. All developers have to do is look at the hardware specs to determine if their software meets min specs...like they do with PCs. And as the OP stated, phones with lesser specs can run the apps just fine. So, IMO, its the laziness/stupidity of the developers and no fragmentation that the issue.

techbeck said,

The Galaxy S phone was and is a popular phone and should of been included. I know for a fact that GTAIII works great on the S1 since I had it installed on my rooted Vibrant. All developers have to do is look at the hardware specs to determine if their software meets min specs...like they do with PCs. And as the OP stated, phones with lesser specs can run the apps just fine. So, IMO, its the laziness/stupidity of the developers and no fragmentation that the issue.

"should have"

Right. Just like it's the developer's fault for making software for Windows that runs on some stupid OEM hardware. Are you ****ing kidding me?

Developers write SOFTWARE for an OS. They DO NOT DESIGN OEM HARDWARE.

Why the **** should a developer waste time on researching what an OEM is selling? OEMs don't ask developers what they want in the market.

Obviously the Android Market is designed in such a way that the developer gets blamed and gets rated badly because an OEM hardware cannot support the developer's app. Stupid ****ing Google should go **** itself.

The only devices the developer SHOULD comply with are the Google developer devices such as the Nexus One, Nexus S, and Galaxy Nexus, which have the stock Android.

The rest of the OEMs can go **** themselves for not making equal or better devices.

Jebadiah said,

"should have"

thanks for correcting my grammar /s....Its not like I care about my grammar here. Its not like I am writing a presentation for work or anything and in which case I would worry about such things.

Jebadiah said,
The only devices the developer SHOULD comply with are the Google developer devices such as the Nexus One, Nexus S, and Galaxy Nexus, which have the stock Android.

The rest of the OEMs can go **** themselves for not making equal or better devices.

Yea, when an app is released/approved for a lower spec phone and not one with better hardware, its the OEMS fault. So your comments about OEMS screwing themselves for not making equal/better hardware is just silly.

And nice for telling OEMs to screw themselves twice now. What a way to get your "point" across.

techbeck said,

thanks for correcting my grammar /s....Its not like I care about my grammar here. Its not like I am writing a presentation for work or anything and in which case I would worry about such things.

If he didn't correct you here, then you wouldn't have a reason that would make you worry about it when you're writing a presentation for work or something. You can't worry about something if you don't know what to worry about.

Beaux said,
If he didn't correct you here, then you wouldn't have a reason that would make you worry about it when you're writing a presentation for work or something. You can't worry about something if you don't know what to worry about.

I am really not going to argue about this...but I will say this. I know how to write and when I write things for work, I proof read a few times to make sure everything is correct. So I would of caught the grammar mistake if it was worth it. This case, it was not.

techbeck said,

thanks for correcting my grammar /s....Its not like I care about my grammar here. Its not like I am writing a presentation for work or anything and in which case I would worry about such things.


An alternative and probably much better way to put this would have been "Thank you, I didn't know about that.", but hey, this is the Internet, we can't be nice to each other right? Specially not when someone is kind to help us improve ourselves.

Nexus- said,
Well this stems from the greater issue of fragmentation. Figure out how to fix that and you fix this.

The fake fragmentation issue everyone bitches about is the Android versioning, not the hardware.

If you want to be a fanboy, at least get it correct.

And grammer police: It is sunday. Doesnt school close for you guys?

While I don't really care about forum posts as such, the author of this doesn't seem to take help easily.

This is the front page of Neowin, I expect it's writers to be able to write stories which are grammatically correct, and then not b*tch when someone points out they are wrong.
While I appreciate "un-professional journalism" blah blah, does this really include grammatically incorrect cover stories? I wouldn't have thought so.

techbeck said,

I am really not going to argue about this...but I will say this. I know how to write and when I write things for work, I proof read a few times to make sure everything is correct. So I would of caught the grammar mistake if it was worth it. This case, it was not.

It wasn't like a spelling mistake or a typo. If you don't know what word fits the syntax, you don't know what word fits the syntax. Proofreading it 400 times isn't going to teach you what word fits the syntax.
It's rediculous to think that you'd somehow be magically smarter if you were doing something else.

Edited by Beaux, Jan 23 2012, 5:40am :

It's not pointless as it can avoid non-experienced users to obtains an app that will not provide a satisfying experience on their devices and give a bad rating to an otherwise excellent app because of a factor out of control of the developper.

However, it is annoying there isn't any way to override this restriction by acknowledging the app might not work well, but want to get it for a potential future device during a sale.

Maybe they could also disable ratings and comments from a device that isn't supported, to avoid getting unfair ratings from poor-performance devices?

m-p{3} said,
However, it is annoying there isn't any way to override this restriction by acknowledging the app might not work well, but want to get it for a potential future device during a sale.

Maybe they could also disable ratings and comments from a device that isn't supported, to avoid getting unfair ratings from poor-performance devices?

Yeah this would be ideal, like a checkbox in the Market settings or something along those lines. I do agree that it prevents non-tech enthusiast users from accessing non-working applications, but for someone like myself it would be nice to have a legitimate means of installing "unsupported" apps

I don't think comments should be disabled, possibly not even ratings, but they definitely shouldn't figure into the overall view of the application, ratings may be useful if they were reset once a supported version was released and never figured into the overall ratings.

Comments would definitely be useful as others can see if they should bother at all, alternatively hide them from supported phones or mark them with a red tag saying "Unsupported device"

On my Galaxy Nexus it has been especially apparent.

There have been games that were not compatible with my Galaxy Nexus, have had several updates since the release (So atleast they should've had a chance to test it there) and still doesn't support it. Trying the app from a less official source reveals that the game works just fine.

On the other hand then there are apps that gladly accept every phone to buy their app, only to find out it doesn't work properly, and usually not in a completely apparent way, for example there's a game that works fine as long as you don't zoom (And technically you don't have to), but if you zoom on HC/ICS based devices then it just crashes.

In a way i think it would be nice if users could flag an app as malfunctioning on a specific device, and given enough reports, Google would verify it and lock the application from the device, until the vendor pushes out an update to fix it.

m-p{3} said,

However, it is annoying there isn't any way to override this restriction by acknowledging the app might not work well, but want to get it for a potential future device during a sale.

Maybe they could also disable ratings and comments from a device that isn't supported, to avoid getting unfair ratings from poor-performance devices?


Great ideas.

Device restrictions are a necessary part to app development on a platform with such a wide variety of hardware. It may not seem like an issue for someone such as yourself but for the large amount of users who are not well aware of their device restrictions, they will just leave their unhappiness in the comments on the market which just makes it more time consuming for the developer to weed through comments that are meant for supported devices. This isn't as much of an issue with the iPhone or Windows Phone (although it certainly still exists).

Besides I'm sure application hiding on the market is not much of a road block for more experienced users who care about such issues.

apreichner said,
Device restrictions are a necessary part to app development on a platform with such a wide variety of hardware. It may not seem like an issue for someone such as yourself but for the large amount of users who are not well aware of their device restrictions, they will just leave their unhappiness in the comments on the market which just makes it more time consuming for the developer to weed through comments that are meant for supported devices. This isn't as much of an issue with the iPhone or Windows Phone (although it certainly still exists).

Besides I'm sure application hiding on the market is not much of a road block for more experienced users who care about such issues.


I completely agree.