Talk:Android (operating system)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Android (operating system) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Template:Multidel

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:

Cox, John (2007-10-08). "Why Google's GPhone won't kill Apple's iPhone". Network World. The GPhone project has ignited intense speculation on the Web. A search on Google's own Web site turns up over 2.7 million references to "GPhone." One of them is a Wikipedia entry, which sifts an array of news accounts for details and clues.

Comment

I'm a Linux-user and interested in Gphone features. But looking in wikipedia more and more I find deleted entries instead of information. This strategy to delete everything seems to be a conspiracy of competitors agents to reduce wikipedia's public value. -- 77.0.163.176 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a fool, no real information has been made available by Google yet, the information was obviously removed because most of the entries were unsupported rumors. --ZCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zen Clark (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I started a stub as the rumors of the new gphone is becoming stronger. May be someone from the industry who is in the know can help update this page. -- Thampran 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors quashed...

So, the article went thru an AfD, based on the fact that it was purely speculative, but it was decided to keep this article because it sounded like a sure thing. This morning, I read:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/google-phone/nyt-confirms-no-google-phone-points-at-windows-mobile-alternative-308060.php

This links to a page at NY Times, which requires a login:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/business/media/08googlephone.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

But it basically says there will be no gPhone. So much for rumors. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article you mentioned above I can say that there could be a program called "Google Phone", not the mobile phone. Does it really matter for our Gphone aricle - hardware or software? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Content errors?

The introductory paragraph seems to have been messed up. Anybody care to correct it? 207.112.73.134 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Andrew Netherton[reply]

caps

GPhone is written as gPhone. Does it mean that the technical restriction thing is not there anymore? --Kushal^t 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We use this template {{lowercase}} to make it lower case. Mahanga^Talk 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, it varies from gPhone to GPhone to Gphone. What should it be?JARS, Inc. | Talk 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper press release

There is going to be a proper unveiling of the gphone in a couple of hours, so there will probably be a lot of new info added to this article very rapidly at that time. So... be prepared. JayKeaton 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow --Kushal^t 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed article to Android (mobile phone platform)

I've renamed this article to Android (mobile phone platform) to reflect the recent announcements. Google and 33 other players in the mobile phone business announcing a Linux-based mobile phone platform, with much of it available as free software? Redmond won't be too happy about that.

Once more detail has been added about the real announcement and the verifiable details of the Android software platform, we can start trimming down the sections on the initial speculation about the nature of the gPhone. -- The Anome 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems kind of long. How about naming it Android (platform)? Mahanga^Talk 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the renaming. Makes perfect sense after reading the official blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gphone is different from Android. Google is still having plans to release a phone based on Android... This article should not be redirected to Android... What say?? Mugunth 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gphone or whatever it's being called does not exist. Google CEO specifically addresses this in the official press release. The redirect seems fine. Roguegeek (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People will still call this thing the Gphone for a while now. That's what it is really, the Gphone. We all named it that before we knew what it was, but the fact remains that we called Googles new project the Gphone, so that is one of its names. JayKeaton 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licence

Android is based on the linux kernel (and presumably some other GPL userspace stuff) with an apache licenced virtual machine. The licence indicated is only the "apache licence" but not the GPL, if google were to attempt to publish the linux kernel under hte apache licence then this would be a gpl violation. As such, the article should be cleaned up to draw attention to these issues. Variant 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation has not been released on how licenses will work and, therefore, is just speculation until such information is released. Any editor speculation should also be removed immediately unless a proper source can be cited. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Android Operating System

Much of the media is calling this the 'Android operating system', rightly or wrongly. Without debating whether this is an operating system or not, I set up a redirect page for those who search for 'Android operating system'. Thanks, Lester 01:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More details?

Does anyone know what this does? The article on the News Channel on my Wii makes it sound like a piece of software you install, and search the internet / maps / emails, much like it's Desktop Search application. Yet this hints at it being more of a full-blown Operating System. Does it target a specific "type" of phone? (Windows Mobile, Palm, Symbian and so forth) or will it only be bundled with a Google brand phone? What about the history of Android? Surely it couldn't be set up and then days later bought out by Google. There has to be more to it.

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.239.230 (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had it right on the first one. It is, more or less, an open source operating system for mobile phones. Though you don't have to pay for it by the looks of it, so it is more like Linux than Microsoft Windows. But who knows, Google may make a phone yet, or at least the people Google are partnered with may make a phone that is designed from the ground up for Android. JayKeaton 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Android Redirect

I tried to set up a redirect from the word Android, to make this the main article that comes up when a user searches for it, as it is recent news, but I was having some trouble doing it properly, someone want to help me pick up the slack? Haggisfarm 16:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Android already has an article and should probably stay the way it is unless you can come up with a good reason as to why the main android article shouldn't be using that name. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with a lot of certainty that you will never be able to turn Android into a redirect or move this article to Android. You are welcome to try, but from my point of view it is an impossible task that will be met with hostility from the community. JayKeaton 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XMPP?

"XMPP Service" is listed in the "Application Framework" section of their architectorial overview video, see http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6Ju0xhUW8 But it is not mentioned in the presentation. This would enable interesting VOIP applications built using these devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.76.225 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]