This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Somebody replaced all mentions of 'Cupcake' with 'Cookie'. Could this page be reverted to the previous state and protected for some short period of time or smth like that? 89.176.223.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Done - Rapture's Sander Cohen fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! ツ Jenova20(email) 10:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Jelly Bean 4.2 uses v.3.4 linux kernel, please update
They were deleted under Wikipedia:NFCC#8. I was told by a Wikiproject a while back that Android screenshots were under compatible licenses to free since they're a Linux fork (or something like that). Seems they were wrong...Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No, they were right about Android's licence. It looks like these images were incorrectly tagged as fair use for some reason. And I'm not even convinced NFCC#8 would have applied anyway, since the images were inside collapsed sections due to article length concerns (which we really need a proper solution to, by the way), not because they were unimportant. I am tempted to restore the lot of them, but someone would need to go through and correct the image description pages, and possibly blur out some copyrighted Google logos. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
With those sections uncollapsed the article is too big to navigate. What about splitting each version into separate articles? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've always been in favour of that, but we would need to figure out the naming scheme. By number? By dessert name? Etc. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The idea seemed radical to me and that's why i've taken so long to come around to the idea. As i see it the names would have to be similar to one of these:
The only questions remaining are: "is there support for this split?" and "Which names do the articles receive?". Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated the images for deletion. As I can see, they failed at least three of the non-free content criteria:
WP:NFCC#1: Android is partially open source. Google takes the freely licensed source code and changes some things, for example by adding Android Market, and possibly changes some artwork such as icons and backgrounds. In this case, you would probably get the same understanding by using a screenshot showing only the open source parts of Android.
WP:NFCC#3a: You shouldn't use lots of non-free images when just one or two would give you the same understanding. There are often not that big changes between each version, so not all versions are needed.
WP:NFCC#8: You should only use non-free images if the images increase the understanding of the topic and if the removal of the images would be detrimental to that understanding. The images were in collapsed sections. A collapsed section screams that the contents of the section is something so unimportant that you can safely ignore it. That is more or less the opposite of what WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the collapsed sections largely ignore what the versions look like, so the images would have violated WP:NFCC#8 even if the sections wouldn't have been collapsed.
I don't think that each of those versions would meet WP:N to qualify for an individual article. New versions pop up all of the time and they don't contain that many differences. Compare with List of Ubuntu releases where there isn't an article for each individual version. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many images are used, or where, if they weren't non-free in the first place. At least two images, File:Android 1.0 Home Screen.jpg and File:Android 1.1 Home Screen.jpg, contain no non-free elements whatsoever. Most of the others contain small Google logos which are incidental to the image, and might not be enough to make the image as a whole fair use - but if they do, blurring them out would have been trivial. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Some wp:commonsense applies here. Do you think Google would object to the use of those images? No they wouldn't. In my opion WP:NFCC#8 does not apply. You don't judge it because it is collapsed. You judge it when it is uncollapsed and ask if it helps the uncollapsed content. Otherwise one could say delete all the content that is collapsed because it screams of not being needed. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Microsoft does not object to the use of Microsoft screenshots on Wikipedia (see {{Microsoft screenshot}}). However, all images which do not meet the definition are treated as unfree (see wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy) and need to comply with WP:NFCC#8. If some of the images were in fact free (although mistagged as unfree), then those images can be undeleted. However, they were, if I remember correctly, from a variety of different phone manufacturers. For example, I have a Samsung phone, and I would suspect that the default background image was produced by Samsung and that this image is unfree. You would have to verify that the background images and icons indeed are freely licensed. I would assume that many of the default background icons are freely licensed, but this is probably not the case with for example the Gmail icon, the Android Market icon or the Google Play icon. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
We deliberately chose screenshots that were as close to the free, default Android as possible. Everything is fine except for some copyrighted Gmail or Twitter icons on a few of the homescreens. As I said, I'm not convinced that one or two small, incidental icons can force the entire image to be fair use, but regardless it would be easy to blur/blank these out and the end result would be a free image. That's what I would like to do. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I would support that. These could probably be photoshopped to remove the copyrighted icons anyhow in some/most cases. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 13:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Outdated image
The image in the article is 2 months old. Please update the image ASAP. 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣22 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Image is now up to date (June numbers should be coming out in the next few days)--Fjmustak (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Version distribution image
For this picture, What is Y axis and X axis?Manzzzz(talk) 10:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Although it doesn't say in the image it appears that X is "distribution as of this date" and Y is "percentage of all Android devices currently in use". This assumption made on the basis that the image is updated every time new figures on activations are released.
I also wondered about the axes Readers shouldn't have to come to a Talk page to understand the chart. The description of the axes should at minimum be in a footnote on the chart(if the axes can't be made more clear). Also, all the references for the chart really need to be on the chart. From reading above, it looks like the creator has compiled the references in an external spreadsheet, so maybe that wouldn't be hard to do. BTW, I love the chart, and it adds a lot to the article. 108.17.33.35 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see about the caption but i think the rest of that would require someone like fjmustak (the creator). You're right of course though. It needs to be simpler. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 08:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the versions up to the June numbers. The updated spreadsheet can be found here. I created two versions of the chart, one with every API version available (the second sheet), and the other with only dessert names (the first sheet). The third sheet contains the references to the historical data. Note, the months that are missing are the ones that I took the numbers directly from the Android developer site. As for the axes, the horizontal axis is the date data is released by Google, while the vertical axis is the percentage of usage recorded by Google for each API level. It is worth noting that the way Google now collects data is slightly different as of the April numbers, which is somewhat obvious from the jumps in the chart. More details can be found here. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Also note that the x axis is not exactly linear, as Google is now releasing the numbers monthly, while in the beginning it sometimes released the numbers twice a week, other times every couple of months. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not the right screen
The screenshot of android 2.3 is not right one. Gingerbread didn't look at all like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.122.242 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Image description says it is Android 2.3, and the caption adds "on the Samsung Nexus S". Since every manufacturer can reskin Android to take a different appearance we really can't take your word for that. If you can prove it then we can do something about it. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 08:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually the anon is right about this. I've corrected it. – Steel 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice spot! To be honest i remember when the icons looked like that but don't remember which version they are from. Jolly good ツ Jenova20(email) 08:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually the prior screenshot was Android 2.3 but not with the stock/vanilla skin. The screenshot was from a Sony Ericsson Xperia phone running Android 2.3 with their OEM skinning. Just FYI, I personally believe a stock screenshot is preferred over a OEM skinned screenshot. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢ 08:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely. The non-stock images are already on display in Android (operating system). We don't need them here too if it can be avoided. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 09:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Reference 4 empty
Reference 4 in the article is empty, can someone track it down in the history tab and fix it, or otherwise remove it? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
YFixed by RockJuno. Big thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 14:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Add description to new features?
Quote:
System level support for Geofencing and Wi-Fi scanning APIs
The Geofencing and Wi-Fi scanning APIs in the new Google Play services (revealed at Google I/O) now have system-level support on certain hardware, the new Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 being the only Google devices that are currently compatible. For example, the gyroscope and magnetometer can now report raw and ostensibly more accurate data to games and apps, and the WiFi scanning mode can be enabled without connecting to a network for better location tracking without using GPS.
I am thinking the 2 examples provided above could be used to provide some context as to give a general idea of what it does and also add a note that only the 2nd Gen Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 support it at the moment, the same also for the improvements to Photosphere (Only Nexus devices officially):
System level support for Geofencing and Wi-Fi scanning APIs (For example, The gyroscope and magnetometer can now report raw and ostensibly more accurate data to games and apps, and the WiFi scanning mode can be enabled without connecting to a network for better location tracking without using GPS.)
While on the topic of changes to 4.3., Would the "Google Play Music" update really be considered part of the 4.3 Android update? Lorondos (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Historical distribution chart
I created a chart with historical distribution of Android version (access from Android Market/Play Store)
I added it to the page, since it seems like a relevant chart, instead of the Android logo, but it was removed for whatever reason. I will keep updating the chart as new data becomes available, and can share the underlying data (not sure how). --Fjmustak (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Slight criticism - you could have at least used varyingly different colours so we can tell which version is which easier. Just because it's Android, it doesn't need to be green. Other than that it's a lovely chart and would be great to include. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the chart might be more relevant in Android_(operating_system)#Reception than this article. It was certainly removed because it shouldn't be used in place of the android logo at the header of this article at the very least. But I think it would go well accompanying the pie chart at Android_(operating_system)#Reception, but I do agree with the above criticism - this chart would definitely benefit from more contrasting colours> I found it really hard to read of the correct versions. --kikumbob (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. Next week, I will change the colors. I would also like to share the data file, but am unsure how to do that within Wikipedia. --Fjmustak (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
If you can find a place to host it then somebody here can figure something out. – Steel 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a bigger worry here that it will be out of date really quick and we may need a completely new article for it or constant updates to it... Or we could have a new article to free up some space in the main Android article; maybe something along the lines of Android version distribution? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 23:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just uploaded a color version of the file. I've also uploaded the excel sheet I used to create the chart here. --Fjmustak (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, this is much clearer. Is the data from those official pie-charts on developer.android.com or somewhere else? – Steel 14:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Much better! Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The data is from all over the place (all screenshots of the tables initially posted on the developer site). I will try to recompile the list of sources I found, and add them to the Excel file Done. Some of the older data was particularly difficult to find. --Fjmustak (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we also colour code the tables for versions to match the historical distribution chart in the same way that both the Windows Phone and iOS version history articles do? This would add a much needed splash of colour and defeat some of the repetitiveness from the article. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 23:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of this? --Fjmustak (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Love it! Are they the same colours from your graph? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 19:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Trust you to want everything multicoloured... – Steel 19:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I used the exact same colors from the graph.--Fjmustak (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I was bold and made a change to the layout (or 15). I'm sure you'll all find the new look satisfactory? And you don't have to be gay to look good Steel. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 20:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice touch. I filled in the blanks :) --Fjmustak (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed! Much better! Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 11:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussing Android with my dad and we came across this chart, he noticed it was a little hard to read the bottom dates. Decided to play with it and change around how the dates are displayed. Just uploading both versions I made, if you wanted to do anything with them. - Brendan10211
This is definitely easier to read, but were the last few months cut off? The current one finishes at Feb 2013, these ones at Nov 2012. – Steel 23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why the months are cut off.. it should just be a matter of adding more data to the chart. I don't have the means of doing that currently, sorry about that. Brendan10211 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Fjmustak I added a new section to the bottom of this Talk page. Please link to the source of that data. Right now this is OR, and that is not acceptable by Wikipedia terms. Also, on a side note, could you create a chart by API version. That would be VERY useful, too! I want to be able to grab API specific data, map it over time, and project where it will be in several months. I created this StackOverflow page for this request. Ciscorucinski (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of version history by API level?
Version history by API level is great for developers and the information is readily available at http://developer.android.com/about/index.html Wikipedia on the other hand is made for the general public and most people don't know what API is. I really can't see the relevance in showing version history by API level when 99% of people don't know if their phone is on API level 15 or 16. If people really think it is a good idea to list API level then the actual levels 1, 2, 3 etc should also be written out for every version in the article. User931 17:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the API levels should be spelled out...It would be a bit more informative. It does reflect what is in the main Android article though. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I spelled them out but after a while i felt it was just too much information cramped in, hard to oversight. I made a separate table for API versions instead, could we compromise on this? Cheers User931 23:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The table you added is very good but it looks out of place on its own. I just toyed with placing the main article image in line with it but that also looked too much...Maybe Someone else can give their opinion if available here? Steel perhaps? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I restored an older version because i just noticed you hid a lot of the versions. They're grouped by API level, NOT name, and that is the reasoning for the split. Please use edit summaries too as some of your edits are controversial. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't hide any versions, they are all there, but this split of versions to API level is something you created which never was here for several years before. And your complete unwillingness to compromise is frustrating to say the least.User931 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I never created it and i've told you that before. All i did was collapse the sections because the article was too big. And i coloured it to match the table made by Fjmustak (apologies if i spelt that wrong). I don't have to cooperate with something i don't agree with. I liked the table you added before and still do, but it looked a bit out of place. I never said remove it, i just said it looked out of place a bit. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Also edit summaries like your last seem designed to damage the article just to spite me.
There is no need to list an API level in the heading of each version like that and make it less readable as it can be included either in the table or left out completely since it's already in the image at the start of the article. We have to stop this feud. We don't agree but this is childish. ツ Jenova20(email) 23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
...Because it's completely green and Fjmustak made his first table green (which he/she showed off here) and agreed to change the colours because it was difficult to interpret.
Google's graph is a pie chart and less informative than what we currently have in many ways. And i defend the layout solely because it looks better, is easier to find the vesion you want, and because no one else has complained about it, argued, or attempted to edit war over the layout. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, as i mentioned above, no one, not even on technically oriented web pages, talk about Android versions as versions by API levels. That only has purpose for developers. But now this whole article is changed just because of adaption to a home made graph. I disagree that Googles chart is less informative, i find it more current, up to date and easier to read. User931 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI, the dashboard thing on the Android website lists actual distribution percentages per API level. The codename - API level hierarchy that was here before made sense: codenames group a larger set of releases, whereas API levels distinguish between major releases (ie, releases with changes significant enough to warrant a new API level). — daranz [ t ] 23:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
And so there we have it. Like i said before, grouping by names hides a lot of important content and the API level graph in the article not only shows more than Google's pie charts, but also shows the history and how fast the uptake of the new versions is. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 00:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not particular about the chart. I could combine all dessert versions with different API levels together. However using a pie chart does not show the historical distribution! Chart using only dessert name versions without API level or version number --Fjmustak (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The historical distribution must be preserved as it is massively informative to the article. It sums up the Android version history simply and informatively! Google shows the newest uptake figures, we show all the figures. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
While "we show all the figures"...this is a very high level, low granularity version. I would suggest more low level, higher granularity versions (Also by API levels...there CAN be more than 1 chart!). I might also suggest presenting the historical data with bell curves that show the actual percentages!! Please consider this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscorucinski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Android Version History Chart is Original Research (OR)...Link to reference
I wrote the following on Stackoverflow to try to find a better graph (or data) on rates of change of Android versions (or by API level). I have not been able to find actual data, or any archived data that would allow me to build this chart over again...or even a derivative of it.
There is no source to this chart and the data cannot be found...therefore this is OR. I would suggest that information be published on the web and linked to it. Google's own Android Dashboards does not satisfy the requirement for actual data of that chart, because it is not achieved. Google Cache and Wayback Machine either don't go back far enough, or don't save the pictures to see what it was.
Please make this changes as soon as possible. There is important information that people will want to use that information for because that chart does not provide the level of granularity needed. Ciscorucinski (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The graph is made by Fjmustak from updates from Google to the Android distribution whenever they announce the new data. There is no requirement to cite it and it is not Original Research since anyone could find the old data and see for themselves. That you cannot find the old sources for it does not make it WP:OR, it means simply that you cannot find evidence any more. Citing the graph would be useful but would likely result in a handful of dead links on a regular basis. Does anyone have a suggestion for this? Also what "level of granularity" are you expecting? This is the version history article and the information you want might be in Android (operating system). Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The file description for File:Android historical version distribution.png already has a bunch of citations listed for the version distributions at different points in time. These links are mostly blogs and news websites that have taken screenshots of the distribution chart at the time, so they are less likely to rot away. There are, however, some gaps that they do not cover. Note that the image transcluded in this article is not this, but a derivative, so it doesn't have the links in the description. — daranz [ t ] 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Expected future updates
This section is complete speculation, there are no references, just links to blogs and news pages. It is even written "may carry the version number ..." and "Google has not yet officially confirmed this".
Wikipedia is not made for speculation and rumors and this section has no place on Wikipedia. Removing it as the crystal infobox informs you to do: "This article may contain unsourced predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur. Please help improve it by removing unsourced speculative content." results in constant reverting. Even adding "citation needed" or making it clear to the public that this section is speculation is reverted.
Why especially Jenova20 has this agenda and wants Wikipedia to be his/her rumor blog is very hard to understand. User931 22:19, 30 May 2012
Pushing aside the personal attack there, i did not create the section in question but did restore it after someone else or possibly you (i don't remember) deleted it. Citing WP:Crystal as an excuse to have it deleted is no good when i can use the same policy to justify its inclusion.
So what i've tried to do here and for the last 2 (?) weeks is get you to contribute to a discussion (and now i need you to do it in an adult way) and quit the edit warring. Jenova20 20:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a suggestion, why don't you create a new page on wikipedia instead, "wikipedia.com/speculated_android_updates" where you can blog about this without getting disturbed? User931 12:19, 1 June 2012
Android Jelly Bean
I heard that Google announced at least a partial hint about Android 5.0 rumored to be named Jelly Bean. Put this in Summer as there will be more announcements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee, Eungki C. (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is very speculative and all the product features are simply rumours. The reference used for the features is not a decent (primary) source. I propose the entire "Features" section be removed until there are clearer details surrounding this release of Android. 163.1.120.27 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
While the features are pretty speculative, the name isn't (e.g. [1]). We could at least add the title, so other articles, like Google nexus can link here. PizzaMan (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I've referenced it from another source too. Jenova20 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible future upgrades is verifiable in reliablish terms and is line with policy predicting events as notable and almost a certainty.
If you want to keep removing the same section then bring it up here as edit warring is unacceptable and it can be avoided. Thanks Jenova20 08:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If there are no sources you can't add information lest speculation.Curb Chain (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There are sources. Not at all meaning this to seem rude but can commentors please read the section before you ask questions that could be solved yourselves simply by reading?
Turns out everyone who thought Key Lime Pie was wrong, although i'm guessing it was the official name until Google changed it's mind to KitKat. Anyway, for now, for version 4.4 the discussion is over. Now, let's start discussing when the name and version 5 is official enough to put on this page ;-) PizzaMan (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Éclair or Eclair and Kitkat color
I just reverted an edit from a user. One of his changes was renaming Eclair to Éclair. The latter is obviously the correct French spelling, but all the references i find, seem to use a plain E. Also, note that the red color for the Kitkat version is the official color for the logo of the candy. Seems the only appropriate color to me, even though it's a bit brighter than the other colors in the table. But please share your opinion... PizzaMan (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Colour seems fine to me. All the previous versions start light and get darker with each API level. I think we should call it Éclair only if Google does. I was forced to do the same for every mention of Citroen in quite a few of their vehicle articles even though that necessary symbol is not on my keyboard. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 08:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hurrah! Well done ツ Jenova20(email) 10:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, I will need to change it in my graphs. Just uploaded a version. --Fjmustak (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Article milestones
Why does the "Article milestones" at the top of this talk page list a date for "IOS version history" AfD? —Al E.(talk) 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion affected this article also and ultimately decided a consensus to leave the two articles how they are despite concerns (by some) about possibly violating WP:NOTCHANGELOG. There's another AfD for the same thing currently, but targeted only at this article. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 14:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Any chance someone could change the colours of the previous versions of android to something less pathetic and cold looking? OS from 2009 is now implied to be obsolete by this colour scheme, because a few android wikipedians live in a innovation-obsessed tech bubble. I encourage making people feel less worthless and formenting human insecurity [the majority aren't on the latest or even 2nd latest OS] because they don't have a more up-to-date operating sys on their cell phone.Oxr033 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The colors are arbitrary, so it doesn't matter what colors are used. Even if they did imply something, the versions are still obsolete. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No one is being made to "feel worthless" by a table showing periodic user base. If a person owns an old phone and feels "worthless" then that's completely unavoidable on this end. I fail to see how changing the colours would even help with that, but either way it's not a problem of or caused by Wikipedia. The only version to have a colour even debated or discussed was KitKat (see above). Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 10:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about the grey-to-traffic light green part below the chartOxr033 (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific? Are we talking about the collapsible sections or the graph at the top? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hoaxes or misinformed IPs?
Astro, Bender, and R2-D2 (WTF?) have appeared at the start of the article again. I've heard of the two but remember us hashing this out before when Petit Four was also mentioned. Can someone (with more spare time than me) finally put a nail in this coffin and sort it so The Register stops chastising us for promoting hoaxes again. From what i remember last time, i believe Bender is a hoax, and i've never heard of the R2-D2 part before, but it sounds like vandalism or a hoax. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Those "sources" are just comments on Google+ posts. They certainly don't pass muster as "reliable sources". In fact, the one post is crowing about "winning a Wikipedia edit war". It's nothing but rumor. —Al E.(talk) 20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave it for someone else here to do the honours and remove the rhumours then since i'm currently burning myself with a drink, and have a lot already planned. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 20:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Accroding to that article, the names "Astro Boy" and "Bender" were pre 1.0 milestone names - not release names, just build milestones; and there's no mention as to what those milestones specifically represented - so I have no problem removing them unless a better source can be found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording to better match the sources that claimed these to be internal milestones and internal developer releases; but as mentioned above, I have no objection to the removal of this content, as the sourcing is weak (the one article appears to be based on the forum postings in the other refs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Rote list
I don't like the 4.4 list. There should be some text what each means. For example: Enhanced notification access. What does that mean? I think the entire list should be deleted and not added back until descriptions are added. What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The list needs to be trimmed significantly, it's far too big and completely uncited. We didn't go through the WP:NOTCHANGELOG argument just to then add even more information, which means very little to most people. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 22:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Impact, legacy
Although this article is more about Android feature history, it does not delve much into what the general impact was of the operating system and its various major versions. The same is with legacy, as Android 2.3 Gingerbread, while outdated, is still widely used, marketed and sold on low-end devices; in some cases the same applies even to Android 2.2 Froyo. Neither is CyanogenMod mentioned, and its impact on extending the functionality and lifespan of devices first released with stock Android. -Mardus (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Kitkat size
That section is growing out of proportion and is mostly uncited. Can someone trim it down to a list about half the size? Remember the CHANGELOG discussion stuck along the lines of us offering only a few changes, not a huge amount (like an actual change log). Not all of those are required, necessary, or even that explanatory. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, currently it looks almost like a bug tracker. — Dsimic (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Android version release dates
I think the date format of the release dates should be updated to a more readable format.
For example: A date might currently show as 5 December 2013 but for readability it would be better as December 5, 2013. --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll fight that because it may be common in America but i really don't understand Month, Day, Year. Day, Month, Year is chronological and simple. When the entire month is spelled out in full it looks even weirder to put the day after it. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 21:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, there's no need to fight. :) Let's just use {{date|YYYY-MM-DD}} when writing dates, and they will be formatted and displayed according to each user's preferences (explained here). The YYYY-MM-DD format for dates is also known as ISO 8601, if I'm not mistaken, and it's the best format regarding sorting, lack of misinterpretation etc. — Dsimic (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That's good news then. I'll try and remember that when inputting dates in future. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 16:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Use Apps? Consistently?
I just saw "tapping Recent Applications in the System Bar". App was changed to Applications. If the UI says "Recent Apps" shouldn't we say that? And uses Apps consistently? Later additions used Apps. comp.arch (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it was me doing that change in wording, so please allow me to explain the background... In my opinion, "app" is just an awkward shorthand invented to bring the whole concept of an application closer to the masses, at the same time bringing down the whole value of such software products. It's similar to downsizing huge efforts behind software development to an on-screen icon, and treating its actual value as it was the value of that small bitmap. To me, "app" is just a part of stupid managerial buzztalk, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by that. :) — Dsimic (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
App Ops removal from 4.4.2
I disagree that the removal of the App Ops should be mentioned in the version history. The feature was included by accident in a previous release and wasn't even available to the user without additional action. --Jimv1983 (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Actually, Google states that as an accidental inclusion, but it seems more like some compatibility issues forced them to remove it in 4.4.2 (why they didn't remove it in 4.4 as a major release?), and that's one of the reasons why it's listed here. Also, having App Ops no longer available is a huge step backwards for Android, as other operating systems for mobile devices are having similar functionality available; that's another reason why it's listed. Hope it makes sense. — Dsimic (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
AOSP vs Android
I noticed a few edits removing mentions of features because the those features are not open source, as if the licensing signifies whether or not something is part of Android. If you were writing an "AOSP version history" article, then maybe the license would be relevant, but here, I don't think that it is.
If you look at any promotional Android page, Google never makes any distinction between closed and open source features—they are all just "Android." The KitKat page, for instance, lists the Dialer and Google Experience Launcher as parts of Android—I think it's pretty hard to argue that something is not part of Android when it is listed on the official feature page. While not all devices have this feature, Google clearly states that these closed source apps are part of Android. Perhaps a note explaining that some features are exclusive to certain devices would be sufficient.
Google makes Android. It's their trademark, and I think their definition of Android is what matters, rather than a Wikipedian's opinion of what Android should be. Using the license to define Android introduces a whole host of inconsistencies, anyway. Android 3.0 was not open source, so was Android 3.0 not "Android"? A license doesn't define a piece of software, the company that makes that software defines it, and Google makes no distinction between closed and open source features when they speak about "Android".
If you want to write a separate "AOSP Version History" article, go for it! You could document all the features that have moved from open source to closed, and I'm sure that would be very interesting. But I don't think things should be excluded from this page based on the license.
There was another discussion before (scattered around), concluding that we shouldn't be including screenshots of the Google Home (also known as Google Experience Launcher), as that's basically a closed-source application which can be running on any version of Android, not only on the "AOSP-like" variants. On the other hand, not providing those Google Home screenshots probably brings in a lot of confusion, as the readers are actually expecting to see them.
In a few words, that's still an open question, and this is a very good place for discussing that. In my opinion, the solution might also be to include two screenshots ("AOSP" and Google Home), but I'm unsure whether that would actually be a good solution. — Dsimic (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't pdf this article
I can't pdf this article. Perhaps we should focus more in making all articles pdfable rather than making our tables too wide? ;) Here the message I get when I pdf the article: "WARNING: Article could not be rendered - ouputting plain text. Potential causes of the problem are: (a) a bug in the pdf-writer software (b) problematic Mediawiki markup (c) table is too wide". Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It's probably up to the collapsed elements (descriptions of Android versions), instead of up to the table widths. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
KitKat has severely limited SD Card access and made non-functional many programs
KitKat has removed the old permissions for apps to access the SD card like the could before. Why no mention of this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.241.204 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, those changes started with the Honeycomb release. Please have a look again, that's described in Honeycomb (3.0) and KitKat (4.4) sections, as the last bullet point in each section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
hardware requirements error?
"In addition to running directly on x86-based hardware, Android can also be run on x86 architecture by using an Android emulator..."
The section, in its opening sentence, also states that "the main hardware platform for Android is the 32-bit ARMv7 architecture". In other words, please treat the section as a whole and it should all fit together. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Today's Google I/O conference was only a preview of the next version of Android (L release). During the conference Google never mentions that the new release will even be 5.0. That was speculation from the cited source. It could very well be 4.5. We just don't know enough yet. I think this section should either be removed or have the header changed to "L Release" until we know more. --Jimv1983 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! Totally agreed, went ahead and deleted it (heck, somehow managed to mess up the link in edit comment), as it wasn't encyclopedic knowledge and was pretty much against WP:NOTNEWS. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
DMY dates vs. MDY dates
This article has a template "Use dmy dates", while it's parent page has "Use mdy". This is not good at least for copying and pasting refs/info between the pages. Shouldn't it really be MDY? Android is a US product (WP:STRONGNAT..?). Can someone change (with a script?) if no objections? comp.arch (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Note Android (operating system) page is MDY (and has always been I guess). I think this one should be too - is there a rule about sub-pages? And isn't this one? And WP:STRONGNAT applies? Do we need a ruling on this? comp.arch (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I used to be a huge fan of DMY, but recently MDY grew up on me – so, my vote goes to using MDY dates. — Dsimic (talk | contribs)
Api level 20
Not as exciting as "L", but it is the official Api level 20. I'm hoping someone can find a non-video source, but it *is* an official Google source. In the referenced video he defines Api level 20 starting at 1:30. I'm sure there's lots of speculations, but this is officially announced. PizzaMan (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Mention of api level 20 was deleted without any dialogue here. I urge Dsimic or anyone who feels like deleting this official api level to first discuss it here in stead of starting an edit war. Also there's no reason not to include api level 20 just because it isn't released yet. The announcement is from an official source, and Android being quite notable, that's notable enough imho.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! I apologize for not discussing this initially; however, the article is about Android versions, not about Android API versions. Having that in mind, we probably shouldn't include new API versions that aren't directly associated with specific Android versions. At the same time, including new information associated with not-yet-released stuff might collide with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree we should be careful not to add rumours and predictions in wikipedia. However this is not from a news source, but directly and officially announced by Google. So i find the existence official. In the extremely unlikely case that google would change it's mind and not release api level 20 as announced, it should still be mentioned as an announced but withdrawn api level. I agree that this article is primarily about Android versions, rather than api levels. But please follow my reasoning here: suppose i would start a separate article about android api levels, which would include api level 20 as the latest officially acknowledged version. I think most people would propose merging such an api article with this article about android versions. That would be imho a very valid argument, because api levels are so linked to android levels. Also, Android version history is a sub-article for Android. A seperate article about api levels, would be a sub-sub article. To keep things simple, i propose considering this as the article about api levels as well as about android versions. As such it should not contain rumours, but officially announced versions should imho be included. If you don't agree, i popose we try to make a separate article about api levels. But i'm not optimistic about how long such an article would last... PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm, well Ok, let's leave it as-is and see how the things unwind with API level 20. I agree that there's absolutely no reason to create a separate article that would cover Android API levels. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being understanding. Please note that api level 20 isn't just announced. It's part of the SDK and Android developers are testing their builds against it. So while not released to nexus devices, it is released in a sense, namely to developers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzaMan (talk • contribs) 23:29, August 26, 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for adding API level 20 in the first place. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The main image is a graph from 2009 - although the text beneath it has been updated, I feel as though the graph is very outdated at this point, and only really has value if it gets updated - Otherwise it might as well be removed 92.66.255.114 (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
92.66.255.114, I have made a chart for the portuguese version of the page Android, but it does not have so much versions, only the most important, but if you wish I can make a "complete" version, although I'm pretty sure it is fine by this. check it there. --Caiocrelier (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, 80.103.74.222! Regarding our back-and-forth on whether bug descriptions should be included or not, and your latest edit, I still find that bugs shouldn't be listed. In this article, we're listing new features and major bugfixes (mainly for minor releases, as that's one of their primary purposes), and saying even that "some new bugs" are introduced simply isn't helpful as each release had introduced some bigger or smaller bugs. Hopefully other editors will also weigh in on this. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The "Features" list for a release is not the place to list bugs that popped up in the release. A memory leak is not a feature. Keep bugs on the bug tracker. 64.231.205.67 (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As you can see, this page does not only contain features. If the page only talked about bug fixes it will not follow Wikipedia neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.245.233 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, WP:NPOV isn't challenged as it's simply impossible to list all bugs here (every version had or still has hundreds of them), and favoring some bugs would actually be against WP:NPOV. Again, this isn't a bug tracker and we're listing bugs only in the context of released bugfixes. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The same can be said of bugfixes. We can not keep all the bugfixes. The question here is if we keep bug (fixes and introductions) or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.68.85 (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this whole thing looks like trolling and in the interest of keeping our work environment healthy I'm seeking for a WP:3PO. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I removed this from WP:3 because it is a dispute between more than two editors. Consider WP:DRN. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 07:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Android 5.0 "Lollipop"
I've just reverted a few edits by Wasill37, which added an announcement of Android 5.0 and a pretty much empty "placeholder" section for the 5.0 "Lollipop" version in the Android version history § Version history by API level section. To me, this article isn't supposed to list or describe release announcements; instead, it's supposed to summarize the changes brought by publicly-available Android releases. Thus, adding an empty "placeholder" section makes little sense to me.
Of course, I'm more than open to further discussion. Also, I'd like to hear opinions from other editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be included as long as it is official even if it isn't publicly available. What shouldn't be included is rumors and speculation. For example, a few weeks ago I removed the reference to the new version of Android that was listed as 5.0 Lollipop. Those rumors did turn out to be correct but they were still rumors at that time. Now, it is official that it is 5.0 Lollipop so it should be here. --Jimv1983 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, Lollipop's description looks much better now, it's no longer just an empty "placeholder". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Jimv1983. Even though Lollipop is not publicly available yet, as long there is official source, the article can be updated to reflect latest info. As more details surface, the article can be then updated accordingly (e.g. 'will be released' to 'was released'). -- Wasill37 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's fine, but another issue was the "placeholder" nature of the addition. Now it's much better, a certain amount of information is provided. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
How about giving it a fresh new colour? The red of kitkat was obviously referring to the snack. I see a lot of a green/blue colour in the official press material. PizzaMan (♨♨) 08:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense totally. Went ahead and gave another color a try; it should fit well with the already existing colors, both within the table and within the version stats chart. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Geez, somebody reverted my edit that removed a leaked changelog. Too bad he isn't registered. I'd love to tell him why should he not do that. Kapibada (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Code names
While the graphic uses the code names and indicates the versions that correspond to each name, there is no explanation in the article for the use of code names. Nowhere in the article does it actually say that the operating system versions have code names.
Why was there a decision made to use code names for the public (outside of the company & the developer community)? If the android icon is a robot, why does it use the name of desserts for its software versions?
Why use code names? Does this go back to Apple's decision go give animal code names to the OS-X versions? What's the advantage to using code names? Why desserts? Ileanadu (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Well, the article clearly says the following:
Since April 2009, Android versions have been developed under a confectionery-themed code name and released in alphabetical order, beginning with Android 1.5 "Cupcake"; the earlier versions 1.0 and 1.1 were not released under specific code names. [...] The project manager, Ryan Gibson, conceived the confectionary-themed naming scheme that has been used for the majority of the public releases, starting with Android 1.5 "Cupcake".
That should be clear enough, if you agree. Regarding why Ryan Gibson decided to take that route, that's IMHO less important; though, it would be nice to have that information as well. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
About Android 5.1
As far as I know the changelog for 5.1 that was here was leaked... I found it on Android Police, where they did say it was a leak. I believe that leakes do not belong in an encyclopedia. Kapibada (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Based on this source, I'd say that we should wait for some more time before having Android 5.1 as part of the article. There will probably be more information available in the coming days or weeks. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
See also this edit on the Android Lollipop article, it provides further information on 5.1. Though, "Google has not yet officially elaborated on the changes, nor when it will be released for existing devices", what still pretty much flags it as "unofficial". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that Android 5.1 is undoubtedly out, an IP address wants to include bug reports as well – however, as we know, this article isn't a bug tracker. I've removed that bug description, and as an obvious measure of retaliation the IP address dug out WP:IS as a cover to delete the whole 5.1 section from the article. After I've restored the 5.1 section while noting that essays such as WP:IS are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines, the IP address deleted it again. This kind of behavior is nothing new here, but there are no reasons for a clueless retaliation – anything can be discussed here. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Now that the Android 5.1.1 factory images for some devices have been uploaded to Google's developer website, can someone find a change log that is not made for developers? Anonymoustofu (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
ARMv6 is NOT "supported"...
About this edit. I know e.g. Firefox supported ARMv6 at a minimum (and then dropped support).
About Android itself, it's hard to cite a (WP:PRIMARY) source for support of something that isn't supported (or to say that it doesn't).. What I could find:
"ARMv6 + VFP is not a configuration supported by the Play Store -- the goal was to keep the set of configurations as small as possible."[2]
"The customer says he has ARMV6 CPU. I did compile the app for ARM5 and ARM7"[3]
"Android NDK SIGILL crash on fpu instruction on ARMv6 device
I am compiling an NDK project using APP_ABI=armeabi to target ARMv5 cpu. I have code that deals with floating points, and when running on a low-end HTC Wildfire ARMv6 device, I see that I get a crash with SIGILL."[4]
As ARMv6 is backward compatible with ARMv5TE, that is what you choose (I was trying to find that for say the emulator). [This might be different in say iOS.] What you could do is say to Play Store, my app works in ARMv5TE to get ARMv6 devices included and actually use features ARMv6 has but ARMv5TE doesn't. You can, at runtime, ask the CPU of it's type and optionally use those features if available. And possibly refuse to run, if only on ARMv5TE (nicer than getting a runtime crash..).
I guess another way to only offer for ARMv6 devices is to exclude known ARMv5TE by name or vice versa only to offer to select ARMv6 devices (I think Firefox may have done that).
It's not a major point for me to add this in (if there is any real doubt). I belive it's supported by the facts however.. comp.arch (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and sorry for the delay in responding. Hm, got the whole thing researched a bit, and here's something quite interesting... Please have a look at the HTC Dream specifications, according to which that phone has an ARM11 processor. According to this description, the ARM11 microarchitecture is actually based on the ARMv6 instruction set architecture. Thus, we have wrong information in the article to start with. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, IQ125! Regarding your edit and my later explanation, only the released versions with known version numbers shoud be added into the bulleted list in the lead section. Please reread the wording before the list and I'm sure you'll agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Android M is an announced program, there is no policy that states it cannot be placed in the article. In fact, it should be placed in the article, so readers have knowledge of it and can easily find. Therefore, I have placed it back in the article. IQ125 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't you see that you're reverting too many changes to the article, so not only the Android M link is restored as a bullet point, but the updates to the image caption and other cleanups are unnecessarily reverted. Thus, please stop reverting mindlessly, and let's discuss; we don't need a policy about which version is to be added, we just need common sense. Regarding how the readers are supposed to reach the Android M article, that's already covered by the {{Android}} navbox at the bottom of the article, and not only this article but many others. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, considering the fact that Android Marshmellow was announced yesterday formally, can we please go ahead and allow the inclusion of Android M section in this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindan Shanmugasundaram (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We should perhaps wait for a few days until more information becomes available on API level 23, otherwise it would be fine. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Now on Tap: get assistance without having to leave what you’re doing—whether you’re in an app or on a website. Just touch and hold the home button.
Do more with your voice. Now you can have a dialogue with any of your apps that support the new voice interaction service. For example, if a user says “play some music on TuneIn,” TuneIn will respond by asking “What genre?”.
Direct Share: a fast and easy way to share to the right person in the right app.
Battery
Doze: when your device is at rest, Doze automatically puts it into a sleep state to increase your standby battery life.
App Standby: no more battery drain from seldom used apps; App Standby limits their impact on battery life so your charge lasts longer.
USB Type C support*: Quickly transfer power and data all through the same cable. Lightning fast charging gives you hours of power in just minutes.
Privacy & Security
On an Android Marshmallow device, apps designed for Android Marshmallow only ask for permission right when it’s needed. You can deny any permission and still continue to use the app.
Advanced controls to turn permissions on or off for all your installed apps.
Verified boot: when your Android device boots up, it will warn you if the firmware and Android operating system have been modified from the factory version.
Use fingerprint sensors* to unlock your device, make purchases in Google Play, authenticate transactions in apps, and pay in stores.
Android Runtime (“ART”)
Improved application performance and lower memory overhead for faster multi-tasking.
Productivity
Bluetooth™ stylus support*, including pressure sensitivity and modifier keys.
Improved typesetting and text rendering performance.
Smarter text selection, built-in undo/redo, and text actions closer to your fingers.
Text selection actions such as a new Translate option that lets you translate text from one language to another right on the spot. (Note: requires Google Translate app installed)
Save paper with duplex printing support.
System usability improvements
App links: enables installed apps to automatically handle their web URLs so you can jump right into the app, rather than the mobile web site, as appropriate.
Easily toggle and configure Do Not Disturb from quick settings.
If someone calls you twice within 15 minutes, you can choose to allow the call to ring through while Do Not Disturb is enabled.
Use automatic rules to enable Do Not Disturb for as many custom time blocks as you like or around events on your calendar.
Simplified volume controls allow you to manage notification, music, and alarm volumes easily from anywhere with the touch of your volume keys.
Streamlined Settings let you manage an app’s settings all in one place, from battery and memory usage, to notifications and permissions controls.
Google Now Launcher app list refreshed with search, fast alphabetic scrolling, and predictive App Suggestions.
Connectivity
More power efficient Bluetooth Low Energy (“BLE”) scanning for nearby beacons and your accessories.
Hotspot 2.0: Connect to compatible Wi-Fi networks seamlessly and securely.
Bluetooth SAP: Make calls from your carphone using your phone’s SIM.
Portable Wi-Fi hotspot now supports 5GHz frequency bands.
Expandable storage
Flex Storage: makes using SD cards or external storage devices as encrypted expanded storage for your apps and games on Android Marshmallow a whole lot easier.
Device setup and migration
Easily transfer your accounts, apps and data to a new device.
During setup, you can add an additional personal or corporate email account (e.g., IMAP)
Auto backup for Apps: seamless app data backup and restore.
Backup/restore of additional system settings such as your Sync settings, preferred apps, Do Not Disturb settings, Accessibility settings and enabled IMEs.
Media
MIDI support: create, consume, and perform music using your Android device with USB MIDI devices, MIDI over BLE, and software-based MIDI devices.
Internationalization
Android is now available in 74+ languages with 6 new additions: Azerbaijani, Gujarati, Kazakh, Albanian, Urdu, and Uzbek.
Android for Work
When receiving calls or viewing past messages, you can now see the full work contact details even if you’re not logged into your work profile.
Work status notification: A status bar briefcase icon now appears when you’re using an app from the work profile and if the device is unlocked directly to an app in the work profile, an alert is displayed notifying the user.
VPN apps are now visible in Settings > More > VPN. Additionally, the notifications that VPNs use are now specific to whether that VPN is configured for a work profile or the entire device.
How do we get the message across without the blatant theft? – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello! It's rather simple, just use your own words to write down what the list describes. It's a great source. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Accessibility / Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015
Omission#1: Switch Access added in V5 (allowing single- or multiple-switch scan of all screens including Google's keyboard, for users who cannot use the touch-screen.
Omission#2: Talkback added in V5 (or before?), for users who cannot see the screen clearly.
Top Bunk (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Top Bunk, I looked into and found "switch access" at Google the WP:PRIMARY source[5] and at least on other.[6] And for talkback:[7] "This option is available for devices running Android 4.0 and above[..]Devices running Android 4.1 and above[..]Android 3.2 and earlier".
Could we just say (for Lollipop): "Improved accessibility support (e.g. switch access support)"? That is all I added (for now). comp.arch (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
libstagefright
Was libstagefright replaced by MediaCodec in recent releases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.229.241.237 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Battery Drain
Should there be a special section about the widespread battery drain on 4.4.2 devices? I got an HTC One M7 a few weeks ago, and the battery life is much worse than my old LG Optimus S. I've looked around online, and this is a universal issue, affecting the Nexus 5, Moto X, and my phone, the One. Thanks. -Atum World.
Android 7 (Nougat) and Hardware requirements section
These two sections aren't written very well (mostly language mistakes). Examples:
Android supports OpenGL ES 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1 and as of latest major version 3.1 and Vulkan
The unofficial Android-x86 project
since the camera was dropped as a requirement entirely (except for smartphones) when Android started to be used on set-top boxes. <- confusing
Ability to display color calibration <- To calibrate the display color
Ability to screen zoom <- (Would need to look this up)
Added Emergency information part <- Vague, what is "part"?
Just in Time (JIT) compiler with code profiling to ART, which lets it constantly improve the performance of Android apps as they run" <- radom quotation mark, what is "it"?
Also still no kernel versions
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatkey (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Android version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This month[8] "Updated AOSP versions": "4.4.4, 5.0.2, 5.1.1, 6.0, 6.0.1, 7.0, 7.1.1" for a critical security issue reported "Aug 5, 2016". [It could be that issues are discovered in these versions, but the fix is not backported (and it should then say "reported for"), but plain reading indicates otherwise; not sure what to make of e.g. the "A-32096880"-link. Even if, anyone could backport.]
AOSP is the source code. Google can change it (and in fact anyone could change a fork of it). The level of support by Google could begin and end there, as it doesn't control what vendors do. They can compile their own binaries.
It's higly unlikely that anyone issued a security update for a bug before it was reported. It seems to me that e.g. KitKat devices haven't gotten updates after that time. Is it easy to see, does anyone have a counter-example?
Articles for each version of Android have release dates for "latest version". I'm not sure it's reliable, only for latest binary releases for specific Google only devices. It could well be that e.g. Google supports their Kitkat devices with security minor updates for a while, but then forces a major upgrade and then security updates on 6.0+ comp.arch (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Work on Android O draft
Can anyone add anything to Draft:Android O?? Note that it's in the draft namespace. Georgia guy (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's an old question now but Android 6 is based on 3.18.10. Android 7 + 7.1 are based on 4.4.1. source here. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 15:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Most popular operating system in the world
I'm not sure how reliable we'd class Statcounter but they're now saying Android has overtaken Windows machines in terms of internet usage. source. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 16:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Done - Rapture's Sander Cohen fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Done Image is now up to date (June numbers should be coming out in the next few days)--Fjmustak (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
