Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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

caps
GPhone is written as gPhone. Does it mean that the technical restriction thing is not there anymore? --Kushalt 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We use this template gPhone to make it lower case. MahangaTalk 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

wow --Kushalt 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * The title seems kind of long. How about naming it Android (platform)? MahangaTalk 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * It is a mobile phone platform (like Symbian, or Mobile OSX) that is designed to come pre-installed on mobiles. You won't install it yourself, and Google hope many handsets will be available using it. 155.198.65.29 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Release date
"The release of the Android platform on 5 November, 2007 was announced ... When released in 2008" Which is it? >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.6.244 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that. I changed to wording to, "The unveiling of the Android platform..." Roguegeek (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

logo
http://www.news.com/2300-1012_3-6218087-5.html?tag=ne.gall.pg --24.173.173.218 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardware
On what hardware does Android actually run? --Nate3000 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Soon (later this month) on a T-Mobile version of the HTC Dream. See below for speculation on the announcement date by T-Mobile and Google. N2e (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

gPhone?
I would like to say that google has said (on a video) that its not gPhone, its android. I just wanted to tell you guys about it, im not going to change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.35.77 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much question about that issue. In fact, I made sure to quotebox a direct quote from the Google CEO on the issue. Are you seeing something in the article that I'm not? Roguegeek (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

awkward
I think that "an open source software phone operating system" sounds a bit too awkward. Could you give any suggestions for improving it? --Kushalt 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if it is a phrase directly quoted, please don't take my above statement too seriously. --Kushalt 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence comes as follows: "Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source software phone operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.[10]" First suggestion: "Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source phone operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.[10]" --Kushalt 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Second suggestion: "Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source operating system for use in cell phones, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.[10]" --Kushalt 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion (also in the Android is not open source section):

But Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an mobile operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone. eighthave (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Android platform availability
"When released in 2008, most of the Android platform will be made available under the Apache free-software and open-source license." Isn't it available already? ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. So far the only source that has been released is the code they are required to release since it is GPL'ed. eighthave (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

what good will the android be to me
hi all, although i understand technology, i have read about android, but i fail to understand  how it will be good for people. what will it do to my mobile experience, i will still have an instrument, will still have to dial a nmber, will still use my ear to hear, still use  my fingers to type the txt,

what will be different, plz excuse me if i have asked stupid questions

thanks kd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.47.200 (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the platform is hoped to bring some more competition and freedom to the mobile OS market.--Kozuch (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

could some one please explain it to me in a lay man terms  thanks  kd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.47.200 (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its open nature will make it more accessible to developers and increase innovation. The idea is that this will bring some killer apps.--Kdingo (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"full-fledged operating system"
The section in question is: It is not a full-fledged operating system, as it currently does not support the execution of native code.[2] After reading the article, I found no mention of Android not being a "full-fledged operating system", a term I have never heard used in my ComSci education. I think what this person meant to say was this: It does not allow the developers to write code that runs natively on phones, instead all user applications are executed by a specialized interpreter. The OS must support execution of native code since many of the libraries must be optimized in order to function properly on a mobile phone. Also, drivers must be written in low-level code in order to control hardware. Many user-space programs, however, are written in interpreted Java (such as the dialer, UI, SMS, etc.). See the diagram of the Android Architecture to get a better picture. From the diagram you can see that the drivers and libraries are either at the same level or lower than the Dalvik virtual machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokstad (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A few factual errors: what's the process?
There are a few factual errors on this page. As a Google employee, I'd correct them myself, but I'm not sure how Wikipedia policies apply to editing content about your own stuff. I'll point out the errors below, and maybe someone else can correct them. Or, if this is kosher for me to do, someone let me know and I'll do it.

- Second sentence is "It does not allow third-party developers to write native code, instead all user applications are executed by a specialized Java interpreter." While (currently) true, this strikes me as kind of irrelevant at this point in the article. It's mentioned adequately later, so it doesn't need this prominence. It's awkward enough to my eye that I suspect it was placed there by a native-code partisan, so I question its NPOV. I suggest that at the least it be rephrased to more neutrality, such as "It allows developers to write applications, primarily in the Java programming language, that run on an interpreter rather than native code."

- Last sentence, last paragraph, under "Google Acquires Android, Inc." The reference to Phoronix, OpenMoko, and the pre-launch rumors seems kind of spurious at this point, and lacks notability. I'm not sure what the standards are here, but it doesn't seem like a partial litany of pre-launch rumors is particularly useful, and to an incautious reader may be interpreted as fact. I suggest striking this sentence. Even if it remains, a discussion of pre-launch rumors does not seem like it belongs under that section heading.

- In the Patents section, it seems like the final example (re: GPay) could be brought in line as a bullet along with the others above it.

- Under "Development", second para: this also has NPOV issues by my reading. The first sentence (and tone of the overall para) is apparently based on a single op-ed piece. Criticism certainly does exist as cited, but I could also produce a list of pro-Android reviews, as well. Currently there's some selective citation here, which makes me question NPOV.

- Under Development, second para, final sentence: though reported, this is untrue. Snake is actually one of the sample applications included in the SDK. The sentence implies it was a third-party application, which is not the case.

- Under Development, the reference to the Android Developer Challenge could use a link to that site.

- Under Development, last 2 paras. These seem like they don't belong under that section header, since they are talking about hardware. I suggest a new section.

- Under Development: "In the Mobile World Congress in February 12, 2008, Google unveiled at least three Android operating system prototypes." This is untrue; several other members of the Alliance demonstrated hardware, but Google did not. Also this para and the one following it really ought to have a citation.

- Under Features: "slowly being released" was probably a harmless turn of phrase, but there's enough NPOV going on in the article to catch my eye anyway.

- Under Features: I don't see anything factually wrong in there, but the language is all over the map, and the section could stand to be cleaned up for an encylopedic tone. Also, this isn't a comprehensive feature list; not sure if it's intended to be.

- The Criticism section is kind of a mess, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a Google employee. :) Citations 30 - 33 appear to be blogs, meaning they are opinions.  Technically they are identified as such, but again, there's some selective citation.  I could also produce favorable blog entries, etc.  Also, language like "another issue is" is presenting someone's opinion as fact, etc.

In a nutshell, I'm just comparing this article to, say, Symbian's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian) and finding that this article does not compare favorably. It looks to me like someone with a biased POV happened to be the first one to edit this, and it just hasn't received much attention since. I could edit it, but I hardly have a NPOV myself, so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.210.185 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on the subject of the first paragraph containing misplaced information. I only put that new sentence in there in order to correct the previously placed sentence, but I didn't take the time to consider if it was of enough importance to justify its position. Since I am not a Google employee, I will commit your proposed change for the first paragraph.

Pokstad (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Android is not open source
The article reads that Android's source being released is definite. It is not. It is just what Google is saying they will do. This article should not just parrot Google's press releases and Network World's opinion, or try to predict the future. For example, this sentence in the intro:

When released in 2008, most of the Android platform will be made available under the Apache free-software and open-source license.

Should read something like this:

Google has pledged to make most of the Android platform available under the Apache free-software and open-source license, once it is released in 2008.

And this sentence:

But Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source software phone operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.

Could read something like this:

But Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an mobile operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.

And this sentence also needs a correction related to the Linux kernel:

Along with the formation of the Open Handset Alliance, the OHA also unveiled their first product, Android, an open source mobile device platform based on the Linux operating system.

It could be something more like this:

Along with the formation of the Open Handset Alliance, the OHA also unveiled their first product, Android, an mobile device platform built upon the Linux kernel.

eighthave (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, your proposal makes sense. With these modifications, the tone is more neutral and factually true. I have applied them in the article. Hervegirod (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Source is now available to download these sections will need updating again. http://source.android.com/download Kharri1073 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up
This page is really cluttered. I am creating a "to-do" list to help the article meet quality standards. We should probably organize the features section into a table. We should also organize the sections and make the division between the levels more clear. --RotaryAce (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying in the topic above, that's more of a notification of cleanup. --RotaryAce (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More speculation on the announcement date
...is in this article on YahooNews dated today. German sources are saying the date for an announcement by T-Mobile and Google is 23 Sep, but the announcement will be in New York. I'm just calling this to other's attention; I did not add anything to the article about this brief article. N2e (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I wrote this topic 2 and a half years ago. Now with the advent of Google TV, Android OS should no longer be reffered to as just a "phone platform". For contextual purposes, it's similar to Access Linux Platform.

Cleanup
I have marked this page as requiring a cleanup for the following reasons: Dueynz (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reads like a story
 * Lots of quotes
 * Lots of links
 * Facts and neutraility are disputed

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)

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)