Talk:Android (operating system)

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)

They did an interview on Bloomberg TV last weekend. They said they don't believe people should have to pay for an operating system when the price can be made up on the Hardware. To speculate further I believe Google wins again because in creating this platform their products are integrated all throughout the device. Maps, Google Voice, Search, etc. They have home screen preference through Android. CaribDigita (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Google employees get to spend a significant percentage of their time working on whatever they want. A lot of them worked on mobile apps, and realized doing so sucked. So they fixed that problem. They made a platform they would like to work in, and insured it would be used by OEMs, so customers would get to use it too. Mathiastck (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They do it because they adquired this project from someone else who initially released this software under the GNU GPL (a license that makes the code available to anyone and obligates a future developer to keep the code available). Still, Google Apps are closed-source software. Rholguinc (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure if I really buy that, it's Google and if they wanted to develop their own proprietary smartphone OS that wasn't open source, they could have done that. They didn't have to "make do" because they were stuck basing it off a code base that had been released under GNU GPL, they could have just started from scratch. I don't think we can definitively know Google's exact motivations but I can guess at a few of them. First and foremost they want to ensure their services work on what is a rapidly expanding market - mobile computers. They don't want one software maker to dominate that new market like Microsoft dominates the desktop market. With Android, they largely control what is and isn't implemented which allows them to deliver better performance of their services (most importantly search and maps, but also gmail and google docs and so on). I've read that Google apps are much more fluid on the Nexus One than they are on the iPhone, and with more and more smart phones expected to use Android they can be fairly confident Google is going to work very well on those phones and competing companies can't cripple their software in any way (intentionally or otherwise). Google isn't a hardware company (the Nexus One being the glaring exception), their interest is to provide services and display ads with those services to as many people as possible. It is therefore in their interest, I think, to push standards that help them to deliver those services better, and the best way to push a standard with third party companies is to make it free, open and effective. Hence Android. Of course this is all opinion, and this discussion would probably be best had elsewhere. I'm sure you can find plenty of articles on the web speculating on Google's motivations behind Android, most of them written by people far more savvy than me. TastyCakes (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

just b/c its open source doesnt mean it isnt profitable... google might collect a fee for those hardware companies to use their OS.. look at how opensuse, ubuntu, and fedora work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how those companies make money: they charge a fee for providing support for using those products. The programs themselves are absolutely free to use, as is Android. Google does not, indeed can not, charge hardware companies for using a product it has released as open source. TastyCakes (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (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)

The screenshot needs to be update again, the new android version (2.1) looks completely different.

Could anyone recreate a free version of the Android architecture diagram?

If possible, is there anyone that can do an alternate rendition of the Android architecture? Generally it is best not to use a company's images if it can be avoided. Android has this cool overview of their architecture from top-to-bottom.

• developer.android.com/images/system-architecture.jpg

CaribDigita (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't that image licensed loose enough to be used wherever you want it? How is it not free? Mathiastck (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ophone 1.5 SDK

Ophone just published the 1.5 SDK of their Chinese Android fork here. --68.45.218.70 (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Ophone be a separate article? --Lester 10:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Google to release their own phone

See news story here. Details should eventually be added to this article or the List of Android devices. SnottyWong talk 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Google phone. Brandon (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Date of Public SDK release

I'd love to see a clearer historical timeline, perhaps as a separate article. It would mention, launch of OHA website, launch of android.com, release of public SDK, the dates each firmware version was made public to developers, and the date each firmware version was shipped to the G1. Mathiastck (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Android 2.1 (Flan)

Android 2.1 (Flan) is now out, and is used by the Google Nexus One smartphone (also known as the Google Phone). Can someone update this article with information about this release? Android —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.154.180 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ANDROID 2.1 IS NOT FLAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.191.73 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Android Robot Logo?

Can someone upload the android robot logo along with the text logo?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Android_robot.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.88.226 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

the restrictions and issues part of article outdated

someone needs to take a took at that part of the article, there are some outdated things there, that have already been addressed in later OS releases.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree: my phone runs Android 1.6 and it supports bluetooth file exchange, for instance.--Jpbrenna (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Operating System?

I think Google Android is not a identical term of OS. Following the official site, it says :

Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications

while the title of this doc includes OS. -- Modamoda (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)