Cydia on Android...this could be the start of something awesome

[walie]

http://www.redmondpie.com/cydia-sub...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+RedmondPie+(Redmond+Pie)

Themes aren't a big deal, thats been done, the Cydia substrate on the other hand, this is going to be good.

 

[ChazUK]

Wow! I may give rooting another go to try this.

 

[Fireblade]

I just tried it out, all it can do for now is to apply installed icon packs, which Nova Launcher can do also.

 

[MRU]

It begs the question why?

 

[Assault]

http://www.redmondpie.com/cydia-sub...ed&utm_campaign=Feed:+RedmondPie+(Redmond+Pie)

Themes aren't a big deal, thats been done, the Cydia substrate on the other hand, this is going to be good.

Unlike with iOS, this simply isn't needed for customization purposes on Android. Especially since this requires root to work. If you are already rooted, chances are you are using a custom ROM, custom theme, custom icons or a combination of all. Basically, all this exists already in the Play Store or XDA forums.

Cydia was a necessity in the iOS world for customization. It isn't in Android. I see no added benefit to downloading these apk's, besides them taking up storage space.

 

[LorPGDL]

It begs the question why?

tha android world doesnt ask why, but rather why not?

and that is a good thing.

 

[MRU]

tha android world doesnt ask why, but rather why not?

and that is a good thing.

Not true. If only manufacturers actually thought about 'why not' when embellishing android OS we might have new phones without gimmicky features that hurt the general user experience and overall performance of the device.

When adding features they should answer the question 'why does this device need this' if you can't answer why I need this - then it is redundant. If you can answer 'why' it need this, then you go on to ask 'why not' and if the answer is that it is at the detriment of user experience then once more what ever you are thinking about adding needs to be rethought, or scrapped.

 

[0dev]

Much like a lot of Nokia's workforce, this is completely and utterly redundant.

If they released Cydia as an alternate app store for Android, that might be useful, since the Play Store is getting more and more regulated these days. But this? Pointless. 100% pointless.

 

[onthecouchagain]

If we could get zephyr for android I'd be all set! But if I have to root I could probably get that (or better) anyway.

 

[Shadow Puppy]

Unlike with iOS, this simply isn't needed for customization purposes on Android. Especially since this requires root to work. If you are already rooted, chances are you are using a custom ROM, custom theme, custom icons or a combination of all. Basically, all this exists already in the Play Store or XDA forums.

Cydia was a necessity in the iOS world for customization. It isn't in Android. I see no added benefit to downloading these apk's, besides them taking up storage space.

Exactly. These two apps don't seem to be anything special. They aren't anything we haven't already seen a hundred times on Android. Furthermore, his apps require root, and I really don't see why, as there are several other launcher that accomplish the same thing without root. To go even further, why is he trying to launch Cydia on Android anyway? What reason would devs have to place their root apps in Cydia as opposed to the Play Store? It isn't like root apps aren't allowed in the Play Store. This is the Apple ecosystem where jailbreak apps are outlaws. This is the Android platform, where such things are the norm. This really is nothing special at all.

tha android world doesnt ask why, but rather why not?

and that is a good thing.

I'd ask why. I don't see anything special about this. Why is he trying to bring Cydia? Why would a dev need to put their app in Cydia (if it isn't something like an ad blocker, or other frowned upon app), when they could simply put it in the Play Store? Unlike in the Apple ecosystem, there is very little reason for devs to put apps in Cydia in the Android ecosystem. There is nothing he can provide to them, that they don't already have access to on their own.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Not true. If only manufacturers actually thought about 'why not' when embellishing android OS we might have new phones without gimmicky features that hurt the general user experience and overall performance of the device.

When adding features they should answer the question 'why does this device need this' if you can't answer why I need this - then it is redundant. If you can answer 'why' it need this, then you go on to ask 'why not' and if the answer is that it is at the detriment of user experience then once more what ever you are thinking about adding needs to be rethought, or scrapped.

At the time Apple released the iPhone......... it was a Blackberry, Windows Mobile, and dumb phone world. If Apple asked that about the iPhone, they would have scrapped it. The entire first iPhone was basically a gimmick/novelty item at the time. Apple never asked why would people need an iPhone, they basically enticed a large portion of the world into wanting one. Now look at what it's become.

Same goes for Android phones with large screens. Same goes for the cloud, which I've been using since early last decade(way before any iCloud). I can go on & on.

I hope for more of these so-called gimmicks. Plenty of gimmicks eventually become standard and better. Can smartphones become even faster and/or have less hiccups? Sure they can, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra goodies for it. Some which are very useful to me, and I'm sure other features are useful to others. It's up to the user to decide how big or small a sacrifice is on either side.

For me personally, if killing a feature let's my apps load 1 sec faster and allows me 5 more minutes of bat life, I'll probably choose to keep the feature. Now if it's something major that's a differ story.

I remember Cable anolog TV was straight to the point. You could click back n forth super fast, no real software to lag, no box rebooting for an update when your watching something good at 4 in the morning. But I wouldn't trade the on screen guide or ondemand to get any of that back. I'm pretty sure the Cable and TV industry didn't ask why customers needed ondemand.

Basically, what I'm ranting is that progression is good. I'm not saying your against progression at all, but who wants it to be stale and boring.

 

[MRU]

At the time Apple released the iPhone......... it was a Blackberry, Windows Mobile, and dumb phone world. If Apple asked that about the iPhone, they would have scrapped it. The entire first iPhone was basically a gimmick/novelty item at the time. Apple never asked why would people need an iPhone, they basically enticed a large portion of the world into wanting one. Now look at what it's become.

Same goes for Android phones with large screens. Same goes for the cloud, which I've been using since early last decade(way before any iCloud). I can go on & on.

I hope for more of these so-called gimmicks. Plenty of gimmicks eventually become standard and better. Can smartphones become even faster and/or have less hiccups? Sure they can, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra goodies for it. Some which are very useful to me, and I'm sure other features are useful to others. It's up to the user to decide how big or small a sacrifice is on either side.

For me personally, if killing a feature let's my apps load 1 sec faster and allows me 5 more minutes of bat life, I'll probably choose to keep the feature. Now if it's something major that's a differ story.

I remember Cable anolog TV was straight to the point. You could click back n forth super fast, no real software to lag, no box rebooting for an update when your watching something good at 4 in the morning. But I wouldn't trade the on screen guide or ondemand to get any of that back. I'm pretty sure the Cable and TV industry didn't ask why customers needed ondemand.

Basically, what I'm ranting is that progression is good. I'm not saying your against progression at all, but who wants it to be stale and boring.

Actually the argument doesn't work for a first device, because at that point they are not adding new features to an existing device - no device at that point exists.

Its what Apple does amd did subsequently when adding new features to their devices software wise. If t works and ts for the betterment of the device and user experience - it stayed in. But if for any reason it was at the detriment, it was optimised or left out. Or as we see with iOS - tailored exactly to performance of hardware of each device with certain features that may tax the hardware left out on certain models.

Its why IOS seems to be very samey after so many iterations, but at same time why it is also probably the most equally efficient mobile OS.

 

[LorPGDL]

Not true. If only manufacturers actually thought about 'why not' when embellishing android OS we might have new phones without gimmicky features that hurt the general user experience and overall performance of the device.

When adding features they should answer the question 'why does this device need this' if you can't answer why I need this - then it is redundant. If you can answer 'why' it need this, then you go on to ask 'why not' and if the answer is that it is at the detriment of user experience then once more what ever you are thinking about adding needs to be rethought, or scrapped.

that is not a valid argument- first there is choice, then comes the thought process whether you need something or not. nobody is forcing you to use this, if it is not perceived as valuable it will go away again, but, you have the choice to use it or not and that is the only thing that is pertinent to this discussion.

and i frankly dont see how the existence of cydia can be a detriment to your user experience, if you choose not to install it.

id rather have 500 launchers with different themes than 499.

 

[MRU]

that is not a valid argument- first there is choice, then comes the thought process whether you need something or not. nobody is forcing you to use this, if it is not perceived as valuable it will go away again, but, you have the choice to use it or not and that is the only thing that is pertinent to this discussion.

and i frankly dont see how the existence of cydia can be a detriment to your user experience, if you choose not to install it.

id rather have 500 launchers with different themes than 499.

You are reading my response in an entirely differnent manner than it is meant to be read.

1. I'm not saying choice is bad

2. I'm saying that when designing a feature the first question is 'why'. You answer this by saying it will add this or that. But then you must also ask 'why not' as in are there reasons why this should not be added, and if those are greater than the reasons 'why' then it is better not to have it. If adding a feature diminishes the performance or user fluidity of the GUI - then it is not a feature worth having unless it solves some greater problem.

Being able to wave your hand over a device - but a feature that when enabled causes your device to show signs of lag - is a redundant feature. Especially when you ask why do I need to wave my hand over my phone to view photos ? If its to keep my device clean from maybe grubby hands - then it's redundant as at some point you would still have to press power / home button. You would still have to swipe to unlock. You would still have to press to launch the app you want. What benefit is air gestures in reality ? None. It serves no purpose - its a solution to a problem no one was having - and when enabled can cause the performance of the device to suffer with increased micro-stutters & lag, and battery life hit.

That feature is a feature that Samsung should have asked ' Why' ... The answer were all still waiting to here, and then 'Why Not' because it's clear that the performance hit is greater than the worth of it being there in the first place.


__________


And yes this has moved the topic away from Cydia.

So then I ask

"why do we need cydia on Android?" What measured purpose does it serve that isn't already accessible via the myriad of routes folks on android have to customise their device.

 

[LorPGDL]

And yes this has moved the topic away from Cydia.

So then I ask

"why do we need cydia on Android?" What measured purpose does it serve that isn't already accessible via the myriad of routes folks on android have to customise their device.

samsung bloatware aside, how do you draw the conclusion, that we dont need cydia on android? thats like saying we dont need apex launcher because we already have nova or go launcher.

from the little information i got from the linked article it seems cydia is going to be a customisable launcher.

so i ask you the question- why dont we need cydia on android if its a launcher that allows customisation? because we already have 10 launchers? because nova can do everything the cydia launcher can?

you see where im going with this, i hope and further discussion wont be necessary.

its like saying we dont need another barscanner app as there are already 10 out there that do exactly the same. true to some extent, but if there are people that prefer the new one, then why not let them have it?

 

[scapegoat81]

Unlike with iOS, this simply isn't needed for customization purposes on Android. Especially since this requires root to work. If you are already rooted, chances are you are using a custom ROM, custom theme, custom icons or a combination of all. Basically, all this exists already in the Play Store or XDA forums.

Cydia was a necessity in the iOS world for customization. It isn't in Android. I see no added benefit to downloading these apk's, besides them taking up storage space.

I think it's meant to avoid baking entire custom ROM's onto devices.
Instead, installing minor tweaks here & there from stock ROM. Rooted of course.....

Pretty cool stuff & one hell of an achievement by Saurik.

----------

At the time Apple released the iPhone......... it was a Blackberry, Windows Mobile, and dumb phone world. If Apple asked that about the iPhone, they would have scrapped it. The entire first iPhone was basically a gimmick/novelty item at the time. Apple never asked why would people need an iPhone, they basically enticed a large portion of the world into wanting one. Now look at what it's become.

Same goes for Android phones with large screens. Same goes for the cloud, which I've been using since early last decade(way before any iCloud). I can go on & on.

I hope for more of these so-called gimmicks. Plenty of gimmicks eventually become standard and better. Can smartphones become even faster and/or have less hiccups? Sure they can, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra goodies for it. Some which are very useful to me, and I'm sure other features are useful to others. It's up to the user to decide how big or small a sacrifice is on either side.

For me personally, if killing a feature let's my apps load 1 sec faster and allows me 5 more minutes of bat life, I'll probably choose to keep the feature. Now if it's something major that's a differ story.

I remember Cable anolog TV was straight to the point. You could click back n forth super fast, no real software to lag, no box rebooting for an update when your watching something good at 4 in the morning. But I wouldn't trade the on screen guide or ondemand to get any of that back. I'm pretty sure the Cable and TV industry didn't ask why customers needed ondemand.

Basically, what I'm ranting is that progression is good. I'm not saying your against progression at all, but who wants it to be stale and boring.

Very well put my friend