This is fascinating, and the first I've heard of this. I'll look into it!
mycodesucks
joined 2 years ago
That's all well and good for development, but there are other use cases than development. There are emulation solutions focused on development already, of varying quality. But there's nothing for Android END users who simply want to be able to run software an Android environment without having to be tied to a piece of hardware and all the limitations and sacrifices that come with that.
That's not to say this isn't a useful option, but that's still ONE Android environment tied to ONE piece of physical hardware.
To give an equivalent comparison... if you wanted to run multiple operating systems on your PC to have fine tuned control of different environments, you could just install a different Linux distro or Windows to multiple different VMs.
If I want to do the same thing with Android, the solution is always "Buy another device". That's insane. If the solution to wanting to run Debian alongside Fedora was "get a second computer", people would be up in arms with how ridiculous and wasteful that is. But for Android, people just accept it for some reason.
Yeah... I feel the intent here isn't to use the same Android installation on a bigger screen - it's about taking back control and setting up Android environments on your own terms without unnecessary hardware. It's a totally different use case.
Depends on who you ask and how charitable they're being. hahaha
You are DEFINITELY not alone. Every 6 months or so I come back to this and hope someone has done something, and every time I'm disappointed. I'd do it myself, but my username isn't an ironic joke.
I totally get what OP is asking and am constantly annoyed by the same thing.
There's a ton of software that can ONLY be run on a mobile OS, and rather than deal with the nightmare that is a physical Android phone with all of its limitations and restrictions, it would be nice to have these things running in a VM that I can fully control. There's software that demands access to insane and ridiculous permissions, and I'm not going to install those to my physical Android phone and deal with the privacy problems. But a completely isolated VM with burner accounts that I can run in a window on the desktop I'm already using most of the time anyway? I'll take that. Also, I don't see the need to shell out the ridiculous price premiums for phone models with the most storage space when I only use a handful of apps when I'm mobile anyway. An app I might need two or three times a year still takes up that space on my phone when it could easily live on a VM and be used only when I need it at home.
Also, when Android releases new version updates and my phone manufacturer doesn't keep up? Why should I have to go out and buy a new phone just to appease the handful of apps that decide THEY want to be cutting edge and THEY'RE going to be the ones to force me to waste money? I should be able to just spin up another VM with the new Android version and use those sporadic apps on there until I decide to upgrade my phone in my own good time.
Also, Android X86 is fine, but the most problematic apps that mess with users and force apps to newer Android versions for no other reason than being "cutting-edge" aren't made by the kinds of companies with the forethought or customer focus to provide x86 compatible apks.
Basically, I don't see why it's so hard to run a full virtual, sandboxed ARM emulated vanilla Android environment, or why people aren't clamoring for this. It's the most practical, straightforward solution to the fragmentation/bad vendor update model that physical hardware forces on us and I assume most of us hate.
I'm not saying no pressure. I'm saying you're applying the pressure in the wrong place. You will not succeed at an individual level. You need to push for systemic change if you're serious about it. Electric car adoption isn't increasing because individuals are getting greener - economic incentives are aligning to make it a better decision. Veganism will have to follow the same path, and the longer it takes to start addressing the real things that will make a difference, the longer the problem will continue.
You want an example of effective action? Start by pushing politicians in your country to end or reduce government subsidies for meat production that artificially keep prices low. Push candidates for office to start initiatives that will build future successes, like encouraging introduction of meat alternatives in school lunches and nutritional programs so you're building an educational foundation for the future instead of relying on guilt, shame, and bullying. Pressure producers of successful vegan food products to stop relying on the willingness of the current vegan community to overpay for products and encourage them to lower prices to competitive levels as a moral imperative.
These are all things that will make a real difference in the short and long term. Arguing on the internet with individuals won't.
Nobody with any sense will argue with you that veganism isn't a better and morally superior diet than meat, but trying to push this as an individual responsibility issue is doomed to failure.
It's the same problem as convincing people to change their diets to lose weight or be healthier in general - it's hard to get people to be satisfied with an entirely different diet than what they're used to and you won't guilt them into it. The vegetable-based meat alternatives that are being produced are the best possible way to wean people onto vegan diets, but the companies that are producing them care more about profiteering than trying to undercut meat costs despite the touted savings in production costs.
Seriously trying to get people onto more vegan diets should involve way less pressure on individuals and more concerted effort on eliminating government meat subsidies and holding businesses in the vegetarian/meat alternative space to account for being more concerned with profitability than their "mission".
Nah, I'm an idiot who happens to be an English teacher for foreign language speakers. Nitpicking bad language rule explanations is my job.
It SAYS that, but regardless of the source, don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Will and would are both modal auxiliary verbs, and as such, don't actually have a past tense in the sense other verbs do. They don't have participles either. You don't have "woulding" or "woulded", and neither has a present or past tense either. Even if you wanted to argue it, what's the past tense of other modal auxiliaries? What's the past tense of "may"? Or "should"? And before you say "May have" or "should have", then why isn't the past tense of "will" "will have?"
The same is true of "can" and "could". Could is NOT the past tense of "can" because a past tense for a modal auxiliary verb is nonsensical. What they MEAN when they write that is "could is a verb that can be used in place of can in some situations to refer to the ability to do something having taken place in the past", but they are different words that happen to share related usage.
In the case of "will"/"would", not even THIS makes sense. Will is used as an indicator to shift the following verb's action into the future. The past tense of shifting something into the future means... what? Making something hypothetical?
While calling these verbs "past tense" is a functional shorthand for explaining their function, the reality is modal auxiliaries do not have tenses or other forms, and it's disappointing to see the British council screw this up.
I absolutely refuse to spend that much money on a platform with so little respect for users. You shouldn't even NEED an update guarantee. You don't go out and buy a computer and check for guarantees that it's going to include OS updates... you KNOW it's going to continue updating until the hardware physically can't handle it anymore and you get sick of it and go upgrade it. The Android system and its heavy ROM customization and reliance on vendor updates is fundamentally broken, and it is NOT a problem to be pawned off on USERS to fix by throwing more money at it. The only reason there's ANY difference in the Android environment vs X86 computers is because people tolerate it for whatever reason. This is a problem to be fixed, and the first responsibility for fixing this is on Google, and failing that responsible app developers should be developing for the lowest still supported Android version for SEVERAL reasons.
There are good reasons to update an app to use a new Android version. Complacency in a broken environment of continuous obsolescence as a money making scam isn't one of them.