Jump to content

Talk:Android (operating system)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.132.213.152 (talk) at 04:52, 17 February 2014 (→App Ops). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2007Articles for deletionDeleted
October 7, 2007Articles for deletionKept
December 25, 2011Peer reviewReviewed

USB & MTP

No mention is made of the move to MTP as the main method of connection between the Android OS and PC's. Should this be added? There are differences between the methods of connection. ICS-feature-mtp

Google Home

We already had consensus earlier not to acknowledge Google Home (a.k.a. Google Experience launcher) in any form on this page (aside from, possibly, a mention of it as an example of a component Google has made non-open), as it is officially exclusive to the Nexus 5 and not technically part of Android.

Additionally, the source an editor used to bring up Google Home on this page is also deemed unreliable because it is merely a forum (how major a forum is doesn't matter), and the Ars Technica "Iron Grip" article only discusses Google's practices itself and makes little mention to Google Home. This is why I keep removing it. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Regarding recent edits (edit #2, edit #2) on the Android (operating system) and Android version history articles, please allow me to explain the background of adding those notes. As we know, there have been numerous edits replacing the stock screenshot with the GEL one, and the note is there for providing additional explanation so confusion is avoided. People expect to see translucent bars for 4.4, and it should be explained why they aren't there — if you agree.
Also, could you please explain why do you keep reverting that, only because it's using a forum post as a reference – while it's a pure fact? Shouldn't you try to provide a better reference instead of performing plain deletion? — Dsimic (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put notes in articles to tell users why the Android screenshot isn't showing TouchWiz. This is a similar case. Google Home might get its own article once its actually released officially. Also read WP:V, "internet forum postings [..] are largely not acceptable as sources." ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That totally makes sense, but on the other side I haven't seen people switching those images for the TouchWiz ones, :) while they've been switched to GEL variants at least 5-6 times so far. The trouble comes from the fact Nexus phones are taken as some kind of a reference point, regarding deciding what is and what isn't "bare" Android, while Google's recent shift to segmenting Android's features into closed-source applications is breaking that assumption. — Dsimic (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would this be a better reference for the GEL / Google Home and its relationship with the "bare" Android, instead of a forum post? If we care to explain that at all, of course. — Dsimic (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: Any comments, please? It would be polite to say something, at least. — Dsimic (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we have right now are fine. GEL is a Google app, not stock Android. This article is only about Android, not what companies (even Google) add to Android. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. With your latest edit, it is much more clear what's the relationship between Google Home / GEL and Android, especially regarding what's available on Nexus 5. — Dsimic (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The open-source portion version of the "Google Experience Launcher" is named Launcher3 in AOSP (https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Launcher3/) which is indeed a part of the OS. I've replaced the screenshot boldly, if anyone has a different opinion, feel free to revert. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 05:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll replace the screenshot with the open-source Launcher3. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded new version of the screenshot with Launcher3 included in AOSP, and without Google Apps which are "not stock Android". I think it's a accurate representation of Android 4.4. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 06:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Hm, where are the soft buttons on the Android 4.4.2 screenshot you've provided? From which device is it? — Dsimic (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsimic Hello. It's a Galaxy S3 with OmniROM (AOSP-based). I can upload a new one with soft-key enabled if you like. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, Galaxy S3 has physical buttons. :) It might be better to have a picture with soft buttons, as that's somehow expected to be displayed in screenshots of "AOSP" builds, as they (in turn) tend to be associated with recent Nexus devices which have no physical buttons. — Dsimic (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsimic New uploaded with soft-key enabled. Any suggestions? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good to me, thank you! We'll see what the other editors are going to say, and if it goes well, this screenshot could be also propagated into the Android version history article. — Dsimic (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AOSP

Although AOSP redirects to this article, it should now have its own article. -Mardus (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, that would introduce too much fragmentation. Just my $0.02. :) — Dsimic (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

41.178.223.108 (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: no actual request made. Please resubmit your request in the form of "change X to Y", providing all reliable source. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Interface

The elements of the Android UI were incomplete, I thought. I have added a few more things it may contain, to fully contrast it with iOS. Perhaps the hard and soft buttons need mention too? 51kwad (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iDroid

Why are iDroid redirected to the Android article. --David Hedlund (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Well, it seems iDroid isn't described anywhere on Wikipedia, so this redirection is currently the best possible thing to be provided. Sure thing, you (or anybody else) are more than welcome to write a separate article on iDroid. :) — Dsimic (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2014

Change this line, | kernel type = Monolithic (modified Linux kernel) with this line: | kernel type = Monolithic (modified Linux kernel) because it isn't working otherwise. Thanks. Cihanozvez (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

64-bit Android?

Tegra#Tegra_K1: "the world's first 64-bit mobile chip running Android" is probably untrue. Not because Intel was first but Google isn't ready: "Intel has ensured that the bottom layer, the kernel, will boot and work in 64-bit mode on Silvermont processors. However the rest of the layers seem at the moment to remain 32-bit and it is likely that a full conversion to 64-bits will take some time." [1]. Linux-kernel has been know to run on (Intel) 64-bit x86 for a long time, the addition must be a something (non-essential?) GPU (or something (what?) Android-Linux-kernel fork) specific. Mainline Linux-kernel has been running for a (shorter) while on 64-bit ARMv8. I would not say "Android" is running on 64-bit until 64-bit Dalvik (or ART?) is supported. Android running *on* 64-bit chip could arrive sooner. Please don't add that to the page saying "64-bit Android" has arrived or is coming. Would there be any benefit, could 64-bit C code (or 64 ARM code) be called from 32-bit Dalvik code through JNI? I guess not.. comp.arch (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Which screenshot should be assigned?

This and This reports from International Business Network reveals that currently Google hasn't released any update of Android 4.4 for Galaxy S3, it also states clearly that now-a-days the updates has been available in the form of CustomROMS by third-party sources other than Google.

But an user Zhaofeng Li has uploaded two screenshots of Galaxy S3 running Android 4.4.2, i.e, File:Android 4.4.2.png and File:Android notification area.png, and also assigned in the infobox of the article, comparing the screenshots with the references provided above, I found that those screenshots quietly matched to the images that are in the references.

So, I reverted those images and assigned the image of KitKat running in Nexus 4. Have I done something wrong ? Himanis Das Talk 13:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... As currently the Rfc has been added, the image of Android KitKat running in Nexus 4 is File:Android 4.4 with stock launcher.png and the question is which screenshot should be assigned in the article ? Himanis Das Talk 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Himanis Das. The whole point of the screenshots is to demonstrate the UI, which is not related to the device model. The ROM running on my phone is based on AOSP which does not include any UI modifications from the device vendor (Samsung) and therefore considered "stock Android". My screenshot also features the new home screen design which is one major UI change in Android 4.4. What's more, Google-made ROMs are also based on AOSP and includes many proprietary elements that are not a part of stock Android (such as the Google Experience Launcher). Please read the discussions in the "Google Home" section above. Thanks. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... And please don't treat ROMs produced by Google as "original Android". Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is something having a long history of changed and then reverted screenshots. From one side, any clean AOSP build can be considered to be stock Android, while on the other hand only Google's releases could be treated as such. Then again, we have Google Home as an exception, bringing in additional confusion (especially among readers, who probably expect to see Google Home screenshots).

How about opening an RfC, so we end up having this defined through comments from a broader editing audience? — Dsimic (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much time has been spent agonising about 4.4 images when really they all look substantially the same as each other. My personal preference at this point would be to use File:Android 4.4.2.png since it shows the UI changes in 4.4 (eg, the transparent status bar) and is as close to Google Home as possible while using only icons and backgrounds which we know for sure are freely licensed. This makes it the image with the lowest number of possible objections which I think is sadly the way we'll have to make the decision. The fact that it's speculated to be from a custom ROM is neither here nor there since you could replicate the exact same screenshot on an official AOSP build. – Steel 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, life isn't perfect; my vote also goes to File:Android 4.4.2.png. Also, that's what the majority expects to see when a KitKat version is depicted. — Dsimic (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I've restored the screenshot boldly. Any comments on the notification area screenshot? It looks exactly the same on Nexus 5, I think. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Home launcher is only on the Nexus 5 (not stock). The screenshot depicts non-stock software regardless, the lead screenshot on an OS article should reflect defaults. We had this discussion before. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151 Please read the description page of the screenshot and the discussion on the "Google Home" section. The home screen is not Google Home, but the open-source Launcher3 (included in AOSP so it's "stock") which uses the same design (Launcher and Launcher2 uses designs found on older versions of Android, respectively). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I actually did notice. I was under the impression that Google Home wasn't in AOSP at all; but then why didn't they put Launcher3 on the Nexus 4/Moto X updates then? I'll accept it if the page layout is changed to mimic the old screenshot (Chrome's icon is pd-ineligible, so its okay) ViperSnake151  Talk  00:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151 Who knows? Maybe Google just wanted Nexus 5 to "stand out" from the crowd. By the way, Chrome logo is copyrightable, so I think that might be better left out (the Google logo on the search bar is copyrighted, but removing it hurts the "stock" appearance). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And Chrome is not "stock", anyway (Chromium core is available on Android, but a full Chromium is not). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 01:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC—)

As previously stated, I support using File:Android 4.4.2.png as the screenshot instead of File:Android 4.4 with stock launcher.png. Since an RfC has been started for this debate, I'll explain my reason:

  1. The previous screenshot (File:Android 4.4 with stock launcher.png) uses the old Jelly Bean launcher instead of the new one,firstpost.com article which is an inaccurate representation of Android Kitkat, and it also lacks the translucent status bar which is a major UI improvement made in KitKat.
  2. The launcher on File:Android 4.4.2.png is the open-source launcher called Launcher3 in AOSPrepo which features the new KitKat home screen design, not the proprietary launcher found on Nexus 5 called Google Experience Launcher by the public. Launcher3 is a part of AOSP, and therefore it should be considered "stock".
  3. File:Android 4.4.2.png does not include copyrighted wallpapers or icons of proprietary Google Apps which are copyrighted visuals and replaces them with their AOSP counterparts. However, File:Android 4.4 with stock launcher.png contains copyrighted icons of non-stock Google Apps and that might add restrictions to the distribution of the screenshot. I am aware that there is a Google logo on the search bar of both screenshots, but removing it hurts the "stock" appearance, since it's a part of the AOSP source.
  4. Device model does not matter. Himanis Das argues that File:Android 4.4.2.png is taken on a device (Samsung Galaxy S3) running a custom ROM which is not released by Google. Based on Dsimic's statements, "any clean AOSP build can be considered to be stock Android". The custom ROM in File:Android 4.4.2.png is AOSP-based OmniROM and few UI modification is visible on the screenshot(The custom ring battery indicator is enabled by default on OmniROM, but it's disabled on the screenshot). Therefore, it can be considered "stock Android".

Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes. One, we have the Chrome logo tagged as free because of the threshold of originality. Additionally, I mean "stock" as in, stock, unmodified. Not an unofficial branch like CM. But as long as it still appears exactly like how it is on a Nexus device or similar. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "any clean AOSP build can be considered to be stock Android" from above was intended to mean "any unmodified AOSP build can be considered to be stock Android". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it's okay as long as the UI is exactly like stock AOSP. About Chrome, I don't think it represents "stock" as it's closed-source. A question though, can we consider all AOSP components as "stock" and "default"? And can we consider all non-AOSP software (including the open-source ones) as "non-stock" and "non-default"? Take Chromium as an example, if Chromium is available on Android (as a full browser, not just WebView), can we treat it as "stock" software (And no, I don't think it's going into AOSP, but it's it will be open-source)? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's a good question, and quite debatable. On one side, Android needs a browser, but it's not part of the AOSP; on the other side, including it makes an AOSP build no longer unmodified. Anyway, I'd vote for including Chromium, rather than bundling Chrome application. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

There is a disambiguation page for the word "android". Why doesn't this page link to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackmailedIntoRegistering (talk • contribs) 05:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! It's now added. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSA's kit for Android

[2] Article: [3]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something to be included into this article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will update the article with info from these recent reports at the weekend unless someone beats me to it. – Steel 18:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Market share vs. installed base (for eg. tablets)

I wanted to know installed base (not just sales numbers in a quarter of some specific brand) and assumed "market share" meant "installed base". It doesn't meant that. I think we should throw out these numbers.

However, "Installed base" (US, tablets):

2012: Apple 52% Android 48% (including Kindle Fire 21%), Android way up from 2011 (no Windows etc..?): http://www.forbes.com/sites/benedictevans/2012/10/02/how-many-tablets-are-in-the-usa-and-does-it-matter/

2013: "We believe about 51% of the tablet installed base is coming from iOS and 40% Android when all is said and done in 2013." Big Brand Tablet Installed Base to Surpass 285 Million by Year’s End. Note iOS/Apple/iPad down from 52%, could mean Android up to almost 49%, 40% excludes non-"Big Brand Tablets".

Smartphnoe numbers [4], seem two liked Guardian articles. comp.arch (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multitasking

In the section "Memory management", it says that When an Android app is no longer in use, the system will automatically suspend it in memory. To me this sounds like normal desktop multitasking, e.g. when an app calls sleep(). --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! The main difference between Android and Linux (for example) is that Android applications don't have full control over their execution. Android activities are going through various states during application execution, so an activity can become really stopped by the Java virtual machine (Dalvik or ART), and not just sleeping on its own; that's why you need to implement Android services in order to have continously running operations as part of an Android application, for example. This paper provides a good further overview. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response and the interesting links! I had clearly misunderstood how multitasking works on Android. You were right to revert me. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it helped. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

App Ops

I removed the section on App ops because it is just about 100% inaccurate, this has since been reverted by @Dsimic so here is my expanded reasoning: The section states that this was an application introduced in 4.3, it was not, it was a hidden preferences pane that Google used as "an internal testing and debugging tool";[5] it is not clear when this was added to the operating system. Some end users discovered it in 4.3 and published a trick to un-hide it. The section goes on to state that it was removed in 4.4.2, which is again wrong, it is still there, Google just made it more difficult to access. However, it can be accessed if you have root access on your device. Mentioning alternative apps is misleading as they also require root access—so they offer no benefit to a non-rooted user, and the benefit of these tools for a rooted user over re-enabling app ops is not explained. As it was never an official part of the operating system, I can find little discussion of it beyond Android blogs, which would not be considered reliable sources. —Jeremy (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Please allow me to spend some time re-researching the App Ops in detail (and I mean in detail :), and I'll come back with an update. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you think there is an error somewhere, do not just delete the whole thing. Try to fix it or bring a conversation on the talk page. Just deleting does not show good intention on your part. —Sfierce (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think that removing incorrect information from articles is entirely appropriate. If someone writes in the Ford Focus article that this car can fly, I will remove it because it is clearly incorrect. The information that you added to the article was wrong, plain and simple, it also did not cite reliable sources, and the app recommendations appear to be a case of WP:NOTHOWTO. —Jeremy (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to say disabled (instead of removed) requiring root access to enable it. —Sfierce (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JeremyA and don't mind if this content ends up being removed, but in the meantime I've rephrased it to be more accurate and avoid the trainwreck of a sentence that was "[App Ops], whose code was made available in Android 4.3, although in disabled state, was totally disabled in version 4.4.2, although root users can enable it." – Steel 12:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you removed the information about third party privacy managers? Otherwise I will restore it. —Sfierce (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Jeremy's explanation above. – Steel 13:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

Please change {{Other uses|Android (disambiguation){{!}}Android}} to {{Other uses|Android (disambiguation)}} per WP:HOWTODAB. Thanks. 82.132.213.152 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Android_(operating_system)&oldid=595829840"