Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Issues concerning Android's Java application framework

This section of the article is a bit misleading. The current citations (96,97, 99) for the "Developers have reported that it is difficult to maintain applications working on different versions of Android" part are, frankly, silly. The first one is a ZDNet blog article that makes no real points at all. The second is a part of the documentation that says to use the lowest version because that will make apps available to more devices, which is entirely unrelated to the "difficult to maintain . . . different versions" assertion. The third is a blog post from TechCrunch that refers vaguely to "high profile" developers the author has spoken with but again makes no direct reference to any actual developer (this author, and the ZDNet author of the other annotation, don't seem to be authorities on anything, certainly not on Android development).

In addition to the weakness of the citations (which really render this entire statement just an opinion) there are other actual developers (as opposed to the ZDNet person who is cited whom is not a developer) who disagree and could be cited in the opposite direction: http://replicaisland.blogspot.com/2010/01/fragmentation-more-like-fragmentawesome.html.

This section of the article should be rewritten to be more fair and clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.43.12 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Also see Google I/O video that discusses this and demonstrates how to write 1 app for multiple devices: http://developer.android.com/intl/fr/videos/index.html#v=PAMtKVO2ch8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.43.12 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You may think that these sources are silly, and you may be unhappy about the section as it is, but the sources are valid. And the source you put is a blog post by an unknown individual. However, if you find a valid source which states that it is very easy to write apps for several Android devices, feel free to add this to this section. Hervegirod (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Should Android Market be in the features section?

The Android Market is a closed source application from Google, and is not part of the Android Open Source project. I honestly don't know how it is licensed, but if someone wanted to find out how the Market is licensed and update this section or maybe just remove it, that would improve the accuracy of this section. 70.94.85.18 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Neight


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Propaniac (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Android (software stack) → Android (operating system) — Followed by the discussion: Android (software stack)#Operating System? . -- Modamoda (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Software stack is like more trechnically correct, I view operating system as a more preferable choice. IMO, people most associate the name as being an operating system, eventhough it contain applications.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The page move is wrong. It should remain Android (operating system). It is more often referred to as an operating system than a software stack. I can't see any reason why it is not an operating system. Page should be moved back immediately.--Lester 06:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Android is an operating system. And "software stack" can be a lot of things. Hervegirod (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I moved it back to the original Android (operating system). Calling it a software stack had not been discussed for long enough, and there appeared to be little support.--Lester 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead image

The lead image is from a custom home screen (nexus one). This was recently changed from the previous lead image which was the default home screen straight from the emulator. Which image is preferred by the community? I am biased as I created the emulator image, but I do feel we should stick an unmodified android image. --Chrismiceli (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm, we're taking about these images:
  • Vanilla Android install (previous image)
    Vanilla Android install (previous image)
  • Nexus One Android install (current image)
    Nexus One Android install (current image)
I agree that the vanilla image is a better example here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The current image is nicer looking. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
But which image better depicts the android operating system? Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not pretty. In my opinion sense ui looks nicer, but we don't have a picture of that. Only a few android users have nexus ones. --Chrismiceli (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia guideline for intro pic? wp:lead says the text should be the most interesting. I nice looking pic is more interesting. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have an article explaining how to use images to properly describe an article. Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement very clearly says that a picture of rice is better than fried rice on the rice article. I would extend this to mean a picture of plain android is better than a fancied up version. Also, the criteria for Featured Pictures number 5 bullet 2 says that encyclopedic value should have priority over artistic value. I feel that a plain image has more value to an average visitor wondering what android is. --Chrismiceli (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the lead image to the newest release of android (2.2 - froyo). --Chrismiceli (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Google TV

Does it deserve a mention? Here is the New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/technology/18webtv.html

Mathiastck (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

umm.. as of right now, there has been no linking to android and google tv done by google, we should probably wait until google clarifies on that issue, since as of right now, they are 2 different platforms.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

restrictions and issues page needs updates again

the restrictions and issues section needs updating again.. some of the listed issues have been resolved with the release of android 2.2, and there may be new issue that might need to be dealt with.. since 2.2 has just been released, i guess the update can wait for now, but in maybe 1 month hopefully the update to the section will be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gartner more reliable resource than NPD

For the intro text: Gartner is a more reliable reference than NPD. Gartner is confirmed by other sources. NPD is contradicted by all other sources. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the article carefully, "Gartner said Android beat Apple in the North American market in the first quarter and would catch the iPhone maker globally soon". Raysonho (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Android article to Android (robot)

You might find this discussion interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Android#Propose_rename_page_to:_Android_.28robot.29

Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Gingerbread

Can we really be sure that a better implementation of copy and paste is going to be included in Gingerbread as stated in the article. A reference is given to http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3190#c81, but on that page is is only stated in the last comment that: " Issue 3151 has been merged into this issue." . I think we should delete the information about copy and paste from the article. 15:57, 25 May 2010 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exorex2 (talk • contribs)

As per the link, it's actually pointing to comment 81, not 82, which states that "rewriting copy/paste is a goal for the next release." – Quoth (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Networking issues

I am not sure where to place this, perhaps in a new h3 section under "Issues", but it would be important for this article to note the crippling networking issues plaguing Android: see the issues list here, issue 3902 (since Sept 2009, 2369 votes) means you cannot use a standard vpn connection. Issue 1273 (since November 2008, 932 votes) means you cannot use a wifi proxy. This renders Android devices basically useless for business purposes. I found it hard to believe this is so when I first used an Android device, and I find it even harder to believe this isn't publicized as a major flaw in reviews and here on Wikipedia as it really defeats most serious uses of smartphones with Android. As is obvious from the hundreds of comments on the issues linked, many people bought their devices only because they were unaware of these issues, and are now met with the option of either keeping the thing as a toy of limited usefulness or going to the trouble of installing custom roms. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

I have added a very useful external link. H4lfN3ls0n keeps removing it. Propose review by editorial team: http://android-dls.com/wiki/index.php?title=Android_FAQ

Please note this FAQ was assembled from questions asked on the #android IRC channel on Freenode, which is the primary official Google hosted IRC channel for all things Android. (If you read the FAQ you will see what the other IRC channels are available).

In addition this FAQ is the most comprehensive Frequently Asked Question list on the topic of Android. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandorr (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO specifically discourages "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Looking at the wiki page you link to, you appear to be its primary contributor. --McGeddon (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is hypocrisy. I believe the owner of the "Android Wiki" which is linked to in External links is a less authoritative source, and has been around for a less frequent time. My suspicion is that H4lfN3ls0n may be affiliated with the link http://www.androidwiki.com/ I have raised the issue for arbitration. I will keep adding the link back until I have exhausted all avenues of appeal. And yes I am a primary contributor of the "Android FAQ". I believe in open communication, and I have been told by many people in the Android community, including Google employees, that my early efforts to capture this information in an FAQ is very much appreciated. However, I am not the only contributor, as there have been over 20 other contributors. (And in reality many more, if you consider the people involved in asking and answering the questions captured in the FAQ). As a further note, I have no affiliation with the site hosting the FAQ, I am merely an editor of the FAQ page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandorr (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

While "Androidwiki.com" has a nicer domain name, it is a site that has much fewer contributors, and much less content than the FAQ. Many of the links are broken, and pages are empty. I believe a double standard is being held to the Android FAQ page. I do not understand why. If "Android FAQ" is not a suitable external link, I argue that neither is "Androidwiki.com". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandorr (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your basis for androidwiki.com having less contributors is based solely on the number of editors to their main page. You clearly have not researched this in the slightest and are merely taking a very flawed guess. Not that your website is being excluded based solely on the number of editors. Quite frankly your website could have 100 editors and it would still fail our criteria. Number of editors has no merit in this discussion at the moment. The359 (Talk) 05:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You tried adding your own site 12 times over the period of 1 week (ref. contributions from your user account and contributions from your IP). You got 3 warnings on your user page that you chose to ignore. Please review the respective Wikipedia policies as applicable to spam and external links. H4lfN3ls0n (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember the 3 revert rule.....

Please bear in mind that a long established practice on Wikipedia is the 3/(triple) revert rule. Basically, if you have a dispute and it's just going in circles, then consider bringing it to a talk page for resolution. Reverting, counter-reverting, then counter-counter-reverting, followed by counter-counter-counter reverting (and thereafter) doesn't get anywhere, and further it can even lead to action being taken against your account. So please, if you dispute something try your best bring it to the other person's talk page or else to the article's talk page. CaribDigita (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Skia backend?

The article used to say "Skia has backends for both win32 and Cairo" citing Alp Toker's blog piece.

But that blog entry makes it clear Skia is an alternative graphics library to Cairo, so I changed it to Unix. My understanding is that on Unix Skia can render to a bitmap, the framebuffer, or OpenGL, although the Chromium browser gives Skia access a Cairo context to store pixels. I think :-) -- Skierpage (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Google TV

Why isn't Google TV mentioned in the article? Android is mentioned in the Google TV article. According to the official Google TV FAQ: http://www.google.com/tv/faq/ Google TV "is built on Android." Brandorr (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rooting

This was a new article that failed to meet RS requirements. I'm moving it here so others may have the opportunity to find proper sources and integrate it into this article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rooting is a process that allows users of cellphones running the Android operating system to attain privileged control (known as "root access") within Android's Linux subsystem, similar to jailbreaking on apple devices running the iOS operating system, and thus do things not normally possible on standard android phones. Through rooting it is possible to run apps and caches from an SD card, apply themes, tether your phone, enable auto rotation and more.[1]
Hi 69.181.249.92, I appreciate your contribution but I think it would be appropriate to give me at least a few more minutes to gather resources after letting me know that forums are not reliable sources. Anyhow, I started this article as this is a very important topic deserving an article for itself, and I'm sure it will get completed very quick as there are loads of stuff about this on the Internet. I can't see why you deleted the article after I had already added other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezi-Schlaff (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
To Chezi-Schlaff, please consider Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I say that because you sound like you accuse the previously mentioned IP# of deleting an article that you worked on. But, I just wanted to let you know that you could be targeting the wrong person, as IP#s cannot delete articles. That action can only be undertaken on a deletion vote (of your peers), or by an actual WP:Administrator (also of your peers). So it may be unfair to imply that this IP# deleted that article all on their own. In fact they may have salvaged what was there due to the deletion. CaribDigita (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Update History

Why was information regarding the date of the Froyo OTA release deleted? This seems to me to be both meaningful and of high interest to the Android community (both users and developers). Listing just the date of the release of the SDK is not very useful as many changes and much time can elapse between that date at the true roll out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.195.86 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"Android is Google's operating system for mobile devices. It is a competitor to the Symbian platform, Apple's iOS for the iPhone and Microsoft's Windows Mobile for mobile devices." doesn't mention Blackberry OS or WebOS. Why not? Or more specifically, why even mention competitors at all in the opening para? Brandorr (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Added Blackberry OS and WebOS mentions to opening para, since two weeks have gone by and no one objected here. Brandorr (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

I had a line censored by User:Erc and User:Raysonho because as Erc says: "What? This doesn't make sense"

I would like to know why my line was censored and how may I rephrase it if someone else also did not understand it.

The line was:

  • Being Google the most popular internet search company, users become frustrated when they discover that there is no way to search contacts by other than the name fields (like notes or company)."Issue 3732 - Improve contact search". Google Code. Retrieved 31 August 2009.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.116.171 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@83.58.116.171 I appreciate your desire to contribute to the Wikipedia project and to the Android Operating System article. And I am glad that you included a citation with your reporting. However the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an appropriate place for including your issues. The enhancement request that you quoted was ranked 27th below others such as Google Docs and Arabic language support. If you would like enhanced contact search, star the issue to increase its ranking and take your issue to other forums. Hgb asicwizard (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
@83.58.116.171 Appreciate your concern and your contribution. Just a reminder that while being edited feels like being censored, your fellow Wikipedians have no power to censor. That's a power that lies in the hands of governments. You can be overruled here, deleted here, annoyed here, threatened, frustrated and insulted here, even banned here, but nobody can censor you. Welcome to the annoyance of being a Wikipedia editor! TheEditrix2 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah

Okay, my eyes are bleeding trying to decipher the intro. Could one of you plainspoken folks write a simplified intro explaining just what this thing is? In the simplest possible terms? For laymen? No need to delete the current intro. Just add a paragraph above it with three, maybe four sentences of geek-free explanation. "Android makes cell phones (verb)(er?)." I genuinely don't know what Android is, and I need a quick intro in words my 75-year-old mother would understand. Thanks in advance! TheEditrix2 22:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you still like someone to take a crack at this? How about?:

Android is an open source operating system, written and sponsored by Google, that powers mobile devices, like cellular phones, tablet computers and netbooks. Currently, Android has proven to be a very popular operating system among device manufacturers like HTC, Motorola and Samsung, due to it's low cost, flexibility and powerful feature set. The rapidly increasing uptake of Android among device manufacturers has led to a large number of Android devices hitting the market, and subsequent rapid rise in Android's mobile market share.[1]

Android, like the iPhone OS, has a large community of developers writing "apps" for it. These "Android apps" can be downloaded and installed right from the devices themselves, using the Android Market. These "apps" extend the functionality of the devices, and there are currently over 70,000 apps available for Android, which makes it the second most popular mobile development target.[2]

In the most common implementation of Android, the "Google Experience" version, the system includes proprietary Google applications that integrate with and provide mobile versions of Google's online services, such as Google Search, Google Maps, Google Mail, Google Calendar, Google Contacts, Google Voice, Google Talk and YouTube. These implementations are generally considered the best mobile implementations of these Google services. [3] Brandorr (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added these three paragraphs at the beginning of the article. Feel free to comment here. Brandorr (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brandorr,
A couple of things: first, please use a more descriptive title when you comment on a talk page. “Blah blah blah” really gives no idea of what you're going to be saying, and it makes the talk page that much more difficult to get through.
Your introduction is not bad, but inserting it wholesale before the existing introduction is not the way to go. The two introductions need to be carefully merged, with attention paid to the flow of the article and especially to making sure that no redundant text is inserted. I've mostly fixed these issues now, but please try to keep this in mind next time. Thanks for your help with this article!
Cheers, bdesham ★ 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
bdesham: Understood. A couple notes:
  1. blah blah blah was not my section title. TheEditrix2 had already named it.
  2. TheEditrix2's request basically said to add new intro above current geeky text.. (paraphrased)
  3. It is probably important in the intro to mention the Google Apps/services tie in which you removed. IE: We should probably figure out a variation of the following text:
In most implementations of Android, the system includes proprietary Google applications that integrate with and provide mobile versions of Google's online services, such as Google Search, Google Maps, Google Mail, Google Calendar, Google Contacts, Google Voice, Google Talk and YouTube. These implementations are generally considered the best mobile implementations of these Google services, and although technically not part of Android, for many they are an integral selling point of the Android platform. [4] (Need to see if we need a better reference or references). Brandorr (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry to jump on you for that. That paragraph looks okay as is; I've added it to the second paragraph of the intro, which already deals with applications. --bdesham ★ 17:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove reference 57

Reference 57 has been denied by Google employee Dan Morrill http://twitter.com/morrildl/status/17527838378

Used at: Support for bigger screens with up to Wide XGA (1366×768) resolution [57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.240.85 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct Graphics Engine Name?

At time of writing, it is listed as "SGL", which points to the article on the "Skia Graphics Library". However, some forum posts imply that this is actually "Scalable Graphics Library" - see here . The author claims that it is "Scalable Graphics Library" and hackbod (aka Dianna Hackborn who is a Google employee on the Android team) does not refute this. What's going on here? Was this an original name and a name change occurred recently (in which case it should be mentioned on the Skia page, or did android change the graphics library they were using (in which case it should be mentioned on the android page)? Thanks, 129.59.160.28 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Version history page?

The version history section is getting a bit bulky and I reckon it's taking up too much of the page. Does anyone agree, and think there should be a separate version history page? I've started one at User:Thecurran91/Androidversionhistory and if people could help me work on it, that'd be great! Thecurran91 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Income/Profit for Android

A recurrent question raised by people is 'how Google makes money with android'? Currently Google make money with the ads displayed along the 'apps'; ads displayed on Google searches within the phones and delivering Android with some Google apps pre-instaled like Gmail etc. Is this information useful to the article? If so I can provide the links that confirm these informations. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glmbllm (talk • contribs) 12:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Where android points to

Discussion about where android points. Would appreciate your comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Android_(robot)#Now...   Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Android Controversy

Google has the option to remotely delete or install software as they like. Indeed this has been done when they deleted an app from phones with giving the owner a notice, but not a choice. (comparable to amazon kindle) http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Google-uses-remote-delete-to-remove-Android-apps-from-smartphones-Update-1029188.html I think this should be mentioned, like in the German wikipedia article. What do you think? --132.230.191.16 (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OS Family

Should OS family be added to the info side bar thing? And if it is added, would this be considered "mobile operating system", or "unix-like"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.184.122 (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Android (operating system) → Android — Based on web searches and traffic statistics Android OS is by far the primary topic. 25 times more traffic compared to robot. For a bing search, Android OS is on the first two pages of search results, nothing about a robot.

http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/android%20%28robot%29
http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/android_%28operating%20system%29

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Talk:Android (robot)#Requested move, where it is currently being proposed to move Android (robot) to Android.  Sandstein  14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The primary topic criteria are inconclusive here (see Discussion below). If we want to emphasize traffic here (which I think is a fine idea), we could use a method I've used before: leave the disambiguation primary since the robot article has been moved on August 15 (possibly move the dab to the base name, since it is temporarily malplaced), and create two redirects for use exclusively on the disambiguation page. Let sit for a few months, and check the stats to see how readers searching on "Android" use the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The robot sense has been the primary topic for decades. See the discussions about Ubuntu (philosophy) and Ubuntu (operating system) for precedent. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Talk:Android (robot)#Requested move. The primary topic, Android (robot), was at Android until Daniel.Cardenas moved it a couple of weeks ago. --JaGatalk 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above. TastyCakes (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:RECENTISM. "Android" is a word in the English language, and considering the number of books, novels, etc, written about or with the word, the OS is definitely not the primary usage. 76.66.197.248 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the reasons already given. I see no reason to repeat all the same arguments. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Best example I've yet seen of why Google can't be used uncritically. Most English speakers would have some idea of the meaning of android as a sort of robot, but only a small minority would have any idea that the OS even exists. Andrewa (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose AGiorgio08 talk 18:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The word is far too common in English for this to be primary already. older ≠ wiser 06:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Android is an English word used in a lot of contexts. I bet that Google used this word partly to steal some of Android hits at the beginning, that's not a reason to do the same here. Hervegirod (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the primary meaning as revealed by books in print is the robot, and that should sit at the base page name. bd2412 T 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same reasons as anon, SoV and bd2412. -Rob RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose in light of the fact that there are two concurrent move proposals now competing to put two different articles at Android. Put neither article there; instead, put the disambiguation page there and fix the 250+ incoming links. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose A random sampling of people I know, of whom I asked "If you were to be asked what Android meant, what would you say", resulted in everyone of them saying "it's a robot" or similar. OK, it was not a scientifically performed survey - but it did cover people of different ages from teens to people in their 60s, from people who are tech-savvy to people who would assume that a mouse was a rodent and not part of a computer system. None of the people I asked even thought of the OS, even when I asked them (after the initial question) "and what about the operating system?", the reply was "what?" or "there's an OS called Android?". So my thought is that most people typing "Android" into Wikipedia will be looking for the robot rather than the OS, and it's also the first thing that I think of, and I'd like to think I'm reasonably tech-savvy - I at least knew about the OS! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The hit counts are useful, but not conclusive. Android: 54,722[2]; Android (robot): 4818[3]; Android (operating system): 454,756[4] but Android OS: 7043[5] and Google Android: 9119[6]. Readers using the search box are unlikely to type in "Android (operating system)" in the search box, so most readers are reaching the OS page through wikilinks (because the traffic from "Android" is much less than the traffic from "Android (operating system)", so they're not coming through that way). Google book searches favor the OS, Google scholar searches do not. Google search on "Android" gets 713M hits[7], android -robot gets 222M hits[8], android -"operating system" gets 212M"operating+system", so on par there too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Version of Android OS usage share

I was thinking about adding a section on the wiki article that showed current statistics for what versions of android were being used.

Example : http://www.androidcentral.com/android-22-froyo-already-28-percent-android-phones

Any thoughts, suggestions, or disagreements? --Mark0528 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No one objected to my new section, so i added it. Unfortunately, i can't figure out how to make it to where the picture doesn't intrude on the section underneath it, can someone with more experience on the wikipedia editting module fix this please? just make it to where the picture lines up with that bar just beneath "Restrictions and Issues", because I don't know how and it looks bad with it intruding like that.--Mark0528 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive already messed around with the images pixel size, i don't know how to fix it. The only other idea i have is to put a paragraph filled with information on Android Usage share and possibly the whole Fragmentation issue people have been talking about. If the paragraph is long enough it will level off with the image and not look so strange. If no one wants to fill that in for me, i'll probably end up doing it sometime within the next few days. --Mark0528 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

{{-}} is what you were looking for. A paragraph or two of text might still be useful though if only to avoid that whitespace. – Steel 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Invalid Info about Android Containing GNU Software

The first sentence states:

"Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google and is based upon the Linux kernel and GNU software."

Please see: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justlinux

GNU states directly on their website:

"There are systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is an example. Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because it doesn't contain GNU, only Linux. In effect, it's a totally different system. If you think of the whole system as “Linux”, you find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux [sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].” Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does. What it doesn't have is GNU."

Can someone correct this error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.83.3 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


I could change it, but i feel like there's some fine print going on here. The wikipedia passage says its "based upon" it. In other words, it doesn't directly state "Android has GNU inside of it". The article doesn't say that Android contains GNU, only that it's based upon it. I don't know if that was just poor word choice on whoever put that there or what though. --Mark0528 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I know a bit about this. I would remove the reference to GNU software, and just say something to the following effect: "Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google and is built on the Linux kernel." The fact is none of the user space libraries included with Android, other than the Blue Tooth stack are licensed under the GPL or consider GNU software, and are in fact licensed under the BSD or Apache licenses. Clearly this is very different than GNU/Linux, and saying that Android is based on GNU is very misleading. Brandorr (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to "is based upon a modified version of the Linux kernel". Hervegirod (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Android for dummies

Like many technical articles on Wikipedia, this one has very little information for the non-technical reader. The very first section jumps right into sales numbers and heavy technical descriptions - there are 15 references in that first section alone. I came here hoping to get a basic description of Android as I really don't understand much about operating systems or kernels or any of that, but I hoped it could be explained to me in brief without having to read a never-ending queue of prerequisite articles. Shouldn't the first section break down the topic as concisely as possible and allow the reader to read deeper as desired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertquail (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Android is a mobile operating system initially developed by Android Inc., a firm purchased by Google in 2008.

In July 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc., a small startup company.

Both of the above are quotes from wiki's main article on Android. But which is it, 2008 or 2005?

Shahriar Ahy (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Shahriar Ahy

The article says:

"Android is a mobile operating system initially developed by Android Inc., a firm purchased by Google in 2008."

It also says:

"In July 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc., a small startup company"

So was it 2005 or 2008?

Shahriar Ahy (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Shahriar Ahy

see also

removed link to * Triad Method

Seems too obscure, also altered the other article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.252.216 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Media support

In light of a bunch of third party ffmpeg based video apps being released (Rockplayer, Vplayer, Arcplayer, Coreplayer(soon), probably more) supporting a wide variety of formats not included in the stock android OS (Xvid, H264 in more containers etc), should this section be updated with this info? --80.162.220.229 (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Google "Killswitch"?

Good article, It mentions many good features and non-features of the OS, but why no mention of the "killswitch" feature included with Google's Android Market app? While it seems good from security standpoint, there is also some controversy, some say it could be used as a security hole... http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/android-also-gives-google-remote-app-installation-power-062510 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.255.14 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gingerbread release date

Time to remove this whole argument now that Nexus S is out in the wild, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.195.86 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever is changing the latest version to 2.3 (Gingerbread) needs to stop. As of today 12/9/2010 2.3 (Gingerbread) has NOT been released. The only thing that has been released is the SDK for developers to use the new features in their apps. The most current build available from Google is 2.2.1 (Froyo) Build FRG83D --12.157.176.100 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: As of today 12/12/2010 Gingerbread has still not been officially released. No phones have gotten the update yet. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Basic4Android

I removed Basic4android from the Android navigation template. It is just advertisement, a hardly significant, commercial IDE/language that was inserted there by the author of the article. --89.204.137.105 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove restrictions and issues section?

Why is this section in the article? Every operating system has restrictions and issues like this but I don't see such a section in Linux, Windows, OSX, iOS (Apple) etc. It adds a negative bias to the article. I suggest removing this section completely. The Linux fork issues are at least interesting and could have their own section. Dcxf (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, for comparison look at the lack of "issues section" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows . I'll put what I remove into a separate criticism article IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
created criticism of Android. The information can now stand (or fall) by its own merits. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You know I hate to revert something like this a couple of hours after it was done, but I don't think that was the solution here. Documenting criticism and issues is good and proper but only when it's worked into the article properly where it's relevant, not left as a bullet point list of any old random complaint at the end of the article. This is what the old restrictions and issues section was and a separate 'Criticism of...' article would only make this worse in the long run.
The patent infringement section I think is fine, as is the Linux compatibility stuff although it would be nice to fit that in somewhere else in the article rather than leave it in its own tiny section at the bottom. The software/hardware fragmentation problem with apps is fine but I've moved this up with software development since that's where it belongs. The networking and 'other' issues sections were pretty minor and uninteresting to a general audience so I got rid of those. This article needs a bit of work in general but this will suffice for now. – Steel 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The section lists only the most severe issues. It isn't "Android-bashing" in any way, but important factual information. Personally, I had such intuitive trust that google would take care of things that I was completely stumped to find that Android cannot cope with Cisco VPN. It would have been of great help to me if this information had been present in the Wikipedia article at the time I bought my first Android device. Frankly, this is getting eerie. The issue is labelled "new" and has no "owner" even though it is one of the most prominent feature requests (the second most requests, right after "add Arabic language support", which is basically 5,600 Arabs posting comments like "plzzzzz google plzzz we want arabic pllz", as opposed to a serious functionality flaw). I do not know why the reviewers and tech blog pundits do not give this more attention, it is clearly a case of deliberate stalling on the part of google. Considering this, our article is actually very nice in not voicing any scathing criticism and simply listing the issue as it is in a bulleted list.

These networking issues are the immediate reason why I do not have an tablet computer. I won't buy an ipad because I do not want to rely on having to hack or "jailbreak" my device before it becomes usable, and I won't buy an android tablet because I cannot use it on my institute's VPN. If this issue wasn't publicized, I would have risked buying an Android tablet anyway and then become extremely angry once I realize it there is no way to connect to the network. What I am saying is that I support inclusion of these issues in a visible location for practical reasons, not for reasons of "politics" or ideology. --dab (𒁳) 11:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you say is original research/opinion and as such not suitable for wikipedia. In its past form complaints seemed to form most of the article, unlike for other articles of other operating systems with many criticisms. 86.142.202.245 (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that everyone thinks their issue is "the most severe", so sections like this become dumping grounds for everyones' pet peeves. For example all the items currently in "Networking issues" are wishlist items that will only apply to a small minority of users (only about 5000 votes for the most popular one) and which Android has never claimed to support, except for issue 9126 (APN Proxy) which has apparently already been fixed and was only ever starred by 22 people anyway. In any case using issues in Google's fault reporting system as a Wikipedia source isn't really acceptable because they're user-generated, often by anonymous users, and you can't tell how accurate they are, especially if unreviewed.
Also whoever restored this section restored a bunch of stuff that has already been merged into the rest of the article. Dcxf (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


I just would like to see a reference to the issues list since it is very important and informative to the people that take a look on this page and probably wants to buy an Android phone. Without this information the person reading this page may make a bad decision that will regret later. Please let Wikipedia keep objective (hide your Apple and Google admiration) and censorship free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.221.86 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a sales guide. If you consider buying a phone with Android, you should not use Wikipedia as your source but one of the many many pages that specialize on this. As said above, some issues might be notable enough to have been covered in reliable third-party sources and thus are notable enough to be included; but if the only source for such issues are bug tracking sites at Google, then the list is indiscriminate and has no place in the article. Our standard is not whether information is true but whether it's notable. Most issues might be annoying but they simply fail our guidelines. Regards SoWhy 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Reading WP:NOTGUIDE I could not find why a reference to the issues list is not acceptable. I also could not find another wikimedia site where this information would be acceptable, is there a site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.218.5 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of WP:NOTGUIDE is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a guide for people buying phones or anything. There are webpages that specialize on that. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, that means we only include notable information sourced to reliable sources. As said above, we should not make a list of what people want to see in Android but what has never been promised or planned. If you find issues that have been covered in aforementioned reliable sources and which are not only wishes some users had, we can include them; see Dcxf's comment above. Take Dbachmann's issues above for example: If Google had promised VPN support and then not delivered it, we can include it, if there is coverage of it. But if Google never promised to include it, why should it be considered an "issue"? As Tracer9999 notes below, the standard "it does not do what I expected" means that anything can be an "issue", so that cannot be a viable standard for writing this article. Regards SoWhy 12:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, So I am going to put the URL that shows Reviewed issues by Google: http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list?q=status%3AReviewed . Is everybody OK with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.227.10 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That's possibly a reliable source but we need reliable third-party sources. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the issues section.. especially on items that are a wish list that android would support. I want the thing to cook me dinner with radio waves from the cell phone tower.. but it doesn't.. that does not now make it an issue that needs to be addressed. Now if it is a promised feature that is not working thats one thing. but alot of those were hey why cant I do this type issues.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I scream, you scream...

Should the post-Honeycomb entry even be on the version history? I haven't said anything up to now since people seemed universally convinced (based on fairly limited actual evidence, I might add, but whatever) that it was called Ice Cream and were apparently pleased to have that name listed in the article, despite the fact there is literally no information to go with it. Now with this Ice Cream Sandwich bit mixing it up, I feel compelled to just delete it entirely until there's official news. I've been feeling like the Wikipedia equivalent of a grouchy old man telling kids to get off his lawn lately; pretty much all of my contributions to this article have been destructive (removing rumors and disinformation), so I'd like to hear what others think about the matter rather than unilaterally axing it. Should "Ice Cream" be done away with for our purposes until we have more to go on than rumor and hearsay? Zorak950 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stick around as it is, no version number, no description just the name, Google's mentioned the name Ice Cream a few times and now recently Ice Cream Sandwich, so that's the way they're going but they haven't said anything else about it so we shouldn't either, everything besides that is just speculation Mark (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

other issues

Im just curious.. The other issues section seems very speculative. The question is does the software claim to not have these issues. are they in the specs. because you may wish for something to work a certain way for something does not make it an issue if the software never claims to do that. You cannot really have a "wish list" for a product then complain because it doesn't do what you want it to do unless it says it does but dont..lol -24.128.234.172 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Might the article be biased toward sales vs. installed base which may imply that Android is more "popular"? Both Blackberry and iPhone devices still have large if not comparable installed bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.174.157 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

See also

I've trimmed the 'see also' section a bit. Please check the latest version and modify as needed.

EngineerFromVegaDiscuss 07:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Adobe AIR support

Which Android version started to support deployment of Adobe AIR applications? It would be interesting to add this information. Thx. --46.5.40.117 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User from 217.238.*.* re GetJar

Hi User from 217.238.*.*, could you please explain why you keep deleting the reference to the GetJar Wikipedia page, claiming it's spam? As you can see from the page it's a notable mobile phone market and the reference is included in this article as an example of an alternative source for apk files. Dcxf (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume it is related to this edit which I removed with this edit. Regards SoWhy 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that would seem to be it. I originally thought they were Suzals3 (talk · contribs) and got bent out of shape because his/her spamming efforts got reverted. That's why I added "Spammer revenge?" to my edit summary. But then I looked a little further back and found the other edit adding something called "Aproov" to the list of alternative app markets. From the warning messages that 217.238.146.85 left on my talk page and the repeated edits accusing us of "spamming" for GetJar, this person is being pretty immature about this tiny issue. Or maybe they're financially involved with "Aproov". Just revert them and hope they eventually go away. --Imroy (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

To the user who keeps adding a reference to GetJar: It is clear that you are spamming the system. It is clear that you are working for GetJar because you blatantly delete any mention of any other third party companies that also support delivering .apk files. Grow up will you. What makes you think GetJar has some special privileges over others? Keep this up and I'll see to it that your IP address gets blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.140.146 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way but the reason GetJar is mentioned and other systems are not (of which there are plenty, I think I have at least five different markets on my Desire) is that the former meets our notability guideline and the others don't. If and when that/those you favor meet those guidelines, we will not oppose adding this/those alternatives to the article. Until this happens though, we will only list those alternatives that are notable but we will keep on listing them. If you keep removing those mentions as "spam" despite them not being spam, you might be the one being blocked from editing. Regards SoWhy 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted this [9] edit by User:99.34.76.86. First, this statement is not sourced. Second, this isn't a valid criticism as other smart-phones, like iOS and WP7 also require a unique user ID to pair a user with devices. Please revert if this counts as a valid criticism. Even that, I'd prefer putting in some other relevant section, instead of a separate 'criticism' subsection. EngineerFromVegaDiscuss 08:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Steveo314, 7 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} android "ice cream sandwhich" is actually going to be android 2.4 "gingerbread" (same name as 2.3). Google should release it in April 2011.

Steveo314 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have any references? Baseball Watcher 00:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Spiegel Online (German, GTranslate link) writes that 2.3 for mobile phones will be followed by a version 2.4, not 3.0, saying it will be a stripped-down version of Honeycomb. It does not say which codename 2.4 will use though. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: Found this which confirms the "Gingerbread" name for 2.4 but I'm not certain if it should be considered reliable. Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 12:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, still an anonymous source and speculation, nothing usable. Dcxf (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Canays claim android passed symbian

The original press realeace remains unchanged but there's is problem with the claim. In the analysis only Nokias symbian phones were counted in comparison, but there are a few others that still do symbian phones. And if you add those to symbian numbers even canalys numbers drop android to second place. And then there is the gardner numbers from the same quarter that collaborate this. So Android isn't most sold OS in 4Q2010 Talitintti (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudoGhost (talk • contribs) 05:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Alien Dalvik

Shouldn't Alien Dalvik be mentioned in the article?--78.48.15.11 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that once it is actually used on devices, and not just 'promised', then it would be notable enough to include in the article. SudoGhost (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to split?

Looks like Version History and Software Development should be sub-articles now, any objections? Not just on size grounds, but because the early version history and most of the software development section are not that interesting to the average reader I suspect. Dcxf (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. EngineerFromVegaDiscuss 04:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another +1 to this idea. iOS has a separate article for it's version updates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.39.178 (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that. Also on size grounds though, 89 kB is pretty big and Wikipedia:Article size recommends splitting at >60 kB. Regards SoWhy 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Hervegirod (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have split the version history and put in summaries of the current and future versions in the main article. To keep the summary brief I have tried to pick out three or four major new features or improvements for each version rather than listing every techy detail. Dcxf (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This split was an awful idea. It was much easier to get the version history when it was just one article. If anything it should just show the link to the other article. The link to the full version history followed by the brief description looks bad. What is important enough to be shown in the brief description? --Jimv1983 (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure says to leave a summary section in the main article, and iOS (Apple) has a similar summary section for current/recent versions. Dcxf (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Multi-touch?

Some phones support pinch-to-zoom, but not true multi-touch. Also multi-touch can be just 2 'fingers' or can be more. Should this be made clear in the article? FrinkTheBrave (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, I would give relevant sources as to which phones, but also point out that it is a fault of the phone hardware, not the Operating System (assuming of course that is the case).SudoGhost (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

3.0 (honeycomb) is not a tablet only platform. Why is it labeled as such?

There are several sources that quote Google execs that Honeycomb is not a tablet only build, simply that it was designed and optimized for larger screens. [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattmann (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ http://www.telecoms.com/20036/something-for-everyone/
  2. ^ http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2366624,00.asp
  3. ^ http://lifehacker.com/5559357/iphone-vs-android-showdown-which-phone-is-best-for-power-users
  4. ^ http://lifehacker.com/5559357/iphone-vs-android-showdown-which-phone-is-best-for-power-users
  5. ^ Rapheal, JR. "Will Android Honeycomb come to smartphones?". Computerworld. Retrieved 24 February 2011.
  6. ^ "Android Platform Highlights". Google. Retrieved 24 February 2011. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
3.0 Honeycomb is for tablets only, per direct quote from Eric Schmidt [10]: "We have an OS called Gingerbread for phones. We have an OS being previewed now for tablets called Honeycomb," Schmidt said. "You can imagine the follow-up will start with an 'I,' be named after a dessert, and will combine these two." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcxf (talk • contribs) 08:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere in your reference does it say anything about Honeycomb being tablet only, the closest is says is that Honeycomb is 'for tablets'. Tablet specific does not mean tablet only, and as Google writes the software, but does not make the hardware, there is no way they would be able to definitively say that no smartphone will ever run 3.0. - SudoGhost (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Saying it was not meant for tablets is not the same as saying it won't run on tablets. Similarly, "Tablet-only" does not mean "will only run on tablets" but can full well mean "only tablets will have it". At this point, we should simply wait if any phones running Honeycomb are announced. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Although it isn't officially announced yet, the HTC Revolver[1] is rumored to be a smartphone that will run Honeycomb. Therefore, I think it safe to say that Honeycomb is not "tablet only", but rather "designed for tablets". Even if it will only ever be used on tablets, to say that it was "designed for tablets" will always be correct, whereas "tablet only" has a possibility of being untrue. With that in mind, I do not think the term "tablet only" should be used. - SudoGhost (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"HTC Revolver" is a Photoshop fake, see the Engadget article's comments. Google have some control over the hardware through the compatibility document and Market/Google apps so in terms of full Honeycomb being available on a smartphone, if Google say that Gingerbread is for smartphones and Honeycomb is for tablets then a Honeycomb for smartphones won't happen until the "convergence" version starting with "I". Dcxf (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I see no reason why "tablet-only" should be in place of "tablet-oriented", because even if Honeycomb never makes it to a smartphone, either way, "tablet-oriented" is correct. On the other hand, if a smartphone is released with Honeycomb on it, "tablet-only" becomes false. Matias Duarte, head of interface and design for Android, discusses how Honeycomb would work on smartphones which to me, is a good indication that a Honeycomb smartphone is not impossible, and therefore "tablet-only" should not be used. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Security Issues

A section called security issues was added with what i felt was not a npov. I feel that the section should be there, as it's relevant to Android, so I attempted to add a npov and add information about Google's response, as well as correct grammatical/typographical errors and try to give it a more encyclopedic feel. However, I would appreciate it if someone who has more experience with Wikipedia could review the section and make edits as necessary, reverting something if I went to far with it, thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I incorrect in reverting the edits by User:Markbp91? I incorrectly marked it as vandalism, but after reading Vandalism I see that I was mistaken in such labeling. However, according to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, by inserting and reinserting judgmental language (i.e., 'unfortunately' is specifically listed in words to watch) it seemed to me to be a violation of the npov policy. I cannot recall where, but I remember seeing somewhere that it is policy to revert/correct such edits immediately. I'm not attempting to start an edit war by any means, but everything I'm reading says that these edits by User:Markbp91 should be reverted. If I'm wrong, please help me out and explain what should be done in such a situation. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean User:Markpb91?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The situation was already resolved, but...yes? - SudoGhost (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Image

I reverted the image to the 2.3 image because, while 3.0 is the 'newest' version out, it is designed for tablets, while most android devices out today will very likely never see this version. The image is not a good reflection of what the Android OS looks like for 95% of devices (I made that number up, but you get the idea), where the 2.3 image is a better representation in my opinion, as it reflects a much larger section of Android devices. - SudoGhost (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The image used at the top of the article should be reflective of the article, and the 2.3 image is by far the most accurate representation of Android. While 3.0 is the 'newest' version, there are few (if not zero) devices currently in the market that use or will use 3.0. Please discuss any reasoning for using the 3.0 image as the primary image here before reverting it back to that image. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, Windows 7 became the main Microsoft Windows screenshot even before its widespread release. Just because 3.0 is designed for tablets doesn't mean it will be used elsewhere.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Windows 7 was the flagship product of Microsoft, the product that they were pushing and was the natural progression of the Windows line. Honeycomb is none of these things, and is in fact already being planned to become integrated into the 'smartphone' line of Android firmwares. It is not the most notable version, not the most used, and not the most spoken of in the news. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Your reasoning is plausible but it does not support removing the 3.0 screenshot completely. Instead, I think both should be included in the article, with the 3.0 one possibly in the version history section. Regards SoWhy 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi all,

I think it would be appropriate that the Android page should automatically redirect to this article (Android OS), and there should be a hat on top saying "Android redirects here, for other uses see Android (disambiguation)", as the main use of Android today is the OS.

Anybody agree, object?

Chezi-Schlaff (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See discussion below. So far consensus was against making this the primary topic for "Android" and I think there were good reasons not to. Regards SoWhy 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The primary topic policy allows for exceptions when a subject appears to be popular mostly because of recent public attention. The consensus is that this exception should apply in this case. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Android (operating system) → Android — Likely the primary topic. If page views mean anything to you, Android (OS) gets 22x more page views than Android (robot). If sources are more likely to sway you, Android OS still wins. [11] -- Marcus Qwertyus 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's think long-term here. The term "android" was used since 1886 and is still widely used today. The OS was released in 2008. We don't decide purely on page views, and for good reason. Androids were there long before the OS and will be there long after the OS is forgotten. --Conti|✉ 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well if that ever changes then we can change the links back. I suspect we will be increasingly reliant on automated/semi-automated edits. Maybe those edits will be made with androids. Marcus Qwertyus 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even some advertisements for the OS use android-form robots to promote the OS. So Android thinks android is the primary topic, not itself. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per comments by User:Conti and User:65.95.13.139. Presumably there is currently a relatively high proportion of "techie" users reading Wikipedia. As this changes in the future, then the general public (less well-versed in computing OSes) would probably be seeking Android (robot). --trevj (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the arguments given 6 months ago. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the previous arguments. Incidentally we still have the problem that an Android is not a robot. As a result the more correct title would be "Android (Android)" - obviously this situation also need to be remedied. The Apple argument it still valid I suspect. Chaosdruid
See also: Talk:Android_(robot) § Requested_move
Surely the closing statement there is equally compatible with this request. (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons clearly expressed above. Nageh (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per all the above. – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons above. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - Why everybody is opposing this move is beyond me. For all the good arguments of Conti and everyone else, I don't thing you have to be a techie to know that Android is an operating system, the opposite; you have to be a techie to know that Android is a robot. Generally, if you ask someone on the street what Android is (as of toady - as Marcus Qwertyus points out), I bet the only Android he'll know about is the OS. Maybe they're not techie enough to know what an OS means, but they know that Android is about a phone, not a robot. Chezi-Schlaff (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that depends on the age of the person you ask. If you ask someone who grew up when Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or Star Trek: The Next Generation was released, they will most likely remember "android" as life-like machines and not an OS. But since the age of the reader is most likely relevant to what they expect to find when looking for "android", that's a factor that has to be considered in this discussion and that's the factor that decides this question. It should only be moved if almost everyone on that fictional street gave the same answer. Which I highly doubt. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Seems like I'll have to accept the consensus on this one. Regards, Chezi-Schlaff (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose - Long term usage of "android" is the humanoid-in-appearance-machine. (and the shortened form "Droid" is quite popular too) Personally, I doubt the average man on the British street even knows there is an operating system called Android let alone that it's used in mobile phones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per previous reasons. And you don't have to be a techie to know that an Android is a Robot, you only need to have seen a few science fiction movies (a VERY well known one was Blade Runner which explicitely deals about Androids), that's all, or read an Isaac Asimov book or Philip Kindred Dick, or... Plenty of reasons... Hervegirod (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the robot is still the primary meaning of the word to most people. In actual fact, I think that should be the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Primary topic of Android is the robot, and rough consensus on this was established in previous discussions. Why the DAB even remains at Android puzzles me. Andrewa (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proprietary claims

The article has been edited to state that Gingerbread is proprietary, since the source code is currently not released. I have reverted this since I can find nothing saying that a delay in the release of a source code makes it proprietary, and no news articles I've searched have suggested this. Does anyone have any suggestions/comments? - SudoGhost (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think the editor was confused, but close to a point: The Android Operating system is no longer open source. I haven't read anywhere which license Honeycomb is released under but according to what I have read, the AOSP does not have honeycomb. second source ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not that simple. The Honeycomb kernel is GPL and is freely available, for example the Xoom kernel source is here, and there's already at least one custom kernel for the Xoom based on it.[12] So saying it's completely closed-source is wrong. Google are not releasing the rest of the source yet, and if they never release the source for 3.0 then we can safely say that this particular release was closed-source except for the kernel, but since Google have announced that they will release the source for the next version, saying that Android "3.0 and above" is closed source is also wrong. I think it's reasonable to say it's still open source but that Google have delayed the release of the non-GPL source for this specific version. Dcxf (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you say you will release the code is not enough (osd). You have to deliver it on request, which they have clearly not done. I agree with your point on the kernel, but disagree with pretty much everything else. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the logic presented above, iOS is also open source since you can download the kernel here: http://www.opensource.apple.com/ just releasing the kernel does not make something open source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.129.215 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 March 2011

Clearly Apple are never going to release the rest of the source to any version of iOS, but Google say that the release of the source for 3.0 is only delayed and that the full source for future versions will be released. Dcxf (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know they will release it? Are we supposed to speculate on a wiki page? At the moment ios and android both have open source kernels. Andorid and windows both provide the OS source to vendor partners but for some reason only the android article has the OS listed as open source. Google has been very clear that they dont want people installing 3.0 on anything they want because poorly implemented andorid tablets will damange the brand. The tablet OS will likely not be open source. there is no guarantee it will ever be open source from now on "The company revealed Thursday that it will delay publication of the Android 3.0 source code for the foreseeable future—possibly for months. It's not clear when (or if) the source code will be made available." http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/03/android-openness-withering-as-google-withhold-honeycomb-code.ars


--207.172.129.215 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Google has said it will delay publication, that means the content will be released at a later time, but they do not know when that is. Until there is a reputable, third-party source that says otherwise, then the release is 'delayed'. Our own speculation has no bearing on the article. 'Likely' is not grounds for changing the content of the page, unless it can be verified. All the articles and information I have found is that the source will be released, but not now. Anything else is just speculation. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Google have explicitly said they will publish the source in the future: "We're committed to providing Android as an open platform across many device types and will publish the source as soon as it's ready" so that is all we have to go on for now. I'm OK with the current wording which is a fair summary of the situation. Dcxf (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I agree also. "3.0 is currently closed source" is a fine description of the situation. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Android 2.3/2.4 "Gingerbread"?

SudoGhost recently reverted an edit changing "2.3" to "2.3/2.4", citing that there are no sources after 16 February 2011 for this. GNews finds several such sources from March 2011[13] though, so I wonder if we can agree to change this. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When the specs for the HTC Flyer and the ViewSonic device were first released, it showed the firmware as 2.4 (Gingerbread), this is later shown to be an error, that 2.4 was not Gingerbread. I haven't seen any source that shows Gingerbread as 2.4 (except for those that were reporting on a mistaken press release by HTC and Viewsonic). [14] - SudoGhost (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Google News link showed two sites, the Italian one[15] was not about Gingerbread 2.4, but was a Q&A talking about Gingerbread 2.3, and then asking about 2.4 (It states that "As for Android 2.4, Google has not announced anything like this so we can not comment on these rumors.) The Japanese link[16] shows the incorrect HTC Flyer's 2.4 Gingerbread (see my link about the press release above). - SudoGhost (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
PCWorld AU reports that the Desire S will run "2.4 Gingerbread" though, independent of the Flyer, ViewSonig, Xperia Arc etc. sources. Regards SoWhy 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears I was wrong then, my apologizes. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

closed source ?

Google has restricted access to the tablet-oriented version of Android.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/google-android-30-honeycomb-open-source-no-more/2845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that you can say this is really "closed-source" and leave it at that. Google has used the excuse that they want to keep developing it before it is "ready" to be open sourced, but they have not taken Honeycomb and taken it off of the open source licenses that are the core of Android. I am changing the wording and placement of the text so it is more directly underneath the Honeycomb bullet, and change all relevant text from a generic "closed-source" wording to something like "Google has restricted access to the source code, which has led to people calling Honeycomb "closed-source". Until the Apache open source licensing is revoked, I do not believe that Android, or any derivative of it, can really be called "closed-source".S1lencing (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of tech sites claiming that Honeycomb is closed-source for now, so we should keep to call it "closed source" as they do, rather than giving our own interpretation. And even then, not releasing the source code of a project is making it closed source, on whatever license the oode may be. The previous versions of Android are using an Apache license (for part of the code), but we don't know anything about the current license of Honeycomb. Writing that it's under an Apache license, when nobody has seen it, except Google business partners, is WP:OR. Hervegirod (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


Maybe you don't call it closed source. BUT it is not open source as of now. Here can be seen an arguement showing that it is a culture of closed source and not just a developmental process that will be open soon:

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/android-should-no-longer-be-considered-open-source-a-pattern-of-enclosure-by-google/2011/04/03

android 2.4

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/android-2-4-gingerbread-breaks-loose-on-a-prototype-sony-ericsso/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.209.111 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why has this not been added to the article? 68.69.209.111 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly because we are all volunteers here and nobody had time to do it yet. I added it now, thanks for the link. Regards SoWhy 20:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Future Android versions and details are added only when officially confirmed. Engadget is not an official source, and the existence of one device that [i]says[/i] 2.4 on its information display is not proof. Not to say 2.4 doesn't exist, but we impose the burden of official sources for a reason: because otherwise it would be very difficult to separate rumor from fact. Until more information is available on 2.4, or it is announced by a member of the Google team, it doesn't belong in the article. Zorak950 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but you are incorrect. There is nothing in any policy or guideline that requires an official source. We add information when it's verifiable by a reliable source and Engadget is such a source. Unless you can prove that the source is not reliable in this case, please undo your edits. Regards SoWhy 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you even read the article? It is titled "Android 2.4 Gingerbread breaks loose on a prototype Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc?" (note the question mark), and is based on a "claim" from Dutch site Tweakers.net, which in turn is based on their unspecified experience with "some sort of cobbled-together Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc." This is clearly still firmly in rumor status and not suitable for inclusion in a factual encyclopedia. As for my bit about official sources, I'm referring to the notation in the edit field of the "Update history" section of the article which states that requirement. I don't know its origin, but it's been there since before I began contributing and has never been challenged or removed. It's because of that contributer-imposed requirement that speculative additions, many of them ultimately false, have been largely kept out of the article. Honestly, I don't know whether such consensus-based rules are within Wikipedia guidelines or not, and I'd welcome your clarification, but in this case it's beside the point. From the title and text, even Engadget clearly regards the article 68.69.209.111 cites as a rumor. Zorak950 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: From Sony Ericsson Product Blog: "I’ve seen articles around higher numbers than 2.3 being seen in the display of Xperia arc phones – As I have been informed that is due to a misconfiguration in some samples and nothing to get too excited about really, sorry." Zorak950 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Zorak950. See Offical Code Drop Release Tags. Wikipedia has a long-standing tradition of avoiding hype and heresay, which 2.4 is. Google has never mentioned 2.4. Android is a Google product. If Google didn't announce it, officially release it, or at the very least confirm it, it's a rumor. They have mentioned 2.3 and 3.0, however. HTC is not Google, so until Google at least confirms this rumor publicly, it shouldn't be in the article. Adm.Wiggin (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


[17] Google has not officially given a name for Android 2.4, so until they do, I don't think any name should be associated with 2.4, as any reference would be third-party speculation (and therefore unverifiable), until Google officially applies a name to it. I added one too many brackets in the link in the edit summary, so I'm relisting it here so it can be easily accessed for reference. SudoGhost (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:V, the threshold is not whether the information is correct or whether it's "official" but whether it's verifiable in a independent, reliable third-party source, which is what I added when I added that information: [18] (which Zouzzou (talk · contribs) later changed to the engadget link]). As such, I have restored the previous version. If you want to contest this, you have to demonstrate that this source is unreliable in this case. That Google did not officially announce this is not sufficient. They might just have told manufacturers for example. Regards SoWhy 13:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As per the cnet article I linked:

"HTC has since corrected its online press release, changing the stated OS of the HTC Salsa, ChaCha, and Flyer tablet from Android 2.4 to Android 2.3.

HTC's typo was a small but significant. Albeit accidentally for HTC, the handset manufacturer wasn't the first to in one way or another presuppose Google's plans. Tablet maker ViewSonic allegedly suggested earlier this month that its ViewPad 4 device would also run Android 2.4. That, too, has proven false, since the company announced in Barcelona, Spain, that its forthcoming ViewPad 4 will currently deliver Android 2.2 Froyo, promising an upgrade to Android 2.3 Gingerbread."

I would imagine (and hope) that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Engadget is unreliable, but that the information that HTC and ViewSonic announced was incorrect due to an error on their parts, and that they have since corrected that error. As per your WP:V, the information in the link I provided is verifiable in an independent, reliable third-party source (cnet) which supercedes and updates the information in the prior link, which is why I changed the article. If this is incorrect to due to, I'm not understanding why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudoGhost (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the CNet source, it indeed does invalidate the Engadget source but it does not contradict the source I provided. I had accidentally reverted by to Zouzzou's second edit, when I wanted to revert to his first one, sorry for that. That said, the source provided (GTranslate link) does not cite HTC or Viewsonic but Eric Schmidt and the CNet source you provided does not contradict it, so it's still valid (you will notice that the CNet source is dated 15 February while the Golem source is dated 16 February). Regards SoWhy 13:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that it was being reverted back to the Engadget source, which is why I was trying to undo it. I think there is a bit of confusion, however, because there are other sites [19] that refer to 2.4 as "Ice Cream", and others that call it "Gingerbread", but it does seem that most are calling it Gingerbread. Should it maybe say somewhere in the article about the naming confusion with 2.4? I'm sure other people would be confused by the conflicting information as well. What is the protocol when two sources conflict? SudoGhost (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, I accidentally reverted one revision too few. It's correct now. As for your question, interestingly enough there is no Wikipedia:Conflicting sources (yet) but as far as I know, consensus is that if two (or more) reliable sources contain contradicting information, then we should mention both (all) of them in the article and cite them accordingly. In this special case though, I think the eWeek article clearly says that they are speculating, so they are not reliable for those purposes. Regards SoWhy 14:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://gizmodo.com/#!5760550/htc-revolver-a-honeycomb-phone
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Android_(operating_system)/Archive_3&oldid=1092048949"