Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 8

Hi @Comp.arch: I just checked Wikipedia today and saw the reversion of my edit. To be honest, I am not really sure what you meant in your edit summary. Would you be willing to discuss it with me? I have multiple issues with the current text ("As of latest version", an unnecessary quote I believe can be adequately rewritten to avoid being a quote, and hidden text). Is there anything specific in my edit that you disagree with that you could explain differently? :) LocalNet (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

[https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modular-kernels#core-kernel

• All SoCs productized in 2017 must launch with kernel 4.4 or newer.
• All other SoCs launching new Android devices running Android 8.0 must use kernel 3.18 or newer.] I.e. version 4.4 a requirement contradicted. I'm ok with not having all the gory requirement details, just not simplify too much. "new devices" with new SoCs yes, 4.4. I read "other SoCs" as a loophole for new devices with old chips ("SoC"), am I wrong? Maybe others/news sources [mis]read this, as only for updated devices, that they can keep old kernel. I was in a hurry so a just reverted for now. comp.arch (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the reply! I do, however, think you misunderstand. I believe it states that new processor chips in 2017 must use kernel 4.4 or newer, but new devices still using older processor chips don't have the same requirement. My edit did not properly explain that, however. I propose this: "With the release of Android Oreo in 2017, Google began to require that devices shipped with new processor chips had Linux kernel version 4.4 or newer, for security reasons. Existing devices upgraded to Oreo, and new products launched with older processor chips, were exempt from this rule.^[1][2]" The whole "SoC" thing is pretty much tech-speak, and I think it can be clearly communicated with a simplified "processor chips" statement. Thoughts? :)

After the edit conflict, I noticed that you had edited your message to state that you also thought of new devices with old chips as the, in your word, "loophole", so I apologize for making the assumption that you misunderstood. It appears we are on the same page, though, doesn't it? Is there anything you'd like to change about my proposed statement in my comment above this one? :) LocalNet (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Going to assume silence means consensus and make a change based on my proposed revised statement above. LocalNet (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this article is missing a section describing AOSP; what it is, who maintains it, what it comprises, who uses it as a base for their work, etc. --uKER (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @UKER: Is there actually significant enough coverage of it by reliable, secondary sources? A simple Google search by me turned up only an Android Central article, and that's not enough to warrant its own section. At this time, it is included in "Open-source community". LocalNet (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? AOSP is the codebase for the whole Android OS. You're not questioning its notability, are you? See this. I didn't get the thing about your Google search. Come to think about it, however, AOSP should be mentioned in the article. A separate section probably doesn't make much sense. I'll see to do it. --uKER (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I had to revert the recent edits and I want to explain why. "AOSP is the codebase for the whole Android OS". Sure, that may be true. But the fact is, most sources discuss Android, not the project behind it. My point is, AOSP may be the base of Android's open nature, but the project itself may not have gotten much media attention from the press. It exists, as is noted in "Open-source community", but that doesn't mean it is majorly significant to the average reader. My Google search for AOSP prompted only a single secondary source about it. Wikipedia bases content on secondary sources, and on primary sources as little as possible. Did that make sense? :) LocalNet (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Simply put, I don't really get the urge to deliberatly omit the mention of the project. Minute tech details about electronics devices are often only covered in primary sources and I don't see them being omitted because of it. I'd understand it if it was a disputable claim as if android.com claimed Android is the greatest OS in the universe, but I don't think that's the case. --uKER (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

We aren't "deliberately omitting the mention". It is stated in "Open-source projects". Furthermore, it is actually also explained in the lead as "released by Google under an open source license". And if something is "often only covered in primary sources", then promoting it becomes undue weight, as regardless of its importance, we still rely on the prominence of information by secondary sources for inclusion or explanation in the lead. LocalNet (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The way AOSP is portrayed there makes it seem as if AOSP is some bunch of nerds that got together and came up with an open source version of Android. AOSP IS OFFICIALLY THE FOUNDATION of Android. --uKER (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just two tips. That first sentence is entirely subjective. It may appear that way to you, but it never occurred that way to me. It states the facts, though, which is what we are supposed to do. The second sentence: ALL CAPS definitely doesn't help your case. What would help your case is if you could provide significant coverage by secondary sources to establish that it is as notable as you say. LocalNet (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Kinda sensitive about five words in caps, are we? Also, I disagree about the thing requiring a secondary source as an indicator of notability to be mentioned, but let's hear what other people think. --uKER (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I just reviewed the "Open Source Community" section and it's worse than I thought. The section doesn't talk about AOSP itself. It only talks about (as I said before) random nerds that come together and base their own ROMs off what's on AOSP. What's funny enough is that the sentence refers to AOSP without the article ever explainin what AOSP is. Just great. --uKER (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Android is an aporaiting system for mobiles and it is very good and cool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.99.82 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

91.83.191.202 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No identifiable request. Iffy★Chat -- 14:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wine 3.0 is available for users interested, surprised there is no mention of it on here! It was a great application for GNU-Linux for many years! Twillisjr (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Android P, another operating system is going to completely launch in August 2018, a year after Android Oreo landed. Android P has begun its developer preview, meaning that it's now available for developers, or those curious enough to check out some unfinished software. Manish 0876 (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done. since it doesn't really give a clear place to put it. Please request a place to put it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no mention of SELinux at all in the "security features" section. 85.64.33.163 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone messed up reference no. 357. All following references are not shown at the bottom of the page, and this one isn't "parsed" correctly. I can't correct it due to too few edits in the english wikipedia ... --Anonymus1994.1 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

202.47.154.60 (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Please change(add to) Reception section of this article:

MIPS support is deprecated and is not supported any more.^[1] Someone with access to edit protected article please add MIPS support removal. Hardware section on page is a mess in general and needs additions/cleanup.

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

After this "The name Andrew and the noun Android share the Greek root andros, which means man." please add the following explanation.

The name Android, comes from the Romanian name "Andronescu". Andronescu Vasile was the name of the primary classes teacher of Valentin Bogatu. He was the best teacher in the town of Targosviste (Romania) known and respected by every person in the town. Valentin Bogatu is a Romanian physicist engineer, that had helped with their physics homework on the internet, more than 5000 students from every world country starting with 2009. When he was a little child, his father bought him a little Robot toy (as the one that is the symbol of Android), and he crushed it in after 30 minutes. In 1997, Valentin Bogatu worked at the Technical Institute of Denmark (IT- DTU) with his wife and with Lehmann Torsten, under the supervision of professor Erik Bruun. Lehnmann Torsten was the first designer of the phone chips for Nokia. ValentinBogatu (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Roadguy2 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The picture should be captioned "Current logomark (top) and logotype (bottom)" instead of "Current logotype (top) and typeface (bottom)" which is nonsensical and incorrect.

Done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 00:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://app.beebom.com/android-runs-2-5bn-devices-worldwide-pie-passes-10-marketshare/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ioptgophyikju8970nhju9uyjku|answered=no}}

Bb243 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

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

2001:1670:8:72EB:419A:D7CC:574B:BB30 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest version for Android is Q which is in preview version. So, in Platform usage section we need to add

Version 10 Code Name : Q Release Date : API Level : 29 Runtime : ART Distribution : NA First Devices to run version : NA

^[1]

EpariNigam (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Nigam PatroEpariNigam (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an infamous bug in Android that causes the mediaserver to quickly drain the battery.

I don't know the exact technical reasons behind it, so I encourage users and developers to explain it. --Handroid7 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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

first sentence change "is based off of a modified" -> "is based on a modified" (hideous grammar) GrammarPete (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, as you may have seen, android has a new logo! However, they said they'll officially start using it in a few weeks. Should we wait until then to include it in the article or go for it? I have not yet uploaded an image but may try to do that soon. Thanks! BRES2773 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Their website doesn't even use the new branding yet (it only features the branding announcement), so I think that it might be better to wait. Nywillb (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say simply "Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google". At its core Android is open source software and development was originally done by Open Handset Alliance. The Google "edition" of Android is obviously the dominant one, but it does not mean Android/AOSP is simply developed by just Google. Look at for example Fire OS, or several Chinese operating systems - they are all commercial Android but without anything Google in it. Google is simply like an "add-on" to what Android actually is.

Check out this article from Ars Technica that has clear explanations of how Android is an open platform but where Google simply holds an "iron grip" on, mostly because of Google Play and its services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Данасул (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

So what can we do as users to undo this injustice

Fortune97 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I've just changed it to "Android is developed by a consortium of developers known as the Open Handset Alliance, with the main contributor and commercial marketer being Google" with a source to back it. I hope this will do justice. --Данасул (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Please change "Software distribution is generally offered through proprietary application stores like Google Play Store or Samsung Galaxy Store, or open source platforms like F-Droid, which utilize software packages in the APK format."

to "Software distribution is generally offered through proprietary application stores like Google Play Store or Samsung Galaxy Store, or open source platforms like Aptoide or F-Droid, which utilize software packages in the APK format. " ,to reference an additional app market place. Aptoide is much wider used in the EU and also referenced in the EU vs Google Wikipedia page. Hmayer1980 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"the permission model on the Android operating system and its apps allow a large number of actors to track and obtain personal user information. At the same time, it reveals that the end user is not aware of these actors in the Android terminals or of the implications that this practice could have on their privacy. Furthermore, the presence of this privileged software in the system makes it difficult to eliminate it if one is not an expert user." -- https://www.networks.imdea.org/whats-new/news/2019/study-analyzes-pre-installed-software-android-devices-and-its-privacy-risks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be he version for Google Pixel rather then the stock version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Technical_security_features

Quote: In September 2014, Jason Nova of Android Authority reported on a study by the German security company Fraunhofer AISEC in antivirus software and malware threats on Android. Nova wrote that "The Android operating system deals with software packages by sandboxing them; this does not allow applications to list the directory contents of other apps to keep the system safe. By not allowing the antivirus to list the directories of other apps after installation, applications that show no inherent suspicious behavior when downloaded are cleared as safe. If then later on parts of the app are activated that turn out to be malicious, the antivirus will have no way to know since it is inside the app and out of the antivirus’ jurisdiction". The study by Fraunhofer AISEC, examining antivirus software from Avast, AVG, Bitdefender, ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Lookout, McAfee (formerly Intel Security), Norton, Sophos, and Trend Micro, revealed that "the tested antivirus apps do not provide protection against customized malware or targeted attacks", and that "the tested antivirus apps were also not able to detect malware which is completely unknown to date but does not make any efforts to hide its malignity".

Lookout page is Lookout (IT security).

Curtisk404 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

bad element 3.0 VivoGlobal (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

On the IOS wiki they include a section on jailbreaking. Since rooting is basically Android's jailbreaking, wouldn't it make sense to include a section on it? It could discuss security issues, how phone manufacturers try to prevent rooting, etc. Just my thoughts, hopefully it is considered. Rblaq (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Android Q Beta6 screenshot.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is version is no longer supported, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.233.82 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Android 11s code name is r it is show in android studio for developers. 206.123.177.71 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Needs to have been mentioned in reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello All,

Although WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, given the prominence of this article (and that the talk page lists that it is important to no fewer than 11 (!!) projects ...) - I thought it would be good to just make sure there were no major objections:

I was working on updating Comparison of operating systems to use versioning data from Template:LSR which is integrated into Template:Infobox OS and will automatically integrate per Template:Infobox_OS#Moving_release_data_outside_the_article -- Android does not currently have its version data moved outside of the article thus precluding its reuse and preventing a Single source of truth.

If moved outside of the article to Template:LSR -- (specifically perhaps Template:Latest stable software release/Android or Template:Latest stable software release/Google Android - or both with a redirect?) -- the only functional difference would be that to update the version information the template is edited instead of the actual page (if you haven't used the software version template, it has a convenient "[±]" link that goes directly to the edit page for the version number data.)

Thoughts? :)

Hope everyone is staying healthy and safe...

Jewell D D (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Where would be an appropriate section to add details about the upcoming Android 11 release on the Wiki? Autobotsrepair (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Android version history already has some information about Android 11, and there is Android 11 with specific coverage about that version. Mindmatrix 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Perfect, thank you for sharing this with me! In that case, I'll keep an eye out for when the release drops and help update the current version in the Wiki if none of the contributors get a chance too. Autobotsrepair (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Fix typo. Replace "In January 2014, Google unveiled an framework based..." with "In January 2014, Google unveiled a framework based..." VaValenciaCa (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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

4.1 Update schedule The latest major release is Android 10. to The latest major release is Android 11. Antony Leons (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done with this edit. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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

The Stack Architecture is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#/media/File:Android-System-Architecture.svg the right one is another one https://developer.android.com/guide/platform , Dalvik VM does not exist anymore TheLillo (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a license compatible image with the improvement you specify, and I will add it. Melmann 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Add RISC-V to the list of architectures in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.58.135 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox does not have any architectures listed. Please clarify what you are suggesting. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It does, see Platforms: 64- and 32-bit (32-bit only apps being dropped in 2021) ARM, x86 and x86-64.

Please add RISC-V there.

Learning centre Horragang (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The current version needs to be updated Calgrainger (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The current information listed in the article is correct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Change the name of author cited at 212 from Wycislik-Wilson, Mark to Wyciślik-Wilson, Sofia -- this reflects a real-world name change for the author and corrects a typo in the surname. SofiaWycislikWilson (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Living Concrete (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

I'm trying to add a reference about reports that the Pegasus spyware can infect Android devices unnoticed. Kovaxa (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Android 12 beta 5 has been released. Arcaege (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed when it comes to whether or not an Android version is still supported I noticed the editors use the monthly Android Security Bulletin as a source, but I am having trouble finding where the security bulletin page specifically state which previous Android versions were still supported as of that monthly security bulletin. Where is it? I'm sorry to post this question here, but I don't know where else to put it. Thanks! For example Android 11's article uses this URL https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2021-08-01 as the reference, but where can I find it? Thanks!

Hgh1985 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggest a section 4.7 be added to include:

1. Custom Android Distributions Custom Android Distributions are developed and updated by the community to support various devices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions

2. Generic System Images GSIs are made available for a larger number of compatible devices which are updated by the community. https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/wiki/Generic-System-Image-%28GSI%29-list Ajaydcruz (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The list is already there in the section 'Open-source community'. For the purposes of this article, GSI is too niche or jargon-y. hemantha (brief) 08:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Use picture of Android 13 instead of Android 12 2.26.180.110 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you have a picture that meets WP:image use policy, link to it here and reopen the reqiest Cannolis (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Reliability of the following sources in this article are being discussed at RSN. More opinions are welcome. Also suggest seeing the update/correction at The Register.

• "Study reveals scale of data-sharing from Android mobile phones". Trinity College Dublin. Retrieved November 16, 2021.
• Liu, Haoyu; Patras, Paul; Leith, Douglas J. (October 6, 2021). "Android Mobile OS Snooping By Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei and Realme Handsets" (PDF). Retrieved November 16, 2021.

-- Yae4 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The line "As of May 2021, it has over three billion monthly active users, the largest installed base of any operating system" currently does not have a citation. I seem to remember a source available here on the official Android website, however it is nowhere to be found currently. Does anyone have a source for this claim? I don't know a good name. (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I_don't_know_a_good_name.: How about this one. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added that as a source - thanks! I don't know a good name. (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

change Bionic is licensed under the terms of the BSD licence to Bionic is licensed under the terms of the BSD license Eufel (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done at the same time, Bionic is licensed under the terms of the BSD licence, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Android operating system.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Android. It is not about the various proprietary forks like OneUI or FireOS or Google's fork of Android. Separate articles already exist on these proprietary components, we should make this article solely focused on the main vanilla Android OS. I don't know if this is pov pushing or if there is consensus here that android is indeed closed source but I find it unacceptable to boldly change something that has remained on the article for years without problem. I even remember Microsoft and Samsung actually contributing to Android's core OS. This is nothing like Windows where the operating system is mostly closed source with manufacturers writing drivers which may or may not be open source. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Android is open-source, and the article should reflect that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

I want to add a new top list of android apps Baqir hunzai (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, I am a month slow... 🐌

I don't think such a list would be encyclopedic either, see Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Android has also been installed on more objects that you should include in the section: Urinals: https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/29/bork/ Ovens: https://www.pcworld.com/article/456288/android-moves-into-the-kitchen-with-dacor-s-discovery-smart-oven.html Microwaves: https://www.engadget.com/2010-01-09-touch-revolution-puts-android-in-a-microwave-and-makes-an-update.html 204.100.235.132 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wahser and dryer: https://www.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/android-gadgets/android-washing-machine/photolist/29815625.cms 204.100.235.132 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Android powers a lot of things, yeah, but we are not an indiscriminate dumping ground for information. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the section should list examples, but should not be an exhaustive list. If anything, the two sentences in the second paragraph of "Other uses" could use trimming, rather than additions. - Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

When I was reading this article, I found a sentence which might violate copyright. In the first line of the "Development -> Update schedule" section, there is a sentence which refers to a PhoneArena's article. There is a sentence in the footer of the article which said "Reproduction in whole or in part or in any form or medium without written permission is prohibited!". When i looked at the PhoneArena term of service , i found a sentence which said "We grant you a limited license and permission to access and make personal use of PhoneArena but not to download or copy any portion of its content for any commercial purpose or to modify any portion of it, except with our written or e-mailed consent". Does the person who copied the text from the article has the permission to copy the text to Wikipedia?. Wikipedia allows everyone to use and copy its article, even for commercial purpose. I'm sorry if there are grammar mistakes as english is not my primary language. Thank you, Sipaw3310 (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A statement prohibiting copying is meaningless, since prohibition is the default for acts covered by copyright and other IP laws, and otherwise only enforcible by contract - which they don't have. So all that's necessary is to determine whether copying those eleven words constitutes an act that copyright law reserves to the copyright holder. There is variation between jurisdictions, but in many places such a short excerpt would likely be covered by the "fair use doctrine", and in some places may also fail the "creativity test" (due to there being so few concise ways of expressing that information). That said, saying "major incremental" is a contradiction in terms, so I've re-worded the sentence anyway. Martin Kealey (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

I think you say the contradiction. I know not is the best place for speak about this and sorry.But is a litle bit stupid stay watching this copyrights things and question or ask about this things. I dont want to say not is important wich copyright, copyleft or free filosofy have android (google). But in the text says clearly "except with our written or e-mailed consent". This last thing is very dificult, because who know wich part make one person and who make other... the topic is complicated my friend. But only know you write too much for nothing. Sorry, You must be more observer in the words (except). The cuestion hier is what is Android. Is free or is limited? It's new thing with old thing that are new (free software)...? I want to say: what is the Android philosophy? Wich rules of work and and change, manipulated, improve...whatever of source things have? The cuestion not is some words, are the all of thing.

In spanish we say “Es mejor estar callado y parecer estúpido que abrir la boca y disipar las dudas”. 88.10.30.255 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Android isn't free and open source, as it contains proprietary components like Google Play, Google Play Services and Google Chrome and other proprietary components as standard and limits to its source code distribution. זור987 (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also: If Android would be FOSS, than smart devices like smartphones, could get infinite updates of the OS, but this isn't the case. זור987 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That might be true for Motorola, Pixel, Amazon and Samsung devices, but the stock version of Android still contains code that is open-source. megamanfan3 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If a software that contains open source components, also contains proprietary components, it isn't open source and especially not FOSS anymore. Google Chrome is an example: It contains components of Chromium, which is FOSS, yet it is also contains proprietary components, so the software is rendered proprietary. זור987 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say Android is FOSS; it says its based on FOSS components and also contains proprietary components. The AOSP content is FOSS. The definition you gave in your edit summary would render most Linux distributions that contain non-free blobs as proprietary, which obviously they are not according to the definition provided by reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Android contains lots of other proprietary components and things beside Google Play and Google Chrome. Also, Google Chrome itself is proprietary software despite it is essentially Chromium with additional proprietary components. זור987 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your complaint is that Android isn't FOSS; the article doesn't say it is. - Aoidh (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Play and Chrome are add-ons, they aren't necessary to run the OS (there are devices that omit these). This is a bit like arguing that Linux isn't open-source because there are distributions out there that include proprietary device drivers. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie Good argument, the article specifically is about the Android operating system itself, not Google Play Services or OneUI or any proprietary components that may come bundled with Android. And to address the other argument about updates, you can flash stock Android with no Google Play Services on virtually any device and get updates indefinitely, it is just device drivers are hit or miss. If I am not mistaken, Google's proprietary components won't even run if the device is not running the version of Android that shipped with it, but I could be wrong. I have never tried rooting and prob won't in the future because it would mean a lot of features of my Android like Google Pay would fail to work anymore. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also @זור987 we go by what reliable and/or official sources say (including the operating system), not by what you believe or do not believe. If what you are writing is not verifiable, including by the developers and , then it does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:V says "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." And to be clear, as I just said in the talk section above, This article is about Android. It is not about the various proprietary forks like OneUI or FireOS or Google's fork of Android. We have separate articles that cover Google Play Services and OneUI which are proprietary components that run on Android, but Android does not need them to function. I want you to take care before you add something contentious like this. The edit you made, despite being in good faith, is falling into WP:RECKLESS territory. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This is Android's code posted on github by Android, so I would say that qualifies as FOSS. 93.56.221.236 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

that's not even the source page. In fact if you navigate to "overview" from n that github page, you'll find the following written below AOSP mirror: [quote]These aren't the droids you're looking for [/quote]

here's a better link . feel free to comb through each directory and look for owners file. In each you'll find there isn't one but usually many.. that reference is vetted by official Certificate authority.

i agree with @Awesome Aasim. All the rest of grasping at straws. Polypsychosis (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a litle bit strange no? because ok not is open, but some software it's free...Or not? example Crome. And is more support free software like a KDE. Is early for my to say and think that is the new thing, because i cant , we cant clasificate exactly. It's like a new political party who dont want to be in the left part and less in the right part. But all must to be in the some place, and more today speaking about copy right. complicated thing...it's to will be (no se como decir esta por verse) in wich part gone be. we will see if is or not the devil, but this quote is just old no? wich is the new shit? how will be the new shit? how will say Marilyn Manson. 88.10.30.255 (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source. Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is pretty large, so I don't feel comfortable messing around with it. Still, the news is here. Saedes (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Current preview is DP2 released March 8th Patrioticparadox (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Kyle9998 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I need to Add The New Android Logo into the logo box.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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

197.184.176.30 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

i need to use it

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Android 13.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

index and section 9. is called "es" i suggest to change it to a more complete and understandable one.

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Android 14 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 29 § Android 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Kindly change the identifying logo from File:Android logo 2023 (stacked).svg to File:Android 2023 3D logo and wordmark.svg as the latter visually represents the subject of the article more accurately than the former since the subject introduced a rebranded look featuring the Android robot rendered in 3D, which the latter logo stated here is an accurate representation 203.189.119.120 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)