Jump to content

Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 2

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

Particularly, does Android support Mathematica? Nick C. (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional information

Would it be beneficial to add some or all of the information found here: [1] ? Robert M Johnson (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Malformed Citation

A citation under the header "Released (preinstalled)" was malformed, and was affecting page rendering. I replaced it with a "citation needed" tag, including what information was in the citation in the reason parameter. Whoever added that citation should probably add it again (and remember to test their edits in the future). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.83.245 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A vandal broke the reference while removing a piece of text. Usually pays to check the history if you come across problems. Fixed now. ~ Ameliorate! 09:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. This is only the second time I've edited an article, and I was just unfamiliar with how citations work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.16.114 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly criticism

Software installed by users must be written in Java. This provides end-users with less control over their phone's functionality. - I'm not sure if this is just very written very badly or if it is plain wrong. From the perspective of an end user, there is absolutely no concern of what language has been used to write some software. As far as I know, andoid will be the first mobile phone OS ever to allow users to replace any application, even the phone number dialer. So there is no point in stating that end-users have less control.

Even if you take it from the perspective of a developer, it's wrong. From most known systems before android it was a common truth that Java-programs have very limited access to the features of a device, and that you needed some form of native machine code to access all of the funtionality. Google states that they have create Java APIs that allow the developer access to all of the phones functionality, and that they themselves only use those APIs. I can see no real reason to disbelieve those statements.

Also, the criticism suggests that there is less control. Less than what / less then where? For most phones, you can not write native software at all, and even if you can (line iPhone and SymbianOS) this doesn't grant you access to all possible features. --Prauch (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's poorly worded, but there is some truth to it. Not "All" functionality can be reproduced in the exposed Java APIs. Less control is available to java apps then is available to native apps running on Android. Those who have root access to Android phone, perhaps because the purchased the Android dev phone, are able to write native applications and deploy them to their phone that can do things that java apps using the supported platform can't. Contributors will continue to improve the java API's though, and Android's java platform provides for good sandboxing and permission control. Mathiastck (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the entire criticism section needs to be looked at. Often times a "criticism" section on a Wikipedia page is added by someone who dislikes the product and presents every little problem with it as a significant criticism. If nothing else, the section should be renamed "Restrictions", as that is the header the exact same issues are listed under on the iPhone article. I'm going to at least be bold and do that.--Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that criticisms are often presented from a bias point of view without notability, but that must be addressed by removing controversial material without citation. I'm going to change the section back to criticism. This is for several reasons. The first and most visible is that android is a "full operating system" that can be "used on mobile phones". This differentiates it from the iPhone which is a hardware product with software, and puts in the class of operating systems similar to Windows CE and embedded Linux. Second, some of the criticisms could be considered things that "enable" the user rather than "restrict" him, wherein the extra freedom granted could be perceived as threatening. A criticism, I have heard but which i have not sourced yet, is that the android effort could hurt the GPL effort, a staple of linux developers, because it is licensed under the less restrictive Apache 2.0 license. I don't necessarily agree with this criticism but it certainly warrants discussion.Gsonnenf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

There is few technical problems. The one criticism is that Android ain't Linux OS because it does not include window manager etc. But those have never be a part of operating systems. The article makes mistake by assuming that operating system definition is based to marketing and not the computer science itself, where the linux kernel is the operating system. Google has not relicensed the Linux. And even Google would add code to Linux what would need signed software to get ran on it, does not change the fact that Android Software Platform does not use Linux kernel as it's operating system. You do not need GNU or any other parts for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.105.14 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It is absolutely not a criticism section, because it doesn't mention criticism. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The original source mentioned this as a critic because it made it more difficult to reuse "out of the box" code working on "regular" Linux distributions. Note that even glibc is not present on Android (at least that's what the article says). Hervegirod (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


"The unrestrictive terms of Android's license have allowed corporations using Android to place restrictions on their own customers. As an example, tethering (PC or laptop internet connectivity via the cell phone) is forbidden by T-Mobile USA, and the Android Market has de-listed such applications for T-Mobile customers.[103] This also means that the apps can be carrier-specific as chosen by Google.[104] However, this issue is true of any phone on the carrier's networks, regardless of the OS." ---- if it's true for any phone why is even mentioned as a critic? Next you'll say "oh, android sucks because it doesn't make you breakfast, but no phone makes you breakfast"

Almost all of this "criticism" applies specifically to the android software that gets shipped by phone carriers. (except "criticism" that is simply inaccurate. The HTC Dream didn't have enough memory to install many apps without hacks, but more recent models starting with the HTC Magic are simply not affected by it.) There exists alternative distributions of android (such as CyanogenMod ) where most of those critics are addressed. As anecdotal of an info as it might be, on top of my android phone running cyanogenmod, I have a full wireless tethering app, an sshd server, an X ui, a full gcc compiler, etc, etc. The limits left are purely hardware related (i.e. there's only so much RAM to go around.) 66.68.113.5 (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are still issues here. Deleting the note that the first "criticism" is true for any cell phone does not make it any more meaningful. Making something less obviously wrong doesn't make it right. Can anyone give me a good reason why that should be listed as a specific criticism for Android, as opposed to any other OS? Also, I don't buy the fact that the iPhone only has "restrictions" and Android has "criticisms". Unless you're suggesting that proprietary software cannot be criticized, which I assume you are not, either this article should be changed or the iPhone article should be changed. All of the restrictions on the iPhone page under "Restrictions" are common criticisms, but I'll bet you anything that I'll never get away with making a criticism section for the iPhone. There will be much less debate in changing the Android page than changing the iPhone page, since Android does not have nearly as many rabid fanboys. You may suggest that Wikipedia should not be concerned with fairness, but I think it would be naive to suggest that people do not use Wikipedia to make comparisons. In this situation, "Criticisms" and "Restrictions" are the same thing, but "Criticism" is a more negative word, and that matters a LOT more than you might think. Plus, discussions on the iPhone page say it doesn't have a criticism section because "good Wikipedia articles shouldn't". So we've come to a double standard, if one should and one shouldn't. On that note, are there any reason why the section name shouldn't be changed? Double standards should not be tolerated. Since the Apple fanboys won't let anyone change the iPhone page, this one has to change. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. I'm going to work on integrating the criticism into the rest of the page. --132.161.197.161 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Released Hardware

Can someone clean this up? I removed the GeeksPhone One, as it doesn't appear to be released yet. But I believe that the motorola phones are not released yet either, and there are probably a couple of other unreleased phones in that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.191.194 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No Multitasking?

In the criticism section one of the points says "Android is criticized for its multitasking abilities and the lack of a significant driver base." The referenced sources says "Android [is unable] to let users run multiple applications at a time". As far as I know this is incorrect and Android does allow multitasking. Can anyone confirm?

The only criticism about multitasking in the referenced material by the quoted person is that Android doesn't support multitasking. If it does in fact support multitasking then the quoted person's statement is wrong and it should be removed from the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.15.97 (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a bit tricky. While Android does allow true multitasking (e.g. background processes, etc), its user interface only displays a single application at a time so it does *appear* not to have proper multitasking. joeyo (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It actually does have multitasking, and can support background services. If they're written properly, they are displayed in the notification bar. It is poor practice to hide the notification bar for applications, because of the fact that this is the only way to see notifications for background services. The same argument can be said for any full screen application on any platform, not just Android. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.45.0 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Samsung 5700?

I removed the entry for "Samsung 5700" in the table, as I assume it stems from some typo referring to Samsung 7500. If I'm wrong, apologies in advance... --Anderssl (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Phone table carriers

The carriers in the table only contains US and UK carriers. If the heading uses such general words as carriers, it should include other countries' carriers as well such as Canada's Rogers Xsterx (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Be) Released Hardware

I think this section should be its own article, just to cut down on clutter. Table probably needs to be reworked. There is a good one here - [[2]]--Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Table please

The list of released hardware, and hardware "forthcoming" is getting fairly big. Any bigger and this section will get hard to read and take up a lot of space. A table should be made to organize this information. Including release date, manufacturer, and a small list of features. NiX0n (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking I'd like to see a table too. I was thinking Manufacturer first, then phone name, then release date...etc. I might start it soon, if I can figure out how. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
the table might be more useful if it was sorted by release date instead of manufacturer. A reader could always ctrl + F (search) for their phone/manufacturer if they wanted. This way users could easily see where Android started, how it progressed, and what has just recently been released. --Pwnage97 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sciphone G2

People repeatedly added info about the new Sciphone G2, as being the second Android phone. It is NOT an Android phone, but just fakes Android User Interface. It is also not the first time Sciphone launch make-believe of popular phones. They previously have released a fake iPhone. Besides, the only source provided to back the fact that it is an Android phone comes from pressreleasepoint.com which is a Free Press Release Distribution Website [3] that allows anyone to add content, so this source is not reliable. Hervegirod (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Qigi phone released?

The article states that two phones have been released; the Dream, and:

Chinese company Qigi released a version of its i6 Windows Mobile device running Android in December 2008.[45] The device is manufactured by Chinese ODM TechFaith.[46]

Although the Qigi i6 has clearly been seen out in public, I can't find any info to prove that it has been released. The attached reference is to a pretty small article that doesn't offer any evidence that it is actually on sale to the public. TechFaith's website doesn't mention it. I can't find Qigi's website. Anyone got any better info on this? Note that the HTC Dream page says that it is still the only Android phone. johantheghost (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

HTC Magic Still Listed in Forthcoming

HTC Magic still listed as "Forthcoming." Already listed in released. NiX0n (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

HTC Magic is listed as coming out for T-Mobile USA. This has not been confirmed at all. flipside65 (talk) 7:30PM, 15 September 2009 (EST)

Netbooks

The article briefly mentions that Acer is planning a netbook that runs Android. Could this be expanded? I think it's very interesting that it is likely to go from being a competitor on phones to a competitor on actual computers with the same operating system. TastyCakes (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Released & to be Released Table

I suggest that we combined the released hardware & to be release hardware into one table & just have a column for the release date & if there isn't one, put TBA. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Since table of released and not released hardware is not complete, I added a link to Android-Devices.net to External Links section, but it was removed with note that it is a spam link. Does it mean that only links to official sites of hardware vendors are allowed? Link that was added by me is related only to Android hardware and is not advertising or smth similar. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-Rex84 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

50 phones

This link lists 50 phones either released or in the pipeline. http://wiseandroid.com/NewsItem.aspx?category=News&path=October&itemid=14 At this scale, the list should become its own article.--Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble nook eBook Reader

The nook eBook reader will be released November 30. It will run Android. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.52.42 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

see Barnes & Noble nook --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

By distribution

Anyone planning to add a section detailing and comparing the various distributions and forks of Android? --198.135.110.2 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I recall CNET.com reporting that Android was a fork of Ubuntu Linux? (Which itself has released a mobile version.) Are there any further forks of Android that you know of? The only thing I've seen is the Steel web browser. CaribDigita (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Request new article: List of Android devices

I'd like to request that the hardware devices gets moved to a new article, List of Android devices. This new article could contain both present and announced products. It's just getting too long in the main article, and the "explosion" of new devices is coming, so it will rapidly grow. Thanks, Lester 21:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I think a section mentioning "notable devices" (first, most used or whatever) would still have a place here. TastyCakes (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a brief paragraph or two, with a link to the full list.--Lester 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. It's done. Article is here: List of Android devices. Thanks, Lester 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone recreate a free version of the Android architecture diagram?

If possible, is there anyone that can do an alternate rendition of the Android architecture? Generally it is best not to use a company's images if it can be avoided. Android has this cool overview of their architecture from top-to-bottom.

CaribDigita (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does google do it?

Google has spent and still spends a lot of money on developing Android and they give it away for free. Google is not a charity, so why do they do it? Their stated motivation does not sound very convincing i.e. increasing internet usage, because very inefficient. Andries (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They did an interview on Bloomberg TV last weekend. They said they don't believe people should have to pay for an operating system when the price can be made up on the Hardware. To speculate further I believe Google wins again because in creating this platform their products are integrated all throughout the device. Maps, Google Voice, Search, etc. They have home screen preference through Android. CaribDigita (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Google employees get to spend a significant percentage of their time working on whatever they want. A lot of them worked on mobile apps, and realized doing so sucked. So they fixed that problem. They made a platform they would like to work in, and insured it would be used by OEMs, so customers would get to use it too. Mathiastck (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
They do it because they adquired this project from someone else who initially released this software under the GNU GPL (a license that makes the code available to anyone and obligates a future developer to keep the code available). Still, Google Apps are closed-source software. Rholguinc (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if I really buy that, it's Google and if they wanted to develop their own proprietary smartphone OS that wasn't open source, they could have done that. They didn't have to "make do" because they were stuck basing it off a code base that had been released under GNU GPL, they could have just started from scratch. I don't think we can definitively know Google's exact motivations but I can guess at a few of them. First and foremost they want to ensure their services work on what is a rapidly expanding market - mobile computers. They don't want one software maker to dominate that new market like Microsoft dominates the desktop market. With Android, they largely control what is and isn't implemented which allows them to deliver better performance of their services (most importantly search and maps, but also gmail and google docs and so on). I've read that Google apps are much more fluid on the Nexus One than they are on the iPhone, and with more and more smart phones expected to use Android they can be fairly confident Google is going to work very well on those phones and competing companies can't cripple their software in any way (intentionally or otherwise). Google isn't a hardware company (the Nexus One being the glaring exception), their interest is to provide services and display ads with those services to as many people as possible. It is therefore in their interest, I think, to push standards that help them to deliver those services better, and the best way to push a standard with third party companies is to make it free, open and effective. Hence Android. Of course this is all opinion, and this discussion would probably be best had elsewhere. I'm sure you can find plenty of articles on the web speculating on Google's motivations behind Android, most of them written by people far more savvy than me. TastyCakes (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

just b/c its open source doesnt mean it isnt profitable... google might collect a fee for those hardware companies to use their OS.. look at how opensuse, ubuntu, and fedora work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how those companies make money: they charge a fee for providing support for using those products. The programs themselves are absolutely free to use, as is Android. Google does not, indeed can not, charge hardware companies for using a product it has released as open source. TastyCakes (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot

I replaced the old screenshot because of questionable copyright status. I personally created the current screenshot by cropping the emulator with the gimp. Please comment if you have any concerns. --Chrismiceli (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The screenshot needs to be update again, the new android version (2.1) looks completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.31.119 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ophone 1.5 SDK

Ophone just published the 1.5 SDK of their Chinese Android fork here. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Ophone be a separate article? --Lester 10:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Google to release their own phone

See news story here. Details should eventually be added to this article or the List of Android devices. SnottyWong talk 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Google phone. Brandon (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of Public SDK release

I'd love to see a clearer historical timeline, perhaps as a separate article. It would mention, launch of OHA website, launch of android.com, release of public SDK, the dates each firmware version was made public to developers, and the date each firmware version was shipped to the G1. Mathiastck (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Android 2.1 (Flan)

Android 2.1 (Flan) is now out, and is used by the Google Nexus One smartphone (also known as the Google Phone). Can someone update this article with information about this release? Android —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.154.180 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ANDROID 2.1 IS NOT FLAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.191.73 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Android Robot Logo?

Can someone upload the android robot logo along with the text logo?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Android_robot.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.88.226 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't fool me - it's Metal Mickey!

the restrictions and issues part of article outdated

someone needs to take a took at that part of the article, there are some outdated things there, that have already been addressed in later OS releases.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree: my phone runs Android 1.6 and it supports bluetooth file exchange, for instance.--Jpbrenna (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ditto, bluetooth file exchange works on my non-rooted Nexus One. Maybe this issue only affects 1.5? 93.23.4.200 (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)AlexGryson

Operating System?

I think Google Android is not a identical term of OS. Following the official site, it says :

Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications while the title of this doc includes OS.

-- Modamoda (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

moved it. -- Modamoda (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If you do a change, please at least be consistent an change all the Microsoft Windows pages as they are they include the same thing as Android —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.227.10 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Android is more than the traditional definition of an operating system, in the same wasy as windows and Linux is much more than an operating system. But in the same wasy as for Linux and Windows I think that Android is more commonly called an operating system than a software stack, therefore I would suggest to unmove it and let it keep its WP:COMMONNAME instead of the more correct name. --Stefan talk 06:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Stefan - Android is more commonly called an operating system than a "software stack", even if the latter may be more accurate. The current title may be confusing to non-experts so I think we should move the page back to its original title. Laurent (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I see. If there are no different opinions for a couple of days, I'll undo it to Operating System (or somebody else can do it). But I think the first paragraph still needs to be changed(remained) even the title of article contains OS. (I mean, the description about software stack) -- Modamoda (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, keep the first para, it is correct and should stay, only the name should change. --Stefan talk 00:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Android_(operating_system)/Archive_2&oldid=697930307"