Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 7

Per the title, should it? Search Android and it's 99% related to the OS, not any type of robotic. Not to mention, Android (robot) is its own article, so all that has to be done is move Android to Android (disambiguation). Is anybody against this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! IIRC, such a proposal has been already discussed without becoming accepted. Quite frankly, I find Android as a disambiguation page to be better than naming this article "Android", simply because neither the robot nor the operating system meaning could be seen as the clear primary topic. However, we should hear opinions from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We do go with the more common usage of the word as the primary article, right? I.E. Apple takes you directly to the fruit, not a disambiguation page with both the fruit and company. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As the WP:PTOPIC guideline says, it's about the respect to usage and about the long-term significance. "Apple" as a fruit (and primary topic) surely has a greater long-term significance than "Apple Inc." as a company: the fruit exists for much longer, and many people would surely suffer or even die if all apples disappeared for some reason. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the fruit, android for a robot, is a made up thing, and didn't exist except, in science fiction. Yes, the concept is older (first used in an encyclopedia in 1727–51(?),^[1] actually the much older than the more used, newer, 1921 word "robot", that is strictly not a synonym) than the OS, but actual androids (or gynoids, actroids, droids, humanoid robots or just whatever you want to call them, maybe just robots) are fairly new, yes, a few were made earlier to the operating system (the first one?: Steve Grand's: "project from 2001–05 was Lucy, a mechanical baby orang-utan").

Per the WP:PTOPIC guideline:

"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage [..]" – seems to apply here

"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance" - I'm not saying Android the OS will always be most popular, but are android robots even popular (in numbers) at all? And violating WP:CRYSTAL that they will be?

"In a few cases, there is some conflict between [the two above]. In such a case, consensus determines".

I wouldn't push much for this (or be against), but WP:COMMONNAME of Android seems to be for the operating system..

At least none of the other uses for Android, such as "Methyltestosterone, brand name Android", can claim that (that is a slang, not "brand name"). comp.arch (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the last sentence of the overview over this article since there is a grammar mistake. Precisely, please change "The Android's success..." to "Android's success..." Thank you. Gittigitt (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, with a slightly different twist. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"moblie operating" -> "mobile operating" ... Maxiantor (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, fixed that typo. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

About "One reviewer commented[undue weight? – discuss] on "desktop" use of Android".

I put the section in, I agree, this is only one reviewer. Not sure what the objection is. 1) Is it that those, who do not possibly like Android as a desktop (say compared to Windows), should be quoted? 2) Much less used than Windows? 3) Or even much less than Android as non-desktop? If number 3) see my section on desktop-Android variants above. comp.arch (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So I didn't add the undue tag but it's good that we've come back to this. I think the review is a perfectly valid review to reference in the article. But I'm sure I removed the large quote on a previous occasion and I still don't like it. Why has this review been given such lengthy attention? Why this particular review over any other review? – Steel 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just a review I found, that was not on a blog by some unknown. At the time (and you seemed ok with), I just wanted it clear that you can run Android with a keyboard and mouse (and people do not find it horrible, I've yet to try out myself..). I've been looking into other reviews (about hardware) but I would like the reviews to be on the software/features not on some bad hardware.. See also upcoming Pixel C, where Google bases it on Android not Chromebook. comp.arch (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Really my main issue is with the long quote. What was wrong with this edit? – Steel 17:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reapplied my edit above. – Steel 10:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comp.arch, why don't you place such comments on this talk page, and provide only a brief pointer to the talk page discussion as a Wiki code comment? Just as a suggestion, you'd have much higher chances for sparking a discussion that way, which would also comply with the purpose of talk pages. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem would be "have much higher chances for sparking a discussion", as I thought not needed/just some misunderstanding.. (I however took out one word (you could add back if ok..), and was "informing" an editor, by "reverting" that user with comments added). See my next edit summary. I guess this is resolved now. [Not sure what a "Wiki code comment" is. Might be helpful..] comp.arch (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are the comments in Wiki code, <!-- ... -->, nothing you haven't already used. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Dsimic, ok.. :) I misread you.. or thought you meant Wiki code comments here.. I do not see a reason to comment out here.. Except, I didn't want to bother people at all at the talk page.. comp.arch (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, that shouldn't be seen as bothering, because people reading this talk page are here to make the article better, and suggestions can be only beneficial. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"The Pixel C display has a 1:1.414 aspect ratio, which seems purpose-built to show off Android Marshmallow's experimental multi-window mode. In early Android M Preview builds multi-window could be turned on, but it was extremely buggy and unfinished. It has since disappeared from the developer preview, and Google isn't talking about it on the Pixel C, but we get the feeling the hardware was built with split screen in mind."

This is old info and really the above also(?): http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/05/this-is-android-ms-highly-experimental-multi-window-mode-for-tablets/ comp.arch (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We should create a new page for Android Desktop. I already got 2 of them, Remix mini & Shield TV. --Ne0 (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The list of languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#cite_note-5 should be shown using the languages English name since this is English language article. 38.122.228.34 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Android (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080317142342/http://www.informationweek.com:80/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807587&cid=nl_IWK_daily to http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807587&cid=nl_IWK_daily

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a total of c. 314 million iPads, to date.× Contrast that with about a billion Android tablets, sold only last year.×× I've been going out of my way to be fair to iPads/iOS and just said Android dominates smartphones use (and sales)? When do we say that for tablets? [I'm not pushing for that just yet.]

Note in Android tablets: "Sales quintupled to an expected 1 billion units worldwide this year [2015], from 216 million units in 2014, according to projections from the Envisioneering Group." [[See in full, what I put in at Usage share of operating systems).

×× Android: This is not reflected by StatCounter, a) is there something wrong with their tracking, b) where all of these tablets a Christmas gift..:) [in Asia], hmm, c) was Envisioneering Group off by about 800 million that year, see their justification for contrasting stats with other analysts, d) maybe the cheap tablets are used less for web use (then mostly apps?) making for hard to track, even app use with Google Play not tracking in Asia. Do we trust this one analyst?

× iPad: "Total Sales" 250 million up to Jan 2015. To that you can add 16.1m iPads times four quarters. comp.arch (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought the above was convincing enough. About this edit, I think Steel, is not taking Android on tablets into account as it should be. There are three claims: 1) Android on tablets is selling better than iPad/others. People may view Android differently on tablets than on smartphones, and think the iPad is dominant, only thinking Android is on smartphones. 2) Android is dominant on smartphones, by any metric. I just put "by use" there as opposed to "by sales" for tablets, while of course "by use" also implies sales. 3) Android has the largest installed base. I would not say dominant of all operating systems, as Android is only more popular than Windows.

P.S. I'll be also taking "(or a physical one, on older Android devices)" out of the lead, because of Priv comp.arch (talk)

I've reworded the sentence slightly and added 'by any metric' to put some context to this awful word dominant. I think the lead needs some work, still not really happy with it. – Steel 16:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Android (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/toolbox/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/toolbox/dd.c

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

168.235.207.68 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 15:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please update latest preview information on side tab from x "N" Developer Preview 2 / April 13, 2016; 38 days ago" to y "N" Developer Preview 3 (NPD35K) / May 18, 2016; 5 days ago". like it is already on the android N wikipedia page ^{[1] [2]} thank you 198.46.106.154 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Already done. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 08:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Proud User, about the [edited that added advert-tag], I can't agree that the article (or the lead, if that is what you meant) looks like a "fan blog", with e.g. in the lead: "research in 2015 concluded that almost 90% of Android phones in use had known but unpatched security vulnerabilities due to lack of updates and support.[24][25]"

There is also countless technical information in the article, and information is generally sourced.

"This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view."

This is what you added and what you can do yourself. You must have many such issues (as advert-tag, is for "For articles needing major cleanup"; consider lesser fanpov and/or inline variants of advert), if only one or two, maybe you would have fixed yourself. I've pointed at one counterexample, can you point at two examples for your view (better if those are not sourced)?

WP:ADMASK: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."

Please point to the relevant policy or guideline with your best examples. Advert, is to slam the article (and the major editors, that I happen to trust, and believe not associated with Google), or for lazy peopl who do not like fixing a few things. comp.arch (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

While you are correct that this article does mention negative aspects of Android, this article focuses on the positive aspects and reports on those aspects with wording that makes it sound like it written by some fanboy. "Advert" is the most appropriate tag I could find that addresses the issue. While I do not believe that someone wrote this for the intention of promotion, this article's word choice for the description of positive aspects sound more like fanboyism than would you would find in an encyclopedia--Proud User (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

Positive wording, say "dominant", may just be objectively true. I'm still not sure what you are referring to, as you gave no examples. There are other tags for WP:NPOV, and I believe advert-tag if reserved for "intention of promotion". I'll remove it soon, if you do not convince me otherwise. Feel free to substitute with other tags, possibly on other sections or sentences, as I explained as an alternative. comp.arch (talk)

Can you at least tell me if the article changed recently. I've been editing it for years, do not recall anyone ever putting an advert tag on it. People may disagree on wording and have reverted me in the past. I have only made minor changes recently, last major change I did was to what you object to below. comp.arch (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Take the second paragraph for instance: "Android has the largest installed base of all operating systems of any kind. Android has been the best selling OS on tablets since 2013, and on smartphones it is dominant by any metric." Notice how this is worded: "largest [...] of all operating systems of any kind," "best selling," "dominant by any metric." These are all examples of what I call "fanboy terminology." There are much more examples of this throughout the article.--Proud User (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Android has the largest installed base of all operating systems of any kind." happens to be objectively true. So is "Android has been the best selling OS on tablets since 2013" unless you have some recent surprising contradicting evidence (this article has a worldwide view, there might be regional exceptions, say the US; on tablets, see also sourced info, at usage share of operating systems: "Sales quintupled to an expected 1 billion units worldwide this year, from 216 million units in 2014" – even if that estimate is wrong, Android selling more seems for sure correct).

In general the lead is supported by (WP:verify-able reality and I believe also) the main body (here, the market-share section) and it's ok, to have the references there. The specific wording was discussed at the talk page at the time, and market share has often been discused in the talk page before, see e.g. in the archives Talk:Android_(operating_system)/Archive_6#Android.27s_installed_base_-_the_highest_of_all_operating_systems.

"dominant by any metric", was to refer to, either of the just mentioned, sales or installed base (that would imply use), of Android smartphones. Can you think of any metric that shows non-dominant use of those (or say iPhone's use higher)? comp.arch (talk)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Point No: 59 in References

Old Code with dead link:

^[1]

New Code with live link:

^[2]

Change in Dead link:

59: Begun, Daniel A. (March 2011) [2011]. "Dealing with fragmentation on Android devices". Amazing Android Apps. For Dummies. Wiley. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-470-93629-0'Bold text'. It's dead link

59: Begun, Daniel A. (March 2011) [2011]. "Dealing with fragmentation on Android devices". Amazing Android Apps. For Dummies. Wiley. p. 7. .

With Changes

Mr.niravsoni (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The link you claim to be dead works fine for me. Besides, we don't cite blogs as references; see WP:RS. ChamithN (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Original: | language count = 70 | language footnote = ^{[citation needed]}

Edit Request: | language count = 70 | language footnote = ^[3]

WarriorPK (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Not a reliable source. Reach Out to the Truth 02:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Android operating system wasn't developed by google it was further developed by the Android alliance in 2003 and it is still A separate company from google to this day. Appleguy1111 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

From the article, "Initially developed by Android, Inc., which Google bought in 2005 [...]". Are you thinking of the Open Handset Alliance? clpo13_(talk) 18:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can You Change the Picture to Android 7.0? RoseRaspberry (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Android 7.0 Nougat

Android (operating system) needs updating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.61.178 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

119.95.106.112 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Software to run or convert android apps to linux can be mentioned; ie

• Archon (android emulator), emulator software to run android apps on linux^[1][2]
• Shashlik (software)^[3][4]

To convert the code entirely (hence making android apps linux-based), see

• apktool^[5] and
• https://android.googlesource.com/?format=HTML

please mention in article KVDP (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "monthly active users" to "monthly active devices" at the end of the third paragraph. That's what it says in the source article, and the current wording is slightly misleading.

LivetSuger2 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"centralised update system", applies to (OTA) [security] updates, of the OS system itself, I guess. First, isn't this outdated, and included in 7.0? I'm not sure if used (too soon to know for sure). [About apps, there is a centralized system Google Play, yes, not part of AOSP, but using APK-files is.] Use US, not British spelling..?
About the move request, that I missed, if people want shorter, then Android (platform), is also right, and while Linux kernel is not the same operating system kernel used, Linux (or Ubuntu) is not the same platform, or operating system; iOS and Microsoft Windows do not have (operating system) appended, they are also platforms. I see however, not shorter if we would go similar to: Java (software platform). comp.arch (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I clicked the link in the lead (that I think I put in myself..). It's no longer up, I could get from archive I guess, but there's a newer survey. I needed to login with Linkedin or Github. Maybe it should still be put in. Anyway of interest might be (in order of scanning):

"Objective C has had its day", 42% targeting mobile apps (incl. mobile web), 50% desktop apps (incl. web). Under 42% pie, [there of?] 41% Android, 39% iOS, 9% mobile browser, 9% Windows (all version). Under desktop pie: 44% web browser, 39% Windows (all). There are also e.g. some "cloud" numbers..

"An impressive 84% of professional developers globally are involved in desktop development, and desktop is the development area with the highest proportion of professional involvement."

"Drilling into professional desktop developers moonlighting in other development areas, we see that 34% of them are involved as amateurs in mobile, 33% in IoT, and 15% in cloud."

"85% of professional developers are involved in the mobile sector, but only 55% of them are professionally involved."

"In the future, everyone will be a cloud developer for 15 minutes - or more"

"Mobile, Desktop, & Cloud - three platforms bridging into one"

Most common languages on mobile: HTML5, "xxxScript*" (* JavaScript, TypeScript and CoffeeScript) and Java. Objective-C sixth language, after C# (but much lower) and Swift 8th. [Also for "cloud", but then HTML5 excluded, Java first and PHP in the middle.] These are mindshare numbers, part of bars, are "primary language", then Java most popular.

"Interest in Java is slowly declining amongst mobile developers. That drop is probably attributable to the rise in cross-platform development, which often makes use of scripting languages."

Linux is higher than Mac in [desktop?] "revenue breakdown".

"Only 11% of mobile developers making more than $25,000 a month are targeting the browser, making a minority option compared to the dominant platforms of Android and iOS." comp.arch (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in the lead, "Research in 2015, concluded that almost 90% of Android phones in use had known but unpatched security vulnerabilities due to lack of updates and support", and that is bad, and I'm not trying to hide that. That is about the past. The 10% I assume are newer devices (with newer versions with better security and updates, even older could potentially be updated..), and that part has grown since.

However, Google says, "99.5% Devices have no known malware installed" [and yes, not contradictory, as a [unpatched] security hole is not "malware", only a potential injection point for one. You could argue with "known" also.. and how they would know..]

and a slide with a huge "No" (then "It’s already in the platform and Google apps.") after the previous slide "Do devices need security apps?".

Also interesting (yes, retroactive deinstall..):

"Ability to remove all apps

DevicePolicyManager

Ability to remove apps that evade removal through DevicePolicyManager. First used to protect against a large fraud campaign against a Russian bank.

System apps

Ability to disable system apps. We've seen massive growth in compromise of devices via pre-installed apps in the last 4 months."

Caption of graph on slide 10: "Fraction Of Installs Outside of Google Play that result in Known PHA Being Installed (Excluding Russia)" [Source: .. Security_2014_Report] (in above link), is Russia known to be really bad :-/ enough to exclude from statistics.. (or other reason)?

In huge letters "Pre-installed apps are the next major security risk." and next slide shows, [malware?] "Install PHA Fractions by Date" up to 25% before going down in the noise.. meaning what, they removed or..? comp.arch (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In June 2015 (after report in lead, that seems to apply to April 2015 and prior) Android 5.0 had 5.4% market share, but now 5.0 and later, have 53.7% (e.g. "most"). Then at least, it might be warranted to move the "disclaimer" out of the lead. comp.arch (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with the current version of the article at the time of writing, but if this proves too controversial and/or difficult to summarise in a sentence, perhaps it's best to leave this topic for the more extensive discussion further down. – Steel 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your comment now, after some changes.. made lead even shorter.. by moving also, but I guess my edited parts also shorter. I'm ok as is, but still looking for stuff to add to the moved out of lead part. comp.arch (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Security Improvements

Security hardening of media framework and camera service splits mediaserver into multiple processes with restricted permissions and capabilities (may require changes to HAL implementations). For more changes, see 7.0 security enhancements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek9923 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Google's two operating systems will soon be one. Chrome OS is going to be combined with Android, and the combined OS could be revealed as soon as next year, according to The Wall Street Journal. The Journal reports that Chrome is essentially being folded into Android, because Android has emerged as the dominant operating system by quite a long stretch. Combining the two operating systems means setting up Android to run on laptops and desktop computers, which would require big changes, as well as supporting the Google Play Store. Chromebooks will reportedly receive a new name to reflect the new OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek9923 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Android (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005054446/https://plus.google.com/u/0/110023707389740934545/posts/R5YdRRyeTHM to https://plus.google.com/u/0/110023707389740934545/posts/R5YdRRyeTHM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This note 278 for US & Canada is incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-Android-market-share-in-the-US-as-of-mid-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkrleitch (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Android now supports virtual reality as of new features google I/O has given android the feature of virtual reality(VR).An Android Virtual Device (AVD) is an emulator configuration that allows developers to test the application by simulating the real device capabilities. We can configure the AVD by specifying the hardware and software options. AVD manager enables an easy way of creating and managing the AVD with its graphical interface. We can create as many AVDs as we need, based on the types of device we want to test for. Jishnu.07 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There uses to be time where ´sexy´ coin inventions where in, but these days it´s pure drone automation.

Android is used for any miniature tablet sold as a pure telepone with addicional gawdiness for female shopping and kitchenware appliance menu´s. It´s also an extension at hand for any none heterosexual male.

The miniature tablets are:

• Gawdy.
• Have to many apps that are useless for any heterosexual male and overal a distraction from any really wanted context and context. IE, a swiss army knife that is purely one monolithic useless block of mush.
• Can not have the useless propaganda addicional ´purchase me´ software removed with ease.
• Can not be put in a pant pocket.
• Can not be put in a shirt pocket.
• Can not be attached to a utility belt for being way to large to not be in the way.

Definitely none mobile, and in being so, male none friendly.

Socially it would have the nomer of being the paramount new religious sect ´god´ in hand, sponsoring no thought automation, enslavement and homosexuality all at the same time, with a definitely direction in context where ´eunich´ becomes the prime future aspect.

Highly recommended: ´now in the make, Project Eunich, the newest operating system by google, android and microsoft, for all executive modes to come. (Seriously gentlemen, give Bill Gates a call, he has pertinent issues that require resolving before it´s too late to do that bucket list). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.115.219 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliability is not easy to compare , but uptime is useful indicator. Best uptime for each Android version will be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.44.119 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This section hasn't been updated since 2012. I can't imagine that the information here is even relevant anymore since 90% of Android devices are using OS versions that were released after that time. If there are no updates to the section, can it be deleted? SSherris (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Android (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121112754/https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/mksh/+/master to https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/mksh/+/master
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107123505/http://source.android.com:80/source/building-devices.html to http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160408053917/http://androidteam.googlecode.com/files/Anatomy-Physiology-of-an-Android.pdf to http://androidteam.googlecode.com/files/Anatomy-Physiology-of-an-Android.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The current Platform Usage stats section quotes data from early 2016, the site which this data was found (https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html) has been updated with data for 2017. I don't have the time to edit this and relevant sources, so hopefully someone else will :) Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 09:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That was a typo - my fault. When I updated to Jan 2017 I forgot to update the year. I'm fixing it for February. SSherris (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Chart vs PNG graphic: The PNG graphic chart looks great, but it's not editable by anyone else except the original creator. I'm replacing it with the native charting functionality so I can put updated data there. What's the consensus for this type of thing? I don't feel like I can update data and leave an old graphic on the page. SSherris (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Restoring the Wikipedia chart was the right thing to do, much easier for everyone to update. – Steel 18:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Comp.arch: My earlier reversion of you was due to the fact that it looked like the source in the lead would confirm the tablet info, which I misunderstood. However, information should appear in the article before the lead. I have now written a short description about dominance in the Market share section, and slightly reworded the lead, along with removing the source there. I think it looks good, are you happy with that? :) Thank you for your contributions! LocalNet (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's strange to drop Android best selling on tablets, since even "iPad tablets are second most popular, by sales, against Android-based ones, since 2013, when Android tablet sales increased by 127%.[18]" is in the lead at iPad.

Android on smarphones are clearly dominant, and sources say. Even Microsoft admits that Windows lost to Android. comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again @Comp.arch: I am sorry, things happened in a hurry, and I accidentally created a new talk page section for this discussion. Sorry! But as I explained in my edit on the page, my initial reversion was due to a misunderstood use of the lead source, and that the "dominance" info did not appear in the article before the lead. I have added a short description in the article, and slightly reworded the lead. Sorry about the confusion, and thank you for your contributions! :) P.S. In the future, please *either* make the edit or start a talk page discussion. Doing both will make people go to the actual edit first, which can prompt an edit war that can be easily prevented through a discussion. Just a helpful tip :) LocalNet (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi everybody! When it comes to individual versions of Android, such as KitKat or Nougat, we should try to have a consistent formatting, since the articles are pretty much directly related. Edits made by @Comp.arch: removed the individual version points (for example. 7.0 – 7.1.2) from the very beginning of the summaries, while @KamranMackey: reverted that edit for one article. Right now, the articles do not have version points, as Comp.arch is the last to edit the articles. Technically, if we were to do this completely according to policy, everything should be reverted for WP:BRD until a discussion ends in a decision, but at this time, I find myself actually agreeing with Comp.arch on their edits. It is easy enough to mention "spanning versions x.x to x.x" somewhere in the lead, as starting with "Android 7.0 – 7.1.2 Nougat is the seventh major release" is a bit weird when the opener credits multiple releases. However, that does not mean this discussion is "over". If anybody is interested in bringing forward their arguments, I'd love to hear them, and we can revert the changes for WP:BRD until a final decision is made. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with the articles as they are currently – Steel 19:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Steel: Thank you for voicing your opinion! :) LocalNet (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, you agree with me, as only one article has been reverted. I didn't mean to edit war, I was changing another thing ("discontinued") in the articles, and this conflicted with the best way to form the sentence. We can probably make either work, but having an end with a moving target, is probably not advised, and "is" for many versions. comp.arch (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"the majority of Android devices do not receive security patches".

You could(?) also say, "the majority iPhones do not receive security patches"? Or PCs?

Lots of iOS versions are no longer supported, and all iPhones before October 14, 2011 are no longer supported at least. At least the four generations before iPhone 4s aren't supported.

Maybe I'm wrong about more than half of iPhones (but it will happen inevitably if not already).

Should the article be about devices or the software? Most PCs are in landfills, says nothing about Windows. Most PCs can't handle currently supported Windows versions, because of memory limitations.

I believe, more than half was true for Android, even 90%, but that 90% went down to below 50%, as the number of devices exploded. I believe it's in old talk, at least I changed the lead at some point. comp.arch (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Comp.arch: Thank you for starting a discussion about this. The sources in the article do state that the majority of Android devices are insecure, and it is an issue that is discussed in several topics in the article. I am, frankly, not concerned with other articles, I am focusing on what the sources say about Android. LocalNet (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Most (or "majority", or certainly "almost 90%") is probably no longer true. See my changes and discussion on it I started earlier in Talk. comp.arch (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: I understand your point, and you might even be right about the number being lower now, but the sources I've found just don't support anything else at this time. I want to us to stick to the info presented through reliable, published sources, and even if outdated we don't have any newer sources contradicting the previous ones. In the talk page post you linked to, it appears that you're combining information from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicity stated by any sources, a violation of the verifiability policy, WP:SYNTH and a conclusion that probably qualifies as original research. LocalNet (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

SYNTH allows for simple math. Android 5.0 and newer didn't exists when security study was done, so it's clearly outdated info on those newer versions (the currently supported versions). And not hard to see that they are more than half now. Anyway, I'm not going to overrule you with no support. We can maybe agree on a less strong wording? The study, the source, I looked into is from 2015. And as I said, we are kind of stating the obvious. We have discression on what we find important in the lead? comp.arch (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

But it's not a matter of math. No matter what Android version a device is running, the point being made is the lack of security updates (or any major updates, in general)? LocalNet (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with not attempting to estimate the current percentage based on the year of the study and version share changes since then. Perhaps it would be best to state the figures at the time as per the source, but note what kind of changes have been implemented to address the issue (also with sources)? – Steel 19:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Steel: Thank you for coming to the discussion. While I want to thank you for the idea, the study isn't the exclusive single time a lack of security updates has been mentioned. The October 2015 study found vulnerabilities in almost 90% of devices, but as the article states at the end of that paragraph, a new article in February 2016 reaffirmed the lack of security updates for devices. It wasn't a one-time study that had immediate fixes. No matter how much Google works on fixing issues in the versions it releases, devices that don't get new updates will be stuck with whatever new security vulnerabilities are discovered. And precisely because the situation hasn't changed, there were reports by Bloomberg in May 2016 that Google was working to exclude security updates from the full carrier tests. The situation of getting security updates hasn't been improved, even if the security itself has. Am I making sense? :P LocalNet (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't properly read the relevant paragraph before commenting.
comp.arch, unless you have a concrete wording change to suggest and discuss, I don't think this talk discussion is going anywhere. – Steel 19:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support: "Google doesn't control what other vendors do, but they and other vendors of Android devices provide upgrades up to two years, while some vendors provide no updates, and that has been criticized."

About what is currently: "The success of Android has made security an issue,..

[really security may be an issue independendly of success, but it propted publicity..]

in which the majority of Android devices do not receive security patches"

At least in part all new devices receive some upgrades (WebView is now in Google's control, important attack vector; in theory, everything else in the apps is under their control, so they can upgrade everything except the kernel, and the sandbox helps it not being an issue). comp.arch (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources in the article don't talk about "upgrades up to two years". That's an editorial bias based on what we know, not what the sources say. But we have specific sources calling security on Android an upcoming "armageddon", and that "monthly security patches are the most important updates you'll never get". Wikipedia bases content on published sources, and they are not happy with Android security... LocalNet (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:V, you link to says, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I'm just asking if this phrase "up to two years" is something we can agree on. If you can find a source for anyone having more than two, I'm all ears, and immediatly you could amend or just delete that part. V doesn't require that you include a source, just that you could find one (or a counterexample).

In theory, everyone can backport changes to any old Android OS version, and if your phone isn't locked down, you can upgrade. Upgrades, aren't per se, about the software itself, but what vendors do. In practice, nobody provides upgrades (for a longer time) or backports, that Google does provide. comp.arch (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't agree with that statement. "Up to two years" is a very specific claim, does not apply to all models, carriers or manufacturers, I have not seen that promise being made for security updates, and would need a source. "V doesn't require that you include a source"; yes, it does. It says that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" (emphasis added by me). Meanwhile, I am counting three sources directly supporting lack of security updates as an issue. LocalNet (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I explicitly suggested "while some vendors provide no updates, and that has been criticized" (and "up to" can also can mean zero years or all between, but no need to use that phrase..). Anyway, how about reworded: "Google doesn't control what other device vendors do; and while many vendors provide no updates, which has been been heavily criticized, security updates are sometimes provided (for e.g. three years on Google's monthly schedule) and some promise major version updates, for some time, after Google issues them".

Just to support, Google has security updates, but not only them, Samsung also does. I have a dilemma here, I do not want to link to a claim for any specific vendor, favouring them (at least those who have dragged their feet, Google as always provided updates). Just saying "some", is verifiable, if only one (or two?), does provide updates (note, "some" that update vs. "many" that do not; at least in the past). comp.arch (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood the message in this looong thread. Before we discuss whatever should be changed in the lead, we have to write the information in the article. Then we need to weigh the different perspectives of the information for what appears in the lead. I can see that the Update schedule section does not discuss the Nexus program or Google's commitment to monthly updates; a small, but still important thing to address, which we should add information for. It's when we talk about other manufacturers, especially Samsung, where the issues pop up. Samsung is by far the best-selling manufacturer, and it promised to switch to a monthly security update schedule for some of its devices in August 2015, but the result wasn't particularly great. The information in the source you linked here is extremely recent, and until we learn more about how that succeeded or failed, it should not gain prominence. So, first things first, Nexus program and Google monthly security updates should be in the Update schedule section. I will add that later if nobody else has. After that, we need to look at the different sources, weigh their perspectives and the information, and then we can reword the information in the lead accordingly. I hope I made sense. And lastly, thank you for taking part in the discussion. I'm very happy we can discuss and try to reach a common agreement. :) LocalNet (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Going to start a new post here. I added information in the article on Google's monthly security patches for Nexus devices. A few new things of info; Samsung announced its intention for monthly security updates following Google, back in August 2015. Then, in October, there came the news of the study about insecure devices. A few months later, in February 2016, a new post declared that Samsung had not lived up to its promise. Seeing as our Market share section states that "with 52.5% market share, Samsung remains the leading OEM for shipping Android running smartphones and tablets", I believe it is safe to say that "the majority" of Android devices do not receive security updates. LocalNet (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

At least in the newer link I gave, part of Samsung's devices are now said to be on a monthly schedule, so I really don't know if it's most of their devices or a few. And I would rather not keep track.. either way, is it WP:SYNTH? My view, is that the article is about the software first, then possibly devices. These percentages can change fast. E.g. Samsung has the capability to issue security updates to all it's devices tomorrow (not clear if carriers can block or have any control). Who is this article for then? The sentence I put together, makes clear to people who have bought devices that they might not be updated, and to future buyers what to have in mind. It will not get dated fast. Those who want the gory details (on the past, or present(?) read the main text). comp.arch (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The newer source is strictly about U.S. unlocked devices, and appears to focus entirely on the S7 and S7 edge devices. That's all well and good, but everything outside the U.S. and non-S7 devices aren't being promised monthly patches. And we still don't know if they will succeed in their new goal. They failed the last time. LocalNet (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi everybody! This is a message to say that I copied some information from this article into Google Play, with this edit. Writing this message and attaching the info to the edit summary should suffice as proper attribution. Have a good day! :) LocalNet (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I'm happy we can have a discussion about this and I'm sorry for my initial reversion of SoWhy. Regarding the use of examples in the infobox (or article, for that matter), here's my thinking: In a paragraph, when explaining alternative sources, a lot of explanation could be done without naming specific examples. However, sometimes, an example is necessary for context because it's specifically mentioned in a source, for example. But when it comes to the infobox, which is supposed to represent common facts about a subject, I believe examples are given too much weight. To me, it appears promotional. There's plenty of alternative sources, and giving one, in this case F-Droid, promotion is unnecessary. APKs can be grabbed from multiple external sources, so I think the infobox should maintain neutrality and not give a single service too much weight. "installing apks from alternative sources" is a fair, neutral, decent explanation that alternative sources exist. Thoughts? :) LocalNet (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Good points but on the other hand, Play Store might be the largest such source but it's not actually an Android core application. While most major manufacturers have agreed to Google's conditions to bundle its apps, some did not; for example, the Amazon products are Android based without access to the Play Store. So if we don't want to mention F-Droid, how about creating a new article for Android package managers (e. g. List of Android software repositories or List of Android app stores) and link to it instead? There is plenty of coverage for such stores, so notability shouldn't be a problem. I might just start an article about it later, regardless of what we decide here. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: If we wikilinked "alternative sources" to that page, then I would definitely agree to that. I don't like to single one service out, but a link to an article about them all would definitely be good. And if I can throw in my opinion on the naming, I'd suggest List of Android app stores. Both are okay, but I just think "app stores" sounds more logical and much more familar than "software repositories". :) LocalNet (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Doing... Check back in a bit. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Okay,  Done for now. @LocalNet: (and others of course) It would be great if you could look over the article and added some more sources, text etc. Maybe we can nominate it for WP:DYK as well. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for getting started with it! I've added it to my watchlist and will probably be adding info to it later :) LocalNet (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the first device to run Nougat is LG V20 not Pixel and Pixel Xl. Stevangorre (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing this to our attention! :) LocalNet (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this change. The column in question is labelled "First devices to run version", not first device to ship with the version. The first phone to ship with Nougat (via v7.0) was the LG V20 in Sept 2016 - but some Nexus phones were upgradable to v7.0 in Aug 2016, so technically they were running it prior to the V20 release. The first phone to ship with v7.1 were the Pixel devices in Oct 2016, and were the first to be running that version of Nougat - as of April 2017, the LG V20 has not yet received an update to v7.1. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Barek: Thanks for spotting that detail. I misinterpreted the column statement. But should we use a Nexus device there instead of Pixel? LocalNet (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: The table already shows the first devices to run v7.0 to be Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P - and shows the Pixel devices as the first to run v7.1; so I think we're okay on the devices as being acurate for the existing table structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it always going to be a Google (or Google collaboration/developer) device? :) I mean anyone can fork AOSP, but the next official ASOP is always going to come from Google, so they always run the "first" version?! Is this column maybe not helpful as is? Or maybe "helpful" but then kind of promotional? comp.arch (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the column does provide some value for historical reference of which device was the fist in each generation to receive the OS version. But, if the details can be found for past releases, I wouldn't be opposed to adding a column showing the first device to ship with each version. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Page is protected and I can't update version info in infobox.

Android O developer preview 3 is out 08 June 2017.

Proof: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/06/android-o-apis-are-final-get-your-apps.html

Iamckesc (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Iamckesc: Thanks for informing me! I will update the article :) LocalNet (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Android (operating system) has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google, based on the Linux kernel and designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets."

to "Android is a open-source mobile operating system developed by Google, based on the Linux kernel and designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets.

Open-source is an important attribute when it comes to software.

Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @New account 2: The third paragraph in the lead states "Android's source code is released by Google under an open source license", and it's a better fit for the information given its context of an engaged and active developer community later in the paragraph. LocalNet (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The third paragraph describes the open-source nature of the software in detail. But it's better to qualify the description of the software in the leading sentence by adding the "open-source" description there. Then if someone wants to know about it in detail, they will refer to the third paragraph in the intro and within the article. Thanks. I just think that a simple qualifying the description with "open-source" deserves to be in the intro sentence for a more descriptive and precise introduction. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A counter-example for you: The "description of the software" is that it's a mobile operating system. That's what the majority of people understand and know. I don't think the average reader cares about - or possibly even understands - open-source or closed-source code. The third paragraph describes the essence of open-source software in an understandable manner that the lone words "open-source" don't do on their own. LocalNet (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, because people don't know or care, we have wikilinks. Open-source stands as an important attribute independent of what people care or know about when they first read the sentence. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

But... that doesn't make sense. At least it doesn't in my mind. Open-source is given a lot of attention in the third paragraph, where we actually explain the details for readers. Why is it so important to feature the words "open-source" in the introduction sentence when, just a little later, there's much more information relating to it? Sorry, I just genuinely disagree with "important attribute independent of what people care or know about when they first read the sentence". Why should readers be given the information in the first sentence when the information and explanatory details are in the third? I think that would just create confusion and be unnecessary repetition. LocalNet (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the question is whether it is good or important enough to note it in the intro sentence. I try to think like you and also think it's not notable enough. But then when I first thought of it, independent of your criticism and just thinking of a place for "open-source" in the intro, it looked okay to put it there because most software is closed-soure and therefore Android is an exception. I truly understand your criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New account 2 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that I acquiesce. I think that a better conclusion is required since the open-source nature is exceptional and uncommon and also that it is important for the software itself, it's nature and development. New account 2 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, I just have to once again point out that "open-source nature is exceptional and uncommon and also that it is important for the software itself, it's nature and development" is exactly what the third paragraph details and that just the words "open-source" in the introduction wouldn't adequately explain any of that. But we appear to be on opposing sides. Either someone else will join this discussion the next time they check Wikipedia and be the deciding third-party, or dispute resolution would have to be necessary. LocalNet (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The word "open-source" may not explain everything, but it's better than saying nothing, as it has been determined that it is at least important. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be circling around in this discussion. I will probably stop responding since there is no progress or new opinions/information emerging, but just to address the latest comment: "better than saying nothing"; *cough* third paragraph *cough* LocalNet (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and all. I'll also not progress, but just that people shouldn't need to look at a later paragraph when the information is important enough to just be noted in the intro sentence. Maybe it will be better to link the word to the section in the article itself and not the article on "open-source model," so readers find more specific information. Thanks and all and let's see what we can do about it. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with LocalNet. To editor New account 2: Please read WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. New editors frequently seek to influence opinions by changing the lede, typically without good reason. You do not have consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to change the lead not to influence public opinion, but because people read it first and I read it first. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Everything does not need to (and cannot) go in the first sentence of the lede. We cover the open source aspect in the infobox, in the body of the article, and in the lede. I don't see any need for this to be in the first sentence, particularly since we point out that most Android devices ship with a combination of open source and proprietary software. Meters (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)