Talk:Android (operating system)

the word "gphone" shouldnt be anywhere on this article

ok LightSpeed3 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

why exactly not? people have been referring to the google mobile effort as the 'gphone' for months now and the term has been used on numerous articles on the subject. regardless of where the term came from or it's accuracy, it should be mentioned. while the term is used twice in the article at this point in time, the issue surrounding the gphone term i've mentioned is completely passed over on. apologies for not sorting this myself, but i've things to do and it's much easier to state what seems to be the obvious to me than to fix the problem --MilkMiruku (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

gphone should be mentioned, because gphone should redirect here, and I generally feel that if something is redirected to it should explain why. In this case we'd want something like, before launch rumors circulated regarding a google branded, gphone. What google produced is an entire software stack specifically designed to be run on many different phones, with different form factors, produced by many different manufactures. Mathiastck (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement too Limited

"Android is an open source mobile phone platform..." It's actually a full software stack, meaning it will be used for phones but that will not be its only use. I will eventually change it myself but then a lot more things will need to be changed as well. gameplace123 (talk) 10:18, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

most of the Android platform will be made available under the Apache v2 open-source license In the press release, Open Handset Alliance says: The entire platform will be made available under the [...] Apache [...] license in 2008. Same in the FAQ. Please specify what parts they won't release contrary to their announcement, and give sources.--87.162.54.100 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Many google products launched on the Android platform remain closed source, and this include the Android Marketplace application itself. Source would be the android developers google group. Mathiastck (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have marked this page as requiring a cleanup for the following reasons:

• Reads like a story
• Lots of quotes
• Lots of links
• Facts and neutraility are disputed

Dueynz (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a new criticism regarding tethering being forbidden on -all- android appliances available through Google's portal. This likely comes with T-Mobile selling a more expensive data service, while the G1 offers connectivity at a lower price. I don't have the time to research the prices and edit it further without it appearing opinionated.

Timothy Legg, Elk Grove Village, IL, USA72.54.34.34 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Winter & Summer releases

Sections of the article describe future handsets to be released next winter or summer. These terms are not global, and should not be used. Thanks, --Lester 12:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Silly criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is few technical problems. The one criticism is that Android ain't Linux OS because it does not include window manager etc. But those have never be a part of operating systems. The article makes mistake by assuming that operating system definition is based to marketing and not the computer science itself, where the linux kernel is the operating system. Google has not relicensed the Linux. And even Google would add code to Linux what would need signed software to get ran on it, does not change the fact that Android Software Platform does not use Linux kernel as it's operating system. You do not need GNU or any other parts for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.105.14 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a criticism section, because it doesn't mention criticism. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The original source mentioned this as a critic because it made it more difficult to reuse "out of the box" code working on "regular" Linux distributions. Note that even glibc is not present on Android (at least that's what the article says). Hervegirod (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Android Market

Could someone please add a section on Android Market? SharkD (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the redirect on Android Market and added a bit of information about the market to that article. James Foster (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Root

Will any phones be released that just let you log in as root, without any of this silly jailbreaking stuff? or maybe even without the cryptographic signing stuff so it will easily load any firmware at all? Towel401 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Google and HTC directly sell the ADP1. Mathiastck (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Multi-touch disabled as a result of Apple's request?

There is no reference saying that Google disabled multi-touch as a result of Apple's request. It was said in VentureBeat, but no source was given, as said later in Daring Fireball:

Source: Apple asked Google not to use multi-touch in Android, and Google complied http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/09/apple-asked-google-not-to-use-multi-touch-in-android-and-google-complied/

Apple, Google, and Palm http://daringfireball.net/2009/02/apple_google_palm

Besides, Android has not native support for multi-touch, HTC G1's screen has multi-touch support.

In my honest opinion "Android has native support for multi-touch but disable this feature as a result of Apple's request." must become something similar to "Despite HTC G1's screen supports multi-touch Android has no native support for it.". Kokotero (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean by Android doesn't suport multi-touch, it is there in android's original source code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unamed102 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Every mention I've seen in terms of Android's lack of multi-touch support being the result of some action taken (or potential) by Apple has been purely speculative. I feel any mention of Apple in relation to multi-touch (w/o the speculative qualifier) would be inaccurate. NiX0n (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Released Hardware

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

(To Be) Released Hardware

I think this section should be its own article, just to cut down on clutter. Table probably needs to be reworked. There is a good one here - [[1]]--Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Table please

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

I was thinking I'd like to see a table too. I was thinking Manufacturer first, then phone name, then release date...etc. I might start it soon, if I can figure out how. --Lightenoughtotravel (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

the table might be more useful if it was sorted by release date instead of manufacturer. A reader could always ctrl + F (search) for their phone/manufacturer if they wanted. This way users could easily see where Android started, how it progressed, and what has just recently been released. --Pwnage97 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sciphone G2

People repeatedly added info about the new Sciphone G2, as being the second Android phone. It is NOT an Android phone, but just fakes Android User Interface. It is also not the first time Sciphone launch make-believe of popular phones. They previously have released a fake iPhone. Besides, the only source provided to back the fact that it is an Android phone comes from pressreleasepoint.com which is a Free Press Release Distribution Website [2] that allows anyone to add content, so this source is not reliable. Hervegirod (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Qigi phone released?

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

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

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

HTC Magic Still Listed in Forthcoming

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

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

Netbooks

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

Released & to be Released Table

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

Since table of released and not released hardware is not complete, I added a link to Android-Devices.net to External Links section, but it was removed with note that it is a spam link. Does it mean that only links to official sites of hardware vendors are allowed? Link that was added by me is related only to Android hardware and is not advertising or smth similar. Please advise.

50 phones

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

Barnes & Noble nook eBook Reader

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

What kind of popular software is supported by Android?

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

Additional information

Would it be beneficial to add some or all of the information found here: [3] ? Robert M Johnson (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Malformed Citation

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

A vandal broke the reference while removing a piece of text. Usually pays to check the history if you come across problems. Fixed now. ~ Ameliorate! 09:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. This is only the second time I've edited an article, and I was just unfamiliar with how citations work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.16.114 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No Multitasking?

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

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

It's actually a bit tricky. While Android does allow true multitasking (e.g. background processes, etc), its user interface only displays a single application at a time so it does *appear* not to have proper multitasking. joeyo (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It actually does have multitasking, and can support background services. If they're written properly, they are displayed in the notification bar. It is poor practice to hide the notification bar for applications, because of the fact that this is the only way to see notifications for background services. The same argument can be said for any full screen application on any platform, not just Android. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.45.0 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Samsung 5700?

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

Phone table carriers

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

By distribution

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

Request new article: List of Android devices

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

I agree, although I think a section mentioning "notable devices" (first, most used or whatever) would still have a place here. TastyCakes (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a brief paragraph or two, with a link to the full list.--Lester 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's done. Article is here: List of Android devices. Thanks, Lester 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does google do it?

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

Screenshot

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