Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 4

Honeycomb is following the Cathedral model of programming. While this model is not a favored method of the open-source community (and is hardly seen anymore), it still exists, and is still a valid open source release model (albeit with flaws). Honeycomb has not been 'released' yet, but the source code will be released (allegedly) with the release of Honeycomb. It is for this reason that I changed the wording in the infobox from closed-source to closed development. That way there is no way for the article to be false. If Honeycomb's source is released, 'closed-source' is untrue, as many open-source programs have (at least at some point in their dev cycles) had closed development, and still been considered open-source programs. Closed development has no chance of being wrong or misconstrued, as it is as specific and literal definition as can be given. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Google went on the record to say Honeycomb's source will be release eventually. Ian1337 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A code which is not released, and for which the developer says that he does not put any date for when it will be opened to the public, is not Open Source. Never mind what Google says. When (if) they release it, it will be Open Source again. It is not. Besides the product is released, and some products from Google associates have been priced and shipped. It is not like the development is not finished yet. In the Cathedral model, the code is Opened when the final product is released. The final product has been released, and the code has not been opened yet, and Google do not say when it will be. Quoting the wikipedia article: "The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers". This is not the case here. Hervegirod (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What day was Honeycomb released? - SudoGhost (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You can buy at least one tablet with Honeycomb (the Xoom), it is not closed development, there is a software which is included in a released product which source code is still not released. Hervegirod (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article says that the first Android phone to become a big hit was the Motorola Droid. I think this should be mentioned, along with other significant handsets like the G1 and Samsung Galaxy S, and the article should have a greater emphasis on its commercial history and popularisation.

I think the current article is a bit of a mess, frankly. It's poorly written, badly structures, and has a strange and unnecessary emphasis on obscure technical details and dumps of information. Contrast this with the lucid Windows Phone 7 article. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Also it suffers from the usual confusion between operating system and graphical interface system, section Linux compatibility is written haphazardly:

Android's kernel is derived from Linux but has included architecture changes by Google outside the typical Linux kernel development cycle.[105] Android does not have a native X Window System nor does it support the full set of standard GNU libraries, and this makes it difficult to port existing GNU/Linux applications or libraries to Android.[106] However, support for the X Window System is possible.[107] Google no longer maintains the code they previously contributed to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, creating a separate version or fork of Linux.[108][109]

X is not part of the operating system and neither the Java based replacement, so the sentences that I mark red, are irrelevant and confusing regarding the operating system. Android is a Linux fork that doesn't communicate updates with the Linux main branch. Therefore it can be said to be a Linux. The Android distribution doesn't provide X by default, but the Java replacement. That should be treated in a separate paragraph. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose moving the title from Android (operating system) to Android (software stack)

Rationale: Android is not an operating system, it is a software stack as stated by Google itself - see . The page reads "Android is an open-source software stack for mobile phones and other devices." Google says it again and expands on the idea here: That page reads "Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware, and key applications." Those are pretty definitive statements that come right from the organization that drives the project.

In addition to aligning the article title with the view of the company that drives the project, the proposed title is more accurate. Referring to Android as an "operating system" suggests that it is something less than it actually is. If you take the middleware and applications out of Android, what you are left with isn't Android, it's just a bunch of code that, even if it could run a phone, would offer severely degraded utility and functionality.

I realize how common it is to see/hear Android referred to as an OS, but that's not much of an argument to keep the current title. Wikipedia needs to record things as they actually are, stating facts supported by reliable sources. There was a time when the teeming masses believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Although that was the prevailing view at the time, it wasn't correct. Since we know that Android isn't really an operating system, I think we need to move the title to Android (software stack) or Android (solution stack) since that is what is more correct, despite the prevailing understanding of the teeming masses.

Software stack vs. solution stack: Currently the Wikipedia article Software stack redirects to Solution stack. There are 36,300,000 Google results for "solution stack" but only 360,000 for "software stack". Despite Google's use of "software stack", perhaps Android (solution stack) is the better title?

Do you agree that the title should be moved? If so, is it Android (solution stack) or Android (software stack)? Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting for or against the change, but thought I'd add this in (from 'What is Android' section of developer.android.com): "Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications." - SudoGhost (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". Using the same definition you could define Linux, Windows, iOs etc. as a software stack, but most people know them as operating systems. Dcxf (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This makes sense, I agree with Dcxf. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It should stay "operating system" WP:COMMONNAME Bhny (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be changed to "Software system" or "Software stack" as the Linux kernel in the Android is the operating system and Android is more than just the Linux, everything from Linux OS to middleware to applications. The "Android (Operating System)" is not technically correct at all and clash with the operating system technologies and makes difficult for people to actually find out problems and make decisions based wikipedia information so it is against purpose of wikipedia. LInux is not microkernel but monolithic what means it is the operating system as monolithic kernel is the original and still very much used OS architecture and Server-Client (aka microkernel) is much younger (about 30 years newer than monolithic) OS architecture. Windows or iOS are neither ones operating systems. They are as well software systems and they include operating systems among other software (system programs, system libraries, application programs etc). NT is the OS in the Windows and XNU is the OS in iOS (&Mac OSX). NT microkernel does not have name but just version number while XNU microkernel is called Mach. The problem is the marketing has wanted to use mystical "operating system" term what has been now used as it would mean same thing as "product". But when you start coding operating system and you want to get even a simple program to work, the marketing term does not fit at all. Neither it works if there is reason to explain how device (computer) boots as OS is first software what bootloader loads and executes and then OS starts executing other (non-OS) software like INIT or similar what finalize the system booting in wanted order. Now this article is trying to say that Android is not same operating system as Linux. Even Android includes the Linux OS. No matter how much software is stacked to be ran by OS, does not change the fact what the OS is under them. 62.165.189.248 (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see the research. Some believe that more reliable sources refer to Android as an OS rather than a software stack but no one has provided any evidence of that. Opinions don't count for much in WP, and without data, opinions are all we've got so far. Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Google news results: Android operating system shows 2,350 results, where Android software stack shows only 78. Seems to fit squarely into WP:COMMONNAME. Putting quotations around the phrases returns 913 for "Android operating system", and only 1 for "Android software stack" - SudoGhost (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A better name than "software stack" would be "Android (smartphone platform)" with 127 hits. So I agree that "software stack" certainly fails the WP:COMMONNAME policy. On a side note, Android (platform) would probably be more common with 4730 hits. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The "platform" (or "smartphone platform") does not work as platform means software platform what does not include operating system or application programs. Software platforms are like Java or Qt or more complicated combinations of libraries and prorams (not system- or application programs). The technically correct would be simply "software system" as computer is build by two different parts, hardware system and software system. They are both needed but they are still independent, like hardware can brake and vice versa. You can keep same hardware system but change software system to totally different and having totally different user experience with that. Or keep same software system and change hardware system to get totally different processing speed or use capabilities. The "Software stack" could work if it would be very well explained it means the software system and not just typical software stack like what KDE SC or Core technologies are. It does not matter how many results google brings (how popular some term is) as technology rules all those out how the machine (hardware/software) works and it is done by science and not marketing or internet blogs and forums etc. If popular opinion rules over the computer science (technology, facts, sience) then wikipedia is broken in the first place as it would be case that (as example) if 80% people believe human can fly then wikipedia article of that should be changed so and not to reflect science that human does not have wings and can not fly but human can build machines what can fly by using specific scientific rules of physics etc. Android article is about software, so it is about computer science and not about public opinions or believes what marketing generates to sell stuff. 62.165.189.248 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Android is an operating system, exactly like Unix is an operating system. I think there's only a confusion when somebody doesn't know that an operating system, and a kernel are not the same thing: An operating system is more than a kernel, and includes all the other libraries, programs, and even data, which come with the system and were not specifically added by the user. So the Unix operating system, for example, includes the Unix kernel *and* a whole lot of libraries (e.g., the C library), applications, compilers, windowing systems, manual pages, images, sounds, and so on. So android is an operating system - there is no need to invent a new term "software stack". The term "software stack" fails to capture the essense of operating systems, which is that this stack isn't just any stack, it's one which spans all layers - right from the hardware up to the end user. So please don't rename. Nyh (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If any of you guys want to change the category of Android (operating system) from operating system to software stack please be consistent and reach a consensus with editors of other pages like iOS (Apple) and Microsoft Windows. Because you are going to have more detractors than Nicolaus Copernicus when he wanted to displace the Earth from the center of the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.153.245 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.248.136.240 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources listed will give you more information, like this one. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "world's best-selling Smartphone platform" is potentially misleading. The convention on Wikipedia seems to be that "best-selling" means "largest number of total sales" (see List of best-selling video games, List of best-selling books.) However, the source cited for Android being the best-selling smartphone platform merely states that it had the highest number of sales in a three-month period(2010 Q4), not in the entire history of smartphones. Given that Symbian has been around for nearly a decade longer than Android, it wouldn't surprise me if its total number of sales was still higher than Android's. In my opinion, replacing "best-selling" with "fastest selling" might be more accurate. Captain Canuck16 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Best-selling does not imply largest market share. It implies it has the most sales in a specific (recent) period.Haha01haha01 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the statement "world's best-selling Smartphone platform" cover the sales of devices that are NOT smartphones? if so, then this statement needs to be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danigro456 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

in that case, you need to specify the "specific (recent) period". Otherwise, "best-selling" simply means "most cumulative sales". If the source says "best-selling in Q4 2010", you can use it to state "best-selling in Q4 2010", but not to state "best-selling" without qualification. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How should all the modifications hardware manufacturers do be called? (like HTC Sense) fragments? distributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.214.47.184 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that things like HTC Sense and (Not) Motoblur are proprietary sets of standard or built-in apps. For instance, HTC sense replaces the standard Android app that manages the home screen as well as several others I believe. I don't think fragments would be the correct term, because this would generally refer to non-standard versions of the OS that have splintered off the core Android releases from Google. I would term them as proprietary default application packages, which is admittedly a mouthful, but they are changes to the basic apps that are bundled with the Android software stack (see above for extensive discussion on terminology of OS vs. Software stack). As noted, the Android developers website describes Android as "a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications." From this, HTC sense (or other packages) are proprietary replacements for those key applications. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Imho, the best term for things like HTC Sense is probably shell. It changes the way people use the most common applications by replacing the standard-shell without changing the system itself (kind of like KDE and GNOME for Linux/Unix do). Regards SoWhy 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, that's a much simpler explanation than mine...MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering Microsoft is going after a 4th manufacturer (Samsung) for licensing patents fees over Android, you would think this would be mentioned in the article. I may get around to adding it. Psilocybin (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In one of the very first paragraphs introducing Android, we get this:

"The Android open-source software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java-based, object-oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation."

The problem with that is that it's flat out wrong. I'd love to edit it, however I cannot seem to clarify how Android works concisely.

Android is an open source software stack. However, that stack does not consist of Java applications. These applications are developed in the Java language, but are immediately converted by the dx utility into .dex files. The Dalvik interpreter runs these dex files and is a register-based VM instead of a stack-based VM as Java VMs are. This is the whole contention between Oracle and Google. Google used this in order to get around licensing of Java.

The unmodified sentence incorrectly informs people that Android runs java. Android does not, in-fact, run any java at all. The applications are developed in the Java language, but at no point does that language actually touch the Android device.

Could someone help me modify this sentence and/or paragraph to clarify this?

71.203.92.115 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)ThantiK

I took a stab at this. I think bytecodes are a bit too techy for the lead section but hopefully it is a little more clear that it is not strictly running "Java" or the Java core libraries per se. Dcxf (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work. The paragraph in question is still a bit jargon-heavy, but it's now much better than it was. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, you should include it's place in the smart phone marketshare. Sticka (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read the article but found no information about what i was looking for so perhaps someone could extend the article and insert these topics. There is a seperate topic about what changes where made in the different versions. However i have no idea how i am able to get these updates on an Android phone. Are they automatically distributed like in other Linux distributions? Does it happen via the app store? Do i have to download some files and install them? Are apps also updated? I have also heared that sometimes you will not get any further updates. Since there will always be new exploits in i.e. the webbrowser you probably need to root the phone to get updates. But i have no idea if that is possible on all phones or restricted by the OS or Phone. Thanks. 188.99.122.214 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just found out about the rooting article which is mentioned under "List of Android OS-related topics". However if it is needed to have a secure phone as mentioned in my questions about updates above, i think it deserves to be mentioned in the text. If it's not i don't care. 188.99.122.214 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What about criticism of it's User Interface?

Like how it is so differen't than ones on Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu?71.58.198.190 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such criticism. Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu are desktop operating systems, and Android is for mobile devices. If you have any reliable sources that discuss this criticism, by all means please list them here and I'd be happy to discuss them. Thank you. - SudoGhost 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For touch interfaces you don't want a GUI environment like you have on a desktop, because the interface is fragmented into places you touch for control and places you use for viewing content, because the mouse pointer is so small relative to the size of the screen, this is possible, but on a mobile platform, a windowing interface is cumbersome. Also on a mobile platform, like the iPhone, I think it is somewhat good to have eliminated the file system, cause I think 90% of the time users waste is with locating content in the file system. I mean really, would you want to be looking for your music files while cruising down the highway at 60MPH? You have to consider this, the efficiency of the interface could actually save lives. Rofthorax (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't purely a phone OS, it is used in desktops, laptops, tablets, and netbooks.

Besides, didn't Windows CE, a OS used on early smartphones, although a totaly different OS on the inside, have the same layout as Windows 9x? 71.58.198.190 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If I find another IP user vandalize this page, I will request for an indefinite semi-protection.Mike 289 16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the fact that no vandalism has occurred in the past few days, least of all vandalism frequent enough to warrant an indefinite protection, I find it highly unlikely that such a request would be approved, per WP:SILVERLOCK. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing a single vandal edit after August 2, with the possible exception of August 5. Don't worry though, there are plenty of eyes on the article. - SudoGhost 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I still feel this page should be semi-protectedMike 289 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some consensus on whether or not Android issue tracker posts are WP:USERGENERATED and therefore not reliable sources? It seems clear to me that they are user-generated: they are initiated by random internet users who are usually only identified by an email address fragment, and subsequent posts to the topic are the same. Their use as sources also encourages inclusion of very non-notable technical issues and wishlist items, as previously discussed here: . Dcxf (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly say that it falls squarely under WP:USERGENERATED. That I can personally add an issue and then try to turn around and use that as a source makes it unreliable. - SudoGhost 13:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you prefer no reference than a reference from the source? You do not need to read user comments (like you do not read ads in many references in wikipedia), just read Google comments and status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Because material in articles has to be attributable to a reliable published source. Even the very occasional comments by Google staff on the issue tracker are usually anonymous, and the original issue description is never written or updated by Google. The postings are often inaccurate, outdated, or refer to old or custom versions of Android. They are not suitable source material for an encyclopedia article. Dcxf (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What about issues reviewed by Google? Is Google good enough to be referenced? There are still some Google references that should be removed if Google is not good enough to be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't fix the problem that the original issue description, and all the rest of the content on the page, is user-generated and potentially inaccurate. Dcxf (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So we've got an editor inserting loaded phrases with edit summaries such as "remove whitewashing". If Lun Esex (talk · contribs) feels that the wording is inadequate he should discuss it here. I'll be removing the loaded phrase again shortly, as one blog quote does not a "controversy" create. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What is to be done with it? As predicted in WP:CSECTION, this section seems to be functioning as a bit of a troll magnet. The lengthy "Malware and security" and "Privacy" sections seem to give undue weight to relatively minor issues, using material that is mostly sourced from firms selling virus protection. The new "Closeness" section is a scattered bunch of negative points with no attempt at NPOV, about the issues of compatibility requirements and Honeycomb closed source which are already covered elsewhere in the article. Delete the whole section, or try to integrate it with the article? Dcxf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While I would keep the second paragraph of the Malware and security section, as it was covered by multiple reliable sources in the news, I agree that the rest of that section appears to be firms selling virus protection, and not much more. If the second paragraph is kept, I think it should be moved elsewhere in the article, as it really isn't a criticism, but just a fact. Maybe I'm not reading between the lines or something, but I don't see any criticism there.

For the privacy section, I think there might be some value in keeping it in the article if better sources could be found, but trimming it down to a sentence or two, because I'm not seeing how "These databases form electronic maps to locate smartphones, allowing them to run apps like Foursquare and companies like Google to deliver location-based ads." is a criticism of Android. The only information that is sourced in that section is that Wi-Fi locations are used by Foursquare and location-based ads, that there is third-party software that identifies information that could hypothetically be accessed, and that flashing the ROM voids the warranty. There's no criticism there, and the rest of it appears to be completely unsourced.

I'm still looking into the other two sections, IP infringement claims and Closeness, but the first two sections as written don't really belong as "criticisms". - SudoGhost 11:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I merged the bizarrely named "closeness" section back with licensing. I think the rest should be merged or deleted too. Bhny (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember going through a previous criticism section and working as much as possible into the article where it belonged, and removed the criticism header in the process. I wonder when it found its way back in. Hmph.
"Openness" comes up often enough that it's a reasonable concern for people, so some of yesterday's editions can probably be kept as long as it's sourced and phrased properly. Discussion about malware too probably deserves a mention, but I'm sure sure where and I also think we need to resist the temptation to just keep parroting the latest dangers and scary figures churned out by the security firms. Paragraphs dedicated to specific exploits I think is a bit much as these come and go with little lasting impact.
As for the Oracle thing, this section gives considerable undue weight to what is really just one of many patent lawsuits currently being argued over. Having said that, patents are a significant issue at the moment and a really thoughtful few paragraphs could be written about them, Google and everyone else's different attitudes towards them (inc. the Motorola Mobility purchase and stuff), etc, however the current IP infringement section is not that, and it wouldn't be listed under "criticism" anyway. I might take a stab at the weekend unless someone else gets there first. – Steel 13:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the criticism header leaving the sub-sections. I think that's a good start. Now the sections need to be trimmed down or merged. Bhny (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing the criticism section and putting its content in the relevant paragraphs is OK, but the result has sometimes become inacurate or false. For example: "Android's kernel is derived from the Linux kernel. Google contributed code to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, but certain features, notably a power management feature called wakelocks, were rejected by mainline kernel developers, so the Android kernel is now a separate version or fork of the Linux kernel". This presents the facts as if Google worked voluntarily for the kernel, but that they were forced to fork because some specific features were rejected by the kernel people. But this is false, they forked since the beginning, and they contributed very little back to the kernel according to the kernel guys, and some of the contributions they put were rejected (for reasons that ought to be explained here). However, what I'm saying is not intended to be a criticism on your own effort to improve the article. It's normal that some quirks remain after a paragraph reorganization. Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole article has a NPOV problem. A quick look at the iOS article shows nothing about Privacy (despite iOS having severe privacy problems), and no Malware section, despite there being plenty of iOS malware --Snakeskincowboy (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This amount of criticism is perfectly justified with a device that has so much "Big Brother"-Award potential than one running the Android OS--80.171.178.0 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a collection of changelogs. The current article is an indiscriminate list of changes between every version of the operating system and as such does not conform to Wikipedia policy. To make it do so would make the article so short that its independent existence would be an unnecessary split in content, which would be better served in this article. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: the AFD was closed as keep so there is plenty of time to edit the article, and who knows what size it will be when this is finished? The current article is already (mostly) at summary level, not detail level, so just needs editing down a bit. Dcxf (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, AfD results have no bearing on merge discussions: you can't argue that AfD can only decide whether an article should be deleted, and then use an AfD to oppose the merging of content. As AfD has been presented as the former, then it can't be used in the latter. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the version history should go back to the way it was before. A table of all the versions on the main article page. The separate article for version history and a summary on the main page just doesn't flow as well. Why was this done in the first place? --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It was split by consensus mainly because the main article was too long, but also because a lot of information about older versions, while useful as a reference and interesting to people who want to know more about the way it evolved, is probably not that interesting to most people as part of the description of the operating system. Dcxf (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

But in its current form, it fails WP:NOT. To make it conform, the article's size would be such that it would not be a good spinout article: if an article is split due to size constraints, if the sizes of the two articles are small enough that the combined size would result in an article that would not require splitting, then they should be combined again. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it fails WP:NOT in its current form. If you compare the sources with the summaries in the article, it's already for the most part a summarized list of the significant changes in each version. It could use some editing but it probably wouldn't reduce the size to the point where it should be merged again. Dcxf (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page asserts that the number of natural languages supported in Android 2.3 "more than doubled," But the citation provided makes no reference to this.

130.212.120.45 (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed CTJF83 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please either merge the Version History page back to the main page(as a table) and new number point(not under OS history) like it use to be or just get rid of the "recent version history" and only link to the other page. The current layout is very fragmented and harder to follow than it was before. Wherever it ends up it REALLY needs to be in a table like before. --Jimv1983 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The double post was an accident. I forgot my signature and tried to stop the page loading to add it. I guess it had already went thought. If someone would delete the first one that would be great.--Jimv1983 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 I have been working on a Linux Users Group resource page and need some
conformity of all the Wiki Linux versions and distributions. Debian has an
excellent template and I have made an RSS reader to pluck version data from
the wiki page. Would be nice if I could get all of them to follow this method
and my page could keep up to date with all the latest versions.  
RSS source path
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&feed=rss&action=history     
RSS Template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&action=edit

Just found a page claiming Android devices record your keystrokes, your browsing and reads your messages. If it proves to be true, it should be mentioned in the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not Android devices - apps installed on Android devices. But that's not relevant to the operating system, just like a malicious program does not belong in the Windows article for example. We already have an article about Carrier IQ and if specific controversy ensues, it should be included either in the articles about the carriers selling handsets with such software installed or the manufacturers producing them. Regards SoWhy 22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this probably does not belong here. A similar analogy would be HP/Dell/Toshiba/other PC manufacturer selling copies of Windows with rootkit/diagnostics software: not really a problem with Windows itself nor Microsoft fault. In addition to that, what can be called the "official Android phones", the Google Nexus phones, don't seem to have that problem. --Jerebin (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This keeps getting added, but it's not an Android specific issue. While some news reports are still relaying the week-old initial report that Carrier IQ was found in Android, more recent reports make clear that it has been found in Android, Blackberry (RIM), Symbian (Nokia), WebOS, and recent reports even state it has been found in iOS. Basically, the only one not identified to have it thus far is Windows phone.

See recent coverage at:

• http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video
• http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/so-theres-a-rootkit-hidden-in-millions-of-cellphones/16708?tag=content;feature-roto
• http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/1/2602313/google-nexus-android-phones-and-original-xoom-tablet-do-not-include (note: this link added here after some of the replies in this thread)

As a result, I've again removed the mention from the controversy section, as it's not an Android-specific controversy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It deserves a mention, so if not here then where? Jenova20 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's already mentioned at Carrier IQ. Also, I just found reports stating that the devices found with Carrier IQ are primarily restricted to AT&T and Sprint (although some European carriers are also being reported to have it to a lesser degree). Thus far, I haven't been able to locate any reports of it being found on Verizon or T-Mobile devices.

• http://gigaom.com/2011/12/01/verizon-no-carrieriq-no-way/
• http://www.extremetech.com/computing/107427-carrier-iq-which-phones-are-infected-and-how-to-remove-it

So, this item may be better suited to the carrier articles once the story develops enough for additional sources to provide information on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's on the Carrier IQ page, you're right Jenova20 17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be relevant to mention that Android (or a particular version of it) was approved by The Pentagon. --SF007 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Added it into the "Uses" section --SF007 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence:

"One design issue is that average users cannot monitor how applications access and use private and sensitive data (e.g. location and hardware ID numbers). Even during installation, permission checks do not often indicate to the user how critical services and data will be used or misused"

I removed it because this happens in all computer systems capable of running user code: You can never be sure what an app is going to do! If you run an app on Windows, god knows what it is going to do! Same thing if you run an app on any other system, certainly not Android-specific. --SF007 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not aware of any operating system, certainly not any mobile operating system, where "average users" (which I assume means non-technically inclined users) can monitor such things. - SudoGhost 04:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we have this section bulletpointed as it's growing at about 1 device every 2 weeks. It now also covers fridges, washing machines and glasses so it's going to keep expanding. Thanks Jenova20 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact we need to start thinking about how many niche uses we're going to allow in the list. The purpose of this page is not to exhaustively document every time someone utters the word 'Android' or experiments with Android on their washing machine (seriously?). I'm going to prune the list a bit. – Steel 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not need to prune the list, since it's well sourced and still on the core subject.

I would contest pruning the list when other sections take up so much space and this is crucial to showing the rapid expansion and openness of the system.

Thanks Jenova20 10:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a blog is "well sourced", plus the washing machine does not run Android, it connects to your phone, which may or may not run Android. - SudoGhost 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Granted it's not the best reference but all of the stuff there is verifyable.

And you are correct that the washing machine is not on the Android OS.

Thanks Jenova20 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

...the open and customizable nature of the operating system allows it to be used on other electronics, including ... treadmills.

Treadmills? That is ridiculous. A treadmill doesn't fit this enumeration of devices.

Further, ... the OS has seen applications on wristwatches, headphones...

The treadmill might fit this list. BUT this list can not possibly be exhaustive. It must be limited to some typical implementation of Android. Else I must insist in having my bathroom mirror included. :-) --Pyrometer (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all an exhaustive list, it takes up a couple of lines of what is an article about the Android OS, not just it's use on phones as the rest of the article is.

Thanks Jenova20 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is: If treadmills should be mentioned at all, they should definitely not be mentioned in the list thery are now in (Kinds of electronis devices). A treadmill is a dumb mechanical device.

Treadmills might be mentioned in the second list (Useful or brainless uses of Android on this and that). That's a matter of taste, since this list gives only some examples (illustrating inventiveness (as well as the dumbness of some) of the implementors). :-) --Pyrometer (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry is this a serious conversation? If a treadmill has an OS then it quite clearly is electrical and not a "dumb mechanical device".

As to which section it is in, it's in the appropriate section entitled "uses". Thanks Jenova20 12:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is semantic pedantry, but a treadmill is just a conveyor belt with a motor and I don't think soldering a cheap Android tablet to one really recategorises it as an electrical. Btw I am going to edit this paragraph to restore the "niche" phrasing that was used a little while ago before someone changed it - if we must include all the gimmicky uses let's at least make things clear. Maybe afterwards I'll attach Android to my cat somehow and add that to the list. – Steel 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And a phone is a block with chips. Your point?

The article is entitled Android (Operating system) and not Android (Phone) so the uses are verifiable, appropriate and referenced. And i contest the removal especially as the list is hardly big. You want to trim the section then get rid of the examples, live view is one of only 3 smart watches on sale as far as i'm aware so that could go, i wouldn't think we needed an example.

Thanks Jenova20 08:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To Steel i have changed the treadmill reference to a more reliable one from engadget. Thanks Jenova20 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Android emulator has a very old image (1.5 android os). It needs updating. Could someone upload it here? --200.98.197.34 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My edit was deleted: . I changed a link to better reflect the statement.
Part of Android's success is Consumer loyalty towards Open Source Brands. Having the source code out there somehow makes the product look more appealing, which is why Honeycomb tablets like Xoom didn't sell that well, when Google refused to release the source code.
is this version better? --Ne0 (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Part of Android's success is Consumer loyalty towards Open Source Brands.

• Android being open source is probably a major point in its favour compared to the competition, but this is problematic for so many reasons. For starters, the link discusses how users of one open source product are more likely to use other open source products too. It makes no statement about there being any consumer loyalty to open source in the general population. Second, even if it did say that, that's only a point about the general characteristics of open source brands, and the general characteristics of open source brands don't necessarily and automatically apply to every specific open source brand (for example Android). So this source is not OK for this claim.

• Having the source code out there somehow makes the product look more appealing, which is why Honeycomb tablets like Xoom didn't sell that well, when Google refused to release the source code.

• Even if being open source can increase sales (which, per above, you haven't established properly), that doesn't necessarily mean that Honeycomb's unavailable source was the reason it failed (Honeycomb failed because Android tablets were crap and expensive and pointless). You can't take a source that says open source is good and conclude that because some product isn't open source, that's why it isn't selling. This is totally fallacious reasoning. – Steel 16:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's Original research and it can't be added without a source that says it for you. Thanks Jenova20 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to do it, but seeing how there is a lock on the page: http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.16.100 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Many people are confused regarding the naming of different android version. For instance there is a misconception that android names are based upon ICE creams not desserts(Not every one in every part of the globe knows what is ginger bread and what is the difference between froyo and Ice cream). So I request you to add a note that clearly specifies that these names are not based on ice creams e.g.

'Each version is named, in alphabetical order, after a dessert' should be changed to 'Each version is named, in alphabetical order, after a dessert(not ice cream)'

Thank You.

Rajatsaini4u (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've wikilinked the term "desert", and that article explains the usage. You may prefer that a parenthetical is added to the article, but I don't think it's feasible to try and cover ever regional variety of English throughout articles. The English Wikipedia has its article at desert so I think it's safe to assume that's the most common term, and therefore we should use it here as well. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Android Icon Logo was not designed by Ascender Corporation. Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) "Android, not built by robots" Creative Review. Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

--Sashatemov (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Marketing section please change "The Android logo was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation." to "The Android logotype was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation. Android robot icon was designed by Irina Blok, as part of Google marketing team. "

Ascender corporation designed the original Android logotype, not the Android logo. Android logo is a little robot character, and logotype refers to the words of a logo. Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_logo_and_logotype

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) Creative Review;Oct2011, Vol. 31 Issue 10, p72 Android, not built by robots Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

https://plus.google.com/101462943424829477427/posts/fGfDcMxuZjk

http://www.linkedin.com/in/irinablok (this profile includes proof that Irina Blok designed the logo, and peer reviews from Google that attest to that)

Sashatemov (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Partly done:Unfortunately the sources you provided either don't fulfill our requirements (quora.com, irinablok.com, google+, linkedin) or require a subscription I don't have (Creative Review), so I couldn't verify the bit about the marketing team, but I've found a book that credits her for the icon. We don't do inline links to external pages, so I left that out as well. --Six words (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a long section on this Talk Page referring to a Criticism section (Criticism section has grown to about a quarter of the article)in the Article. But there is now no Criticism section at all!!. What criticism remains seems to have been ... buried in various place e.g. the Applications section.

I came to the article to find whether the Android OS prevented installation and use of other browsers. It is inexplicable to me, in a very long article, dealing with an OS controlled by Google, that the word "browser" only appears in the following paragraph:

The web browser available in Android is based on the open-source WebKit layout engine, coupled with Chrome's V8 JavaScript engine. The browser scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test on Android 4.0.

It is an OS controlled by Google?!

Reading the article I want a Criticism section more not less. For instance: are users allowed to: "disable Google's location data collection functions" if Apps (eg Skyhook) aren't?? Are other mobile OS's approved by the Pentagon?

Of course I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when Google makes twinkly utterances on their ethics, but still I believe a Criticism section is not only merited but required here. Amongst other issues it should outline the issues of "privacy" (aka "surveillance" with spin!) involved in Google's move into the mobile devices market and the functioning of Android in covertly/overtly delivering Google's monitoring/data collection/etc strategy. What government would NOT be interested in a company/devices that collected and maintained extensive databases of its citizens? Times change and promises are easily broken.

A Criticism section is a standard feature of a Wiki page, so, because of the immense significance of Android, I think not having one is an NPOV issue. I stand to be corrected but otherwise I intend to attach the relevant health warnings.

LookingGlass (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no criticism section because it was considered WP:UNDUE to have it in the article, as it was disproportionately large. The article doesn't require an entire criticism section, if an article is well written it will present this criticism in the appropriate sections. - SudoGhost 19:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Who considered it? Where is the reasoning? Sorry but I can see only a distorted logic in what you have written Ghost. If the section is too long then the appropriate action is to shorten it, not to delete it. To me, the entire article is too long but I wouldn't suggest that deleting it was therefore appropriate! It also rambles. It reads to me as an chaotic mixture of fine detail and broad summary. I hear what you say regarding "well written" articles not needing a Criticism section but cannot agree, both because this article is not that well written and because that is not the way Wiki articles are generally presented. I mean no offence by that. Writing of such an order is something that few if any writers posess. As it stands currently, there is virtually no "critical commentary" regarding the items I mentioned for instance. Without a Criticism section there is no place to describe such points. Without trawling and analysing the entire article it is not possible to find the information upon which to draw any conclusion. Others have raised these points regarding NPOV and they appear to have been simply ignored. To me it appears that the matter has simply been swept under the carpet. Whatever opinions may be about the merits or otherwise of the Android project or of Google's ambitions or potential, the matters pertaining to surveillance/data gathering/what you will, as enabled by mobile devices and Google's unrivalled potentiality in this field are matters of substance worthy of appropriate coverage in their own right in the same manner as the other areas pertaining to this OS. It doe not HAVE TO BE a long section. There simply needs to be a section. So, how do we take this forward? I believe very strongly in the NPOV issue here and do NOT believe that Google should be held exempt from standard Wiki practices. LookingGlass (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Without a criticism section there is no place to describe such points? How about where the pros of these points are being described, as an article should? Nobody said anything about the length of the article being a factor in removing the section. The section was completely WP:UNDUE, the sources used did not give any weight for something of that length, and it was discussed on the talk page. I don't think there is a need for a criticism section, anything "critical" of any specific aspect can be presented in the appropriate section, that's how good articles are written, by presenting information where appropriate, not by drawing undue prominence to criticism of the article's subject by creating an entire section devoted to it. Such a section creates a very slippery slope in adherance to NPOV, and isn't necessary if the criticisms are placed appropriately. This is not some exception of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but the adherence of them. - SudoGhost 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Android is a normal OS and as such does not prevent the installation of any alternative browser (dozens are available in the market) and in fact you are free to install any software whatsoever. This fact is hardly notable (unlike the opposite case - iPhone) so it is not necessary to fully elaborate on it. If you find a good source about Android and Google data collection you can incorporate it. Richiez (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we need 3 of them all in the same section/article? Thanks Jenova20 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved it further up. If someone else wants to remove it, that's fine. Not really that bothered. The images in this article are getting a bit clutteriffic. – Steel 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks Jenova20 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/24/idc-q1-2012-world-smartphone-share Android has nearly 60% of world smartphone share. Someone should update the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Need info abot XobotOS project: C# port Android. More: http://blog.xamarin.com/2012/05/01/android-in-c-sharp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRedRat (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a table for the speed of Android sales or just combine it in the Android Market/Google Play one? I have references and dates for:

• 100,000 in May 2010. (citation same as June 2010)
• 160,000 in June 2010.^[1]
• 350,000 in April 2011. (citation in article)
• 500,000 in June 2011. (citation in article)
• 550,000 in November 2011. (citation in article)
• 700,000 in December^[2]
• 850,000 in February 2012.^[3]
• 900,000 a day in June 2012.^[4]

If noone wants to touch this with a bargepole i'll do it later. Thanks Jenova20 15:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ignore last message, i just cleaned it up and the table is very nice Jenova20 15:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Are Google for Android applications part of Android? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.119.132 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, no. Some of them are included in AOSP ROMs (like Maps, Gmail, Play Store etc.) but not all of them (for example Streetview, Drive, Chrome, Earth, Currents) and some popular ROMs like CyanogenMod even provide a working Android system without those apps so there is no reason to assume that they are actually part of the system in any way. Similarly, the Android running on the Kindle Fire does not include them. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not limited to custom ROMs either; there are some devices (such as this one) that don't have any Google applications installed on the device, not even the Android Market/Play Store. - SudoGhost 20:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to update the relevant sections for Jelly Bean --James Freeman 20:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version shows 4.1 but 4.1 Jellybean has not been released yet. Being announced and demoed by Google is NOT the same thing as being released. The official release date is the first date it is officially pushed to or released on a device. Even if you go by the day the source code is released from Google(which does not count as the release date) it still isn't out yet. Google has said that Jellybean will be released in mid July. --Jimv1983 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If the version number is not reliably sourced then it should be removed as it is speculation. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone going to change this? I could do it myself but I often miss stuff and don't remember when 4.0.4(the actual latest version) was released. --Jimv1983 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i misunderstood. If Google showed off Jelly Bean and the version number then it has to stay. If the case is that it is speculation, then it should be removed.

The article title is Android (operating system) not Released Android versions.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. The infobox says "Last stable release". That implies that it has been RELEASED. I demo from Google is NOT the same as being released. The release date is the date that it is publicly available. For that to happen either a device has to start shipping with it or get an official update to it. --Jimv1983 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Nexus 7 has Jellybean and is on sale and multiple devices are being updated to it. This is the most stable release and the AOSP has access to Jellybean too i believe. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention that many Android handsets are tivoized. I think it should. -- 62.156.43.210 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I own multiple Android devices for years now, I heavily follow Android news and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried looking online to maybe get a better understanding of what you mean by "tivoized", and I have no clue what that's supposed to mean. Could you please elaborate? - SudoGhost 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Stallman writes about "tivoization" here. Basically, it's the use of hardware to make any changes made to GPL code useless. If you modify Tivo code, the Tivo hardware will not run it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.231.44 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is even relevant to Android after reading the link. Any manufacturer who creates hardware to disable parts of Android will lose customers to the manufacturers who don't disable those features. And considering the growth of cyanogen, this is a non-issue and not relevent to the article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sistema operativo Android en el mundo dentro de la cuota de mercado cada vez más ocupado y posición. Desde teléfonos móviles, Tablet PC a TV BOX, todos los dispositivos móviles, puede ver su sombra. Era de Nokia a la era de los teléfonos inteligentes, no más de un largo tiempo para completar la sustitución, pero el problema generalizado de máquinas inteligentes ha estado allí, no mejora - batería no suficientemente durable en teléfonos inteligentes Android. La era de las máquinas inteligentes no, Nokia, y el tiempo de espera de hasta una semana es algo muy simple, no debido a la gran capacidad de la batería, pero el consumo de energía reducido. Máquinas inteligentes no es el mismo consumo de energía, que se manifiesta en la Tablet PC y teléfonos inteligentes de gran tamaño más obvio, suele ser normal un día y dos días, usted tiene que cobrar por él, lo cual es un inconveniente. Como por ejemplo el iPhone ahora básicamente completado 24 horas no se puede lograr, por lo que deriva una gran cantidad de carga móvil del dispositivo para el iphone. Por supuesto, sólo en espera del smartphone, Android es bastante durable, este es un problema técnico, de software a problemas de hardware para resolver. Soy un ventas dedicados móvil Android Tablet operadores de sitios web de PC tienen un más profundo entendimiento para Android, la fuente de este artículo: www.barato-smartphone.com Por reimpresión por favor indique la fuente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barato-smartphone (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

English Translation: "Android operating system in the world in market share and increasingly busy position. From mobile phones, Tablet PC to TV BOX, all mobile devices, you can see his shadow. Nokia was the era of smart phones, no more than a long time to complete the replacement, but the widespread problem of intelligent machines has been there, no improvement - not durable enough battery on Android smartphones. The Age of Intelligent Machines no, Nokia, and the waiting time of up to one week is very simple, because of the large capacity battery, but the power consumption. Intelligent machines is not the same power consumption, which is manifested in the Tablet PC and smartphones obvious large, usually normal one day and two days, you have to charge for it, which is a drawback. Such as the iPhone now basically completed 24 hours can not be achieved, so that derives a great deal of mobile charging device for the iphone. Of course, just waiting for the smartphone, Android is quite durable, this is a technical problem of software to hardware problems to solve. I am a dedicated sales mobile operators Android Tablet PC websites have a deeper understanding to Android, the source of this article: www.barato-smartphone.com For reprint please indicate the source"

ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a blogger arguing that smartphones aren't smartphones unless they only have to be charged once a week. I'd ignore it as he/she's trying to promote baloney ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudo if you're here, although i didn't make the edit in question can you explain to me how this isn't a reliable source in the edit? It seems fine to me. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Google has stated that there are apps inside the Android builds that are in fact not open source — Gmail, Google Maps and YouTube chief among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.37.13 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Any info on the next release, Key Lime Pie? --209.133.95.32 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't include speculation unless it is at least 95% likely and backed by multiple reliable sources. Read WP:CRYSTAL for more info. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In a subtle -2833 characters minor edit (sic) user:Steel replaced the previous market share table with the same information (I hope) in a boring monotonous text version. I made the opposite previously, justifying my edit : chronologic table for clarity. Because as a reader, I don't want to read a boring paragraph just to know when android was the majority of smartphones, or when 1M activations per days were reached. I agree with him above that an aggregation of statistics is messy. When he said it needs to be rewritten to include opinions, that was insightful articles on market share, not pseudo PR langage for just a single info, which is best in a line in a table. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with:

When he said it needs to be rewritten to include opinions, that was insightful articles on market share, not pseudo PR langage for just a single info, which is best in a line in a table.

I haven't gotten around to this yet, but the idea is to find interesting things to say about Android's market share, and how it has changed over time, etc, rather than just list a bunch of random statistics. Is that what you meant? – Steel 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

exactly : insight and statistics apart. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, update Android worldwide marketshare. 75% on third quarter of 2012 according to IDC (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23771812). Second one is IOS with 14.9%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done – Steel 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version needs to be updated. I tried to do it myself but I could not find the current value to change. It currently shows 4.2 as the latest release being released on 10/29/2012 but that is not correct. 4.2 will not be released until 11/13/2012(this is correct on the Android version history page). The current version should have: 4.1.2 released 10/9/2012. Can someone please fix this? --Jimv1983 (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

For some reason this was moved to Template:Latest stable software release/Android (operating system) – Steel 14:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A long time ago the Android version history used to be on the main page and was very easy to find. When it got moved to it's own page(made sense because of how big it has gotten) it was still very easy to find from the main Android article. Now it's pretty hard to track down from the main page. It's just a single link under the "Update schedule" heading. Not a good place for it. Not sure what would be better but anything would be easier than what it is now. --165.193.240.4 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of extra links and cleaned up the "see also" section so it's easier to find from there as well. Does this work? – Steel 18:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.techinasia.com/android-market-share-china-2012/ Android's market share in China for 2012 Q3 has raised to 90%. I think its worth mentioning on this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The intro of HTC Sense has it that it is "a graphical user interface developed by HTC Corporation for mobile devices running Android"
How does this work? Android seems to have its own UI, so does Sense replace it, or run yet on top of it? Yes i could ask this there, but it seems that some info about 3rd-party UIs could be added here. Thanks in advance, --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the manufacturers run a custom "skin" on top. Samsung uses "Touchwiz" for example, HTC uses "Sense". Maybe the article could be clearer...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do is look at screenshots. This is a HTC Sense homescreen whereas this is default Android on the same phone. These are HTC Sense settings screens, whereas this is the default Android settings screen on 4.0 and above. They're fundamentally the same, but Sense is a customised version of the default interface with a slightly different layout, colour scheme, fonts, etc. It might be nice if an image whiz could upload something showing the default look, Sense and Touchwiz side-to-side.– Steel 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see that as the best way Steel. Are you able to do this? I would love to but only have the one camera. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Chances are that Commons will have some free images of the interfaces that could be combined into one image using like, Paint or something. I'll have a look later. – Steel 13:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. If possible, try and get a range of comparisons for more than one brand, ie not just Sense or Touchwiz. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Move to Android. 117.227.166.109 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

NNo can do. WP:Commonname - Android is more commonly a robot, not the Google operating system. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Android is a Linux-based, open-source operating system designed for use on cell phones, e-readers, tablet PCs, and other mobile devices. For users of smart phones, Android provides easy access to social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and smooth integration with Google products like Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Calendar. While it is owned by Google, it should not be confused with Google’s Chrome OS, a web-resident, thin-client operating system designed primarily for netbooks and tablets rather than for mobile devices. Android has been adopted by a number of manufacturers, including Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and Sony Ericsson. The expanding assortment of applications available on this platform suggests that Android-based phones will continue to be strong competitors in the smart-phone market.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqubool Alam (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is for the improvement of the article. Your last comment gives nothing to aid that. Please clarify if possible. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why use a modified version of Android as the main screenshot which informs everyone of how Android looks like? A vanilla screenshot should be used however you like your Galaxy Note thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.84 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Note should NOT be used, as it is not stock Android. It would be useful to demonstrate OEM customizations however. Also, the list of items (widgets, search bar, etc) is incomplete without also listing "live wallpaper." --Ratnok (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At the time the other user complained about the Galaxy Note image, someone had moved it into the infobox. Nobody else agreed with that so it was moved to the interface section where it's mostly fine. That section does discuss manufacturer customisations after all. I'll mention Touchwiz in the caption. – Steel 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A Link should be added on the references heading. Way2all (www.way2all.in) should be added in the reference, and androidauthority.com should also be added to it. Thanks HariWorld (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Links only appear in the reference section if they actually support and verify the veracity of the content, otherwise it belongs in the external links section, however links there must comply with WP:EXTERNAL YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 17:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The reference for Android OS for being open source is just a link to an overview http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

It might be worth adding more specific links- http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html http://source.android.com/about/philosophy.html

---

Also it appears that the SDK software development kit is not open-source in a way that is open - ie- you can't copy, modify or reverse engineer it. 3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; or (b) load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK. http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html

reference to this not being understood as an open-source license http://ostatic.com/blog/does-android-still-qualify-as-free-software Jonpatterns (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)