Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 4

Honeycomb's Closed Development
Honeycomb is following the Cathedral model of programming. While this model is not a favored method of the open-source community (and is hardly seen anymore), it still exists, and is still a valid open source release model (albeit with flaws). Honeycomb has not been 'released' yet, but the source code will be released (allegedly) with the release of Honeycomb. It is for this reason that I changed the wording in the infobox from closed-source to closed development. That way there is no way for the article to be false. If Honeycomb's source is released, 'closed-source' is untrue, as many open-source programs have (at least at some point in their dev cycles) had closed development, and still been considered open-source programs. Closed development has no chance of being wrong or misconstrued, as it is as specific and literal definition as can be given. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that Google went on the record to say Honeycomb's source will be release eventually. Ian1337 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A code which is not released, and for which the developer says that he does not put any date for when it will be opened to the public, is not Open Source. Never mind what Google says. When (if) they release it, it will be Open Source again. It is not. Besides the product is released, and some products from Google associates have been priced and shipped. It is not like the development is not finished yet. In the Cathedral model, the code is Opened when the final product is released. The final product has been released, and the code has not been opened yet, and Google do not say when it will be. Quoting the wikipedia article: "The Cathedral model, in which source code is available with each software release, but code developed between releases is restricted to an exclusive group of software developers". This is not the case here. Hervegirod (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What day was Honeycomb released? - SudoGhost (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can buy at least one tablet with Honeycomb (the Xoom), it is not closed development, there is a software which is included in a released product which source code is still not released. Hervegirod (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Droid and cleanup
This article says that the first Android phone to become a big hit was the Motorola Droid. I think this should be mentioned, along with other significant handsets like the G1 and Samsung Galaxy S, and the article should have a greater emphasis on its commercial history and popularisation.

I think the current article is a bit of a mess, frankly. It's poorly written, badly structures, and has a strange and unnecessary emphasis on obscure technical details and dumps of information. Contrast this with the lucid Windows Phone 7 article. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also it suffers from the usual confusion between operating system and graphical interface system, section Linux compatibility is written haphazardly:
 * Android's kernel is derived from Linux but has included architecture changes by Google outside the typical Linux kernel development cycle.[105] Google no longer maintains the code they previously contributed to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, creating a separate version or fork of Linux.[108][109]
 * X is not part of the operating system and neither the Java based replacement, so the sentences that I mark red, are irrelevant and confusing regarding the operating system. Android is a Linux fork that doesn't communicate updates with the Linux main branch. Therefore it can be said to be a Linux. The Android distribution doesn't provide X by default, but the Java replacement. That should be treated in a separate paragraph. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move - Feedback Needed
I propose moving the title from Android (operating system) to Android (software stack)

Rationale: Android is not an operating system, it is a software stack as stated by Google itself - see. The page reads "Android is an open-source software stack for mobile phones and other devices." Google says it again and expands on the idea here: That page reads "Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware, and key applications." Those are pretty definitive statements that come right from the organization that drives the project.

In addition to aligning the article title with the view of the company that drives the project, the proposed title is more accurate. Referring to Android as an "operating system" suggests that it is something less than it actually is. If you take the middleware and applications out of Android, what you are left with isn't Android, it's just a bunch of code that, even if it could run a phone, would offer severely degraded utility and functionality.

I realize how common it is to see/hear Android referred to as an OS, but that's not much of an argument to keep the current title. Wikipedia needs to record things as they actually are, stating facts supported by reliable sources. There was a time when the teeming masses believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Although that was the prevailing view at the time, it wasn't correct. Since we know that Android isn't really an operating system, I think we need to move the title to Android (software stack) or Android (solution stack) since that is what is more correct, despite the prevailing understanding of the teeming masses.

Software stack vs. solution stack: Currently the Wikipedia article Software stack redirects to Solution stack. There are 36,300,000 Google results for "solution stack" but only 360,000 for "software stack". Despite Google's use of "software stack", perhaps Android (solution stack) is the better title?

'''Do you agree that the title should be moved? If so, is it Android (solution stack) or Android (software stack)?''' Ch Th Jo (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not commenting for or against the change, but thought I'd add this in (from 'What is Android' section of developer.android.com): "Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications." - SudoGhost (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME says "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". Using the same definition you could define Linux, Windows, iOs etc. as a software stack, but most people know them as operating systems. Dcxf (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This makes sense, I agree with Dcxf. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should stay "operating system" WP:COMMONNAME Bhny (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be changed to "Software system" or "Software stack" as the Linux kernel in the Android is the operating system and Android is more than just the Linux, everything from Linux OS to middleware to applications. The "Android (Operating System)" is not technically correct at all and clash with the operating system technologies and makes difficult for people to actually find out problems and make decisions based wikipedia information so it is against purpose of wikipedia. LInux is not microkernel but monolithic what means it is the operating system as monolithic kernel is the original and still very much used OS architecture and Server-Client (aka microkernel) is much younger (about 30 years newer than monolithic) OS architecture. Windows or iOS are neither ones operating systems. They are as well software systems and they include operating systems among other software (system programs, system libraries, application programs etc). NT is the OS in the Windows and XNU is the OS in iOS (&Mac OSX). NT microkernel does not have name but just version number while XNU microkernel is called Mach. The problem is the marketing has wanted to use mystical "operating system" term what has been now used as it would mean same thing as "product". But when you start coding operating system and you want to get even a simple program to work, the marketing term does not fit at all. Neither it works if there is reason to explain how device (computer) boots as OS is first software what bootloader loads and executes and then OS starts executing other (non-OS) software like INIT or similar what finalize the system booting in wanted order. Now this article is trying to say that Android is not same operating system as Linux. Even Android includes the Linux OS. No matter how much software is stacked to be ran by OS, does not change the fact what the OS is under them. 62.165.189.248 (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's see the research. Some believe that more reliable sources refer to Android as an OS rather than a software stack but no one has provided any evidence of that. Opinions don't count for much in WP, and without data, opinions are all we've got so far. Ch Th Jo (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google news results: Android operating system shows 2,350 results, where Android software stack shows only 78. Seems to fit squarely into WP:COMMONNAME.  Putting quotations around the phrases returns 913 for "Android operating system", and only 1 for "Android software stack" - SudoGhost (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A better name than "software stack" would be "Android (smartphone platform)" with 127 hits. So I agree that "software stack" certainly fails the WP:COMMONNAME policy. On a side note, Android (platform) would probably be more common with 4730 hits. Regards  So Why  16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The "platform" (or "smartphone platform") does not work as platform means software platform what does not include operating system or application programs. Software platforms are like Java or Qt or more complicated combinations of libraries and prorams (not system- or application programs). The technically correct would be simply "software system" as computer is build by two different parts, hardware system and software system. They are both needed but they are still independent, like hardware can brake and vice versa. You can keep same hardware system but change software system to totally different and having totally different user experience with that. Or keep same software system and change hardware system to get totally different processing speed or use capabilities. The "Software stack" could work if it would be very well explained it means the software system and not just typical software stack like what KDE SC or Core technologies are. It does not matter how many results google brings (how popular some term is) as technology rules all those out how the machine (hardware/software) works and it is done by science and not marketing or internet blogs and forums etc. If popular opinion rules over the computer science (technology, facts, sience) then wikipedia is broken in the first place as it would be case that (as example) if 80% people believe human can fly then wikipedia article of that should be changed so and not to reflect science that human does not have wings and can not fly but human can build machines what can fly by using specific scientific rules of physics etc. Android article is about software, so it is about computer science and not about public opinions or believes what marketing generates to sell stuff. 62.165.189.248 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Android is an operating system, exactly like Unix is an operating system. I think there's only a confusion when somebody doesn't know that an operating system, and a kernel are not the same thing: An operating system is more than a kernel, and includes all the other libraries, programs, and even data, which come with the system and were not specifically added by the user. So the Unix operating system, for example, includes the Unix kernel *and* a whole lot of libraries (e.g., the C library), applications, compilers, windowing systems, manual pages, images, sounds, and so on. So android is an operating system - there is no need to invent a new term "software stack". The term "software stack" fails to capture the essense of operating systems, which is that this stack isn't just any stack, it's one which spans all layers - right from the hardware up to the end user. So please don't rename. Nyh (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If any of you guys want to change the category of Android (operating system) from operating system to software stack please be consistent and reach a consensus with editors of other pages like iOS (Apple) and Microsoft Windows. Because you are going to have more detractors than Nicolaus Copernicus when he wanted to displace the Earth from the center of the universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.153.245 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Another move
Per WP:NCDAB:

"If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use '(mythology)' rather than '(mythological figure)'."

The most concise option here is simply (software), which redirected here, so I've moved to that title. Android means several things, and none of them are especially more notable than the others. The generic title avoids giving confusing impressions to readers too early on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Going by the "use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context", iOS and Symbian are topics within the same class and context. They are both referred to as operating systems.  They do not have the same disambiguating phrases however.  The example above doesn't fit here, because Android (software) is not a simpler form of Android (operating system)  Fewer characters does not always mean simpler.  This, in addition to the previous consensus to keep the article's title at Android (operating system) is why I moved it back, per the consensus and WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost 14:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You've misread NCDAB. If iOS were iOS (operating system) and Symbian were Symbian (operating system) then we would use "the same disambiguating phrase" (that's the thing in brackets) as them. But they aren't. Secondly, the argument, repeated several times, is that Android is more than an operating system, which is why the current title is misleading. Thirdly, "software" is not only more concise, but also a far simpler concept than "operating system". In fact, I can't think of any way in which this could not be considered "simpler". The previous consensus was on a different proposal and wasn't even that strong (from what I can see, it only had about half a dozen participants and wasn't even posted to RM). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with SudoGhost. An OS is not simply software as the casual reader knows it (i.e. as in "application") but rather a complex stack of many different programs that regulate many uses of the device the OS is installed on (and, with smartphone operating systems, the hardware is often designed to fit said OS as well). Also, such naming is common for those topics, see ARX (operating system), Integrity (operating system), RMX (operating system) etc.
 * On that topic, please enjoy this
 * for moving the page without discussion when you clearly could see that a move of this page would not be uncontroversial. Whether your argument is correct or not (imho, it's not), it's not your decision to move something without consensus to do so. Regards  So Why  14:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * thumperward, that's why I said above, "They do not have the same disambiguating phrases however." Operating system is the common name, what is technically correct does not apply when naming the articles, as I'm sure the disambiguation for a great many technology articles would then need to be changed if that were the case. What is used is the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. In most reliable sources, Android is referred to as an operating system.  In common usage software is a program that is run on an operating system.  To the average reader, Android would have software, but would not be software.  To name the page otherwise would likely just confuse people. - SudoGhost 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the more in "Android is more than an operating system"? Because then iOS (Apple) and Microsoft Windows are also more than an operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.153.245 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to weigh in and give the opinion that the problem rests with common use of the phrase "Operating System." In common parlance, when someone refers to an OS, they are also including the basic application software that it is bundled with. So even Windows is in theory more than "just an operating system" because it also includes additional default applications (I'm thinking of say, MSPaint and Solitaire). Android is much the same, when one speaks of the "Android OS" they generally are referring to more than the basic OS system (which is a part of Android), but also to the middleware and basic applications that are bundled with it. All of this is to say that while Android_(operating_system) may not be 100% technically, it meets WP:COMMONNAME criteria because in colloquial speech when one speaks of an OS one is also including middleware and basic applications as a part of that package. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know the rules of wikipedia speaking/usage, but as a programmer I am obligated to say what I have to say. NO, Android is NOT operating system as Amiga emulator for PC is NOT operating system. I won't tell you what is it, but surely it is LINUX operating system with SOMETHING (call it as you wish). Log into Android by the Busybox and SEE what it REALLY is. It is plain linux distro, a very small one. Like ANY embedded linux in ANY device. So please, call it as you wish but not and OS (my guess would be Software Platform or software Stack as originally Google calls it - do you think if Google wasn't ashamed to use OS, it would invent it's own names?). By the way, removing almost ALL Google related software from Android STILL doesn't break an OS - it is still working and kicking, I can run any linux app without any Google crap on my HTC Desire HD. That's the truth. And dont mix "common knowledge" with "encyclopedic definitions" - we are obligated to write what it IS, and not what people CALLS IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.41.13 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) PS. Ask yourself a question - Windows 3.0 - is it an operating system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.143.41.13 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

best-selling open source?
How come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.248.136.240 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources listed will give you more information, like this one. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "world's best-selling Smartphone platform" is potentially misleading. The convention on Wikipedia seems to be that "best-selling" means "largest number of total sales" (see List of best-selling video games, List of best-selling books.) However, the source cited for Android being the best-selling smartphone platform merely states that it had the highest number of sales in a three-month period(2010 Q4), not in the entire history of smartphones. Given that Symbian has been around for nearly a decade longer than Android, it wouldn't surprise me if its total number of sales was still higher than Android's. In my opinion, replacing "best-selling" with "fastest selling" might be more accurate. Captain Canuck16 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Best-selling does not imply largest market share. It implies it has the most sales in a specific (recent) period.Haha01haha01 (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the statement "world's best-selling Smartphone platform" cover the sales of devices that are NOT smartphones? if so, then this statement needs to be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danigro456 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * in that case, you need to specify the "specific (recent) period". Otherwise, "best-selling" simply means "most cumulative sales". If the source says "best-selling in Q4 2010", you can use it to state "best-selling in Q4 2010", but not to state "best-selling" without qualification.  --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

How should all the modifications hardware manufacturers do be called? (like HTC Sense) fragments? distributions?
How should all the modifications hardware manufacturers do be called? (like HTC Sense) fragments? distributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.214.47.184 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has always been my understanding that things like HTC Sense and (Not) Motoblur are proprietary sets of standard or built-in apps. For instance, HTC sense replaces the standard Android app that manages the home screen as well as several others I believe. I don't think fragments would be the correct term, because this would generally refer to non-standard versions of the OS that have splintered off the core Android releases from Google. I would term them as proprietary default application packages, which is admittedly a mouthful, but they are changes to the basic apps that are bundled with the Android software stack (see above for extensive discussion on terminology of OS vs. Software stack). As noted, the Android developers website describes Android as "a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications." From this, HTC sense (or other packages) are proprietary replacements for those key applications. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Imho, the best term for things like HTC Sense is probably shell. It changes the way people use the most common applications by replacing the standard-shell without changing the system itself (kind of like KDE and GNOME for Linux/Unix do). Regards  So Why  12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably right, that's a much simpler explanation than mine...MyNameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Android Software Patents / Microsoft
Considering Microsoft is going after a 4th manufacturer (Samsung) for licensing patents fees over Android, you would think this would be mentioned in the article. I may get around to adding it. Psilocybin (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction of the classification of Android.
In one of the very first paragraphs introducing Android, we get this:

"The Android open-source software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java-based, object-oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation."

The problem with that is that it's flat out wrong. I'd love to edit it, however I cannot seem to clarify how Android works concisely.

Android is an open source software stack. However, that stack does not consist of Java applications. These applications are developed in the Java language, but are immediately converted by the dx utility into .dex files. The Dalvik interpreter runs these dex files and is a register-based VM instead of a stack-based VM as Java VMs are. This is the whole contention between Oracle and Google. Google used this in order to get around licensing of Java.

The unmodified sentence incorrectly informs people that Android runs java. Android does not, in-fact, run any java at all. The applications are developed in the Java language, but at no point does that language actually touch the Android device.

Could someone help me modify this sentence and/or paragraph to clarify this?

71.203.92.115 (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)ThantiK
 * I took a stab at this. I think bytecodes are a bit too techy for the lead section but hopefully it is a little more clear that it is not strictly running "Java" or the Java core libraries per se. Dcxf (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work. The paragraph in question is still a bit jargon-heavy, but it's now much better than it was. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's advised to note it's place in the market share in the intro paragraph up top
To put things into perspective, you should include it's place in the smart phone marketshare. Sticka (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Update mechanism and rooting
I just read the article but found no information about what i was looking for so perhaps someone could extend the article and insert these topics. There is a seperate topic about what changes where made in the different versions. However i have no idea how i am able to get these updates on an Android phone. Are they automatically distributed like in other Linux distributions? Does it happen via the app store? Do i have to download some files and install them? Are apps also updated? I have also heared that sometimes you will not get any further updates. Since there will always be new exploits in i.e. the webbrowser you probably need to root the phone to get updates. But i have no idea if that is possible on all phones or restricted by the OS or Phone. Thanks. 188.99.122.214 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just found out about the rooting article which is mentioned under "List of Android OS-related topics". However if it is needed to have a secure phone as mentioned in my questions about updates above, i think it deserves to be mentioned in the text. If it's not i don't care. 188.99.122.214 (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User Interface
What about criticism of it's User Interface?

Like how it is so differen't than ones on Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu?71.58.198.190 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such criticism. Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu are desktop operating systems, and Android is for mobile devices.  If you have any reliable sources that discuss this criticism, by all means please list them here and I'd be happy to discuss them.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For touch interfaces you don't want a GUI environment like you have on a desktop, because the interface is fragmented into places you touch for control and places you use for viewing content, because the mouse pointer is so small relative to the size of the screen, this is possible, but on a mobile platform, a windowing interface is cumbersome. Also on a mobile platform, like the iPhone, I think it is somewhat good to have eliminated the file system, cause I think 90% of the time users waste is with locating content in the file system. I mean really, would you want to be looking for your music files while cruising down the highway at 60MPH? You have to consider this, the efficiency of the interface could actually save lives. Rofthorax (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't purely a phone OS, it is used in desktops, laptops, tablets, and netbooks.

Besides, didn't Windows CE, a OS used on early smartphones, although a totaly different OS on the inside, have the same layout as Windows 9x? 71.58.198.190 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
If I find another IP user vandalize this page, I will request for an indefinite semi-protection. Mike  2  8  9  16:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that no vandalism has occurred in the past few days, least of all vandalism frequent enough to warrant an indefinite protection, I find it highly unlikely that such a request would be approved, per WP:SILVERLOCK. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing a single vandal edit after August 2, with the possible exception of August 5.  Don't worry though, there are plenty of eyes on the article. - SudoGhost 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still feel this page should be semi-protected Mike  2  8  9  20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

References to Android Issue Tracker posts
Can we have some consensus on whether or not Android issue tracker posts are WP:USERGENERATED and therefore not reliable sources? It seems clear to me that they are user-generated: they are initiated by random internet users who are usually only identified by an email address fragment, and subsequent posts to the topic are the same. Their use as sources also encourages inclusion of very non-notable technical issues and wishlist items, as previously discussed here:. Dcxf (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would certainly say that it falls squarely under WP:USERGENERATED. That I can personally add an issue and then try to turn around and use that as a source makes it unreliable. - SudoGhost 13:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you prefer no reference than a reference from the source? You do not need to read user comments (like you do not read ads in many references in wikipedia), just read Google comments and status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because material in articles has to be attributable to a reliable published source. Even the very occasional comments by Google staff on the issue tracker are usually anonymous, and the original issue description is never written or updated by Google. The postings are often inaccurate, outdated, or refer to old or custom versions of Android. They are not suitable source material for an encyclopedia article. Dcxf (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about issues reviewed by Google? Is Google good enough to be referenced? There are still some Google references that should be removed if Google is not good enough to be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't fix the problem that the original issue description, and all the rest of the content on the page, is user-generated and potentially inaccurate. Dcxf (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Source releases and POV pushing
So we've got an editor inserting loaded phrases with edit summaries such as "remove whitewashing". If feels that the wording is inadequate he should discuss it here. I'll be removing the loaded phrase again shortly, as one blog quote does not a "controversy" create. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" section has grown to about a quarter of the article
What is to be done with it? As predicted in WP:CSECTION, this section seems to be functioning as a bit of a troll magnet. The lengthy "Malware and security" and "Privacy" sections seem to give undue weight to relatively minor issues, using material that is mostly sourced from firms selling virus protection. The new "Closeness" section is a scattered bunch of negative points with no attempt at NPOV, about the issues of compatibility requirements and Honeycomb closed source which are already covered elsewhere in the article. Delete the whole section, or try to integrate it with the article? Dcxf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I would keep the second paragraph of the Malware and security section, as it was covered by multiple reliable sources in the news, I agree that the rest of that section appears to be firms selling virus protection, and not much more. If the second paragraph is kept, I think it should be moved elsewhere in the article, as it really isn't a criticism, but just a fact.  Maybe I'm not reading between the lines or something, but I don't see any criticism there.


 * For the privacy section, I think there might be some value in keeping it in the article if better sources could be found, but trimming it down to a sentence or two, because I'm not seeing how "These databases form electronic maps to locate smartphones, allowing them to run apps like Foursquare and companies like Google to deliver location-based ads." is a criticism of Android. The only information that is sourced in that section is that Wi-Fi locations are used by Foursquare and location-based ads, that there is third-party software that identifies information that could hypothetically be accessed, and that flashing the ROM voids the warranty. There's no criticism there, and the rest of it appears to be completely unsourced.


 * I'm still looking into the other two sections, IP infringement claims and Closeness, but the first two sections as written don't really belong as "criticisms". - SudoGhost 11:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I merged the bizarrely named "closeness" section back with licensing. I think the rest should be merged or deleted too. Bhny (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember going through a previous criticism section and working as much as possible into the article where it belonged, and removed the criticism header in the process. I wonder when it found its way back in. Hmph. "Openness" comes up often enough that it's a reasonable concern for people, so some of yesterday's editions can probably be kept as long as it's sourced and phrased properly. Discussion about malware too probably deserves a mention, but I'm sure sure where and I also think we need to resist the temptation to just keep parroting the latest dangers and scary figures churned out by the security firms. Paragraphs dedicated to specific exploits I think is a bit much as these come and go with little lasting impact. As for the Oracle thing, this section gives considerable undue weight to what is really just one of many patent lawsuits currently being argued over. Having said that, patents are a significant issue at the moment and a really thoughtful few paragraphs could be written about them, Google and everyone else's different attitudes towards them (inc. the Motorola Mobility purchase and stuff), etc, however the current IP infringement section is not that, and it wouldn't be listed under "criticism" anyway. I might take a stab at the weekend unless someone else gets there first. – Steel 13:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the criticism header leaving the sub-sections. I think that's a good start. Now the sections need to be trimmed down or merged. Bhny (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing the criticism section and putting its content in the relevant paragraphs is OK, but the result has sometimes become inacurate or false. For example: "Android's kernel is derived from the Linux kernel. Google contributed code to the Linux kernel as part of their Android effort, but certain features, notably a power management feature called wakelocks, were rejected by mainline kernel developers, so the Android kernel is now a separate version or fork of the Linux kernel". This presents the facts as if Google worked voluntarily for the kernel, but that they were forced to fork because some specific features were rejected by the kernel people. But this is false, they forked since the beginning, and they contributed very little back to the kernel according to the kernel guys, and some of the contributions they put were rejected (for reasons that ought to be explained here). However, what I'm saying is not intended to be a criticism on your own effort to improve the article. It's normal that some quirks remain after a paragraph reorganization. Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole article has a NPOV problem. A quick look at the iOS article shows nothing about Privacy (despite iOS having severe privacy problems), and no Malware section, despite there being plenty of iOS malware --Snakeskincowboy (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This amount of criticism is perfectly justified with a device that has so much "Big Brother"-Award potential than one running the Android OS--80.171.178.0 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Android version history merge
Wikipedia is not a collection of changelogs. The current article is an indiscriminate list of changes between every version of the operating system and as such does not conform to Wikipedia policy. To make it do so would make the article so short that its independent existence would be an unnecessary split in content, which would be better served in this article. Sceptre (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the AFD was closed as keep so there is plenty of time to edit the article, and who knows what size it will be when this is finished? The current article is already (mostly) at summary level, not detail level, so just needs editing down a bit. Dcxf (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, AfD results have no bearing on merge discussions: you can't argue that AfD can only decide whether an article should be deleted, and then use an AfD to oppose the merging of content. As AfD has been presented as the former, then it can't be used in the latter. Sceptre (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the version history should go back to the way it was before. A table of all the versions on the main article page. The separate article for version history and a summary on the main page just doesn't flow as well. Why was this done in the first place? --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It was split by consensus mainly because the main article was too long, but also because a lot of information about older versions, while useful as a reference and interesting to people who want to know more about the way it evolved, is probably not that interesting to most people as part of the description of the operating system. Dcxf (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But in its current form, it fails WP:NOT. To make it conform, the article's size would be such that it would not be a good spinout article: if an article is split due to size constraints, if the sizes of the two articles are small enough that the combined size would result in an article that would not require splitting, then they should be combined again. Sceptre (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it fails WP:NOT in its current form. If you compare the sources with the summaries in the article, it's already for the most part a summarized list of the significant changes in each version. It could use some editing but it probably wouldn't reduce the size to the point where it should be merged again. Dcxf (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest release
The latest release version should list the most recently released version not versions that have been announced or demoed. As of today (10/20/2011) no phones have been released with or updated to ICS so the most recent version is still 2.3.7 (Gingerbread). --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) is not a "latest_preview_version" / "latest_preview_reliese" but I've added it as such to the INFOBOX --Mkouklis (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ice Cream Sandwich shouldn't be listed in the Infobox at all. Ice Cream Sandwich is a future release not a current version. Until it is actually released is should only show in the version history and maybe a mention of it in the first 1 or 2 paragraphs of the article. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there anyway the info box can be changed so that it says "Latest preview release" instead of "Latest unstable release"? By saying "unstable" it gives the impression that the OS is not stable when it could just not be released to the public yet. I can't figure out how to change the text of "latest_preview_version". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimv1983 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed 4.0 since it isn't in preview or unstable release. Dcxf (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As of today (11/15/2011) Android 4.0(Ice Cream Sandwich) has not been released. The infobox should not state that it is the most current version.--Jimv1983 (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Various sources actually say it was released yesterday.
 * Including this (blog?) http://www.gsmarena.com/google_finally_releases_ice_cream_sandwich_source_code-news-3384.php  J e n o v a  20 10:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Releasing the source code for developers is not the same as the OS officially being released. No phones on the market are currently officially running 4.0(Ice Cream Sandwich). The released date should show either 1. The day a phone running ICS goes on sale or 2. The day a current phone gets an official update to ICS. Since neither one of those has happened yet the OS has NOT been released yet. The first phone to have ICS will be the Galaxy Nexus. That phone is not out yet. --Jimv1983 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point.
 * Remember to act in good faith though mr Jimv1983  J e n o v a  20 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why it is so hard to understand. As of today(11/15/2011) Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich(ICS) has NOT been released. Google may have released the source already but that is not the same thing as the OS being released. With that logic you could say that Windows 8 has been released because the Developer Preview and Development SDK has been released. I really don't want to get in an edit war over this but to say that ICS has been released is incorrect and very misleading. The current version is 2.3.7. As I said before, the official release is the day the OS is officially running on a device. For this to happen either a phone has to get a Google authorized update or a phone has to be released running ICS right out of the box. Since neither of these is true it is not out yet. The first device that will run ICS is the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and it is NOT out yet. I'm just trying to provide the most accurate date possible. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to be this blunt but your logic is stupid. Android is hardware independent operating system. Stable 4.0.1 version has been released to public (not just developers). It is not alpha or beta software or a RC or some kind of developer preview. It is the full thing, real deal. It is exactly the software that will run on on Galaxy Nexus down to every line of code, as confirmed by Google. If we are going to use that kind of logic then for example Gentoo Linux is never released because even though full source code of the stable branch is available and has been compiled by third parties, Dell doesn't sell laptops running it and thus it has not been released.  Melmann (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point.
 * Can i suggest renaming the field then from "Latest stable release" to "Latest available release", "Latest release", "Latest release available in stores" or something less confusing?
 * If you have to revert everyone who changes it and explain this then it's not clear enough Jimv1983 and also a big waste of time for people having to look at the changes to the page with every edit.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the operating system, not a phone running the OS or anything else. Your idea of using the 'date' of the release of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus phone is bad, because it is the release date of the phone, not the OS! Google has released the sources code of the OS, it can be compiled and installed in phones (it has been already done). Do you expect Google to release binaries? Melmann's example is good, Gentoo releases only the sources for the OS, it is the same thing. --KDesk (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did state that was an example.
 * The fact of the matter is that ICS IS available, just only to a select few at the moment.
 *  J e n o v a  20 09:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I only said the release date of the Galaxy Nexus should be used because it is the first phone to officially get ICS. If, for example, the Nexus One, Droid Charge or Galaxy S II where the first to officially get ICS than the day the update goes out to the first device would be the release date. Of course the source release is meant for developers. It wouldn't be much good to anyone else. The real purpose of the source code release is so that companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc can start updating their skins to use it. --Jimv1983 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that the field in the table doesn't sound right to this policy you have and everyone is misunderstanding it.
 * If either: it made more sense or you just added ICS then you wouldn't have to keep reverting people who add that and neither would i.
 * If you don't plan to change either then for the next how many weeks/months people will just keep changing it to ICS.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The logic that "the official release is the day the OS is officially running on a device" does not make much sense. I perfectly admit that the source code is not exactly the same thing as the program (not counting scripts), just like a recipe for a cake is not the same thing as a cake, but in many many open-source projects there simply is no release of compiled/binaries, therefore the release of source clearly counts as the release of the software. Take the example of Linux (the kernel): when a new archive with the source is posted to kernel.org, then it clearly counts as a release, it is irrelevant if Ubuntu has adopted the new kernel, or if there are PCs with that kernel on the market, "anyone" can grab the kernel and use it. The comparison stated as "With that logic you could say that Windows 8 has been released because the Developer Preview and Development SDK has been released" is even less logical, because: 1- Windows 8 is a developer PREVIEW (aka alpha/beta), while Android is a "final" release and 2- The Windows SDK is not a usable version of Windows, much less a final version. I also want to say I fully agree with Melmann and KDesk. I would also request that the info about the version 4.0 being the latest one do not be reverted, since it goes against the general consensus in wikipedia of counting source-releases as final releases and in addition to that, there is also no consensus (yet) for that in this talk page. Finally, even if we follow the logic above (release of the OS = release of the phone): the phone has already been released, so I hope at the very least we can agree the version 4.0 can be considered "released". Cheers to all --SF007 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * tl;dr The source-code is out, so it counts as a release --SF007 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have ICS running on a phone NOW (besides Google of course)? NO! Could any one install it on a phone right NOW? NO! The general public does not have the ability to run ICS on ANY phone right now. It's officially released when the general public has the ability to actually use it on a phone. Currently that is not the case. Even with Linux the group that releases a version(Ubuntu for example) actually makes it available to install on an actual computer. That is currently not possible with ICS. So, it has not officially been released. It will remain that way until someone can actually use it on a phone. Saying ICS is already released gives people the false impression that they can actually use it on a phone right NOW which is NOT true. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the kernel of an OS is just a component of the OS and could never be used by it self anyways. It would have to be incororated into a full OS and the OS itself would be released when it could be installed on an actual computer.--Jimv1983 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken SF007. No phone running ICS has been released. It was only demoed. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Does anyone have ICS running on a phone NOW (besides Google of course)?" - Even if we ignore for a momment that the phone is already on the market (see references bellow), I am confident it should be perfectly possible to grab the source code of Android 4.0 and put that on a compatible (and unlocked) phone. "Could any one install it on a phone right NOW?" Well, no, not anyone, because many people lack "IT skills" (for a lack of better wording), but that does not change the status of the OS. Your argument seems to be that "There is no USABLE version of ICS available yet [that the puplic can use]", but just because the "general public" does not have the skills to install some "thing", does not mean that "thing" is not on the market/available. As for the "kernel of an OS is just a component of the OS", well, I can mostly agree with that for the sake of the argument, but my point remains perfectly valid. (source of linux kernel available = a new release). "You are mistaken SF007", sorry, but I believe it is you who is mistaken: the phone is already being sold in the UK,     so like I said before, Android 4 should count as "released", even by your standards, right? --SF007 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have notified the WikiProject Software and re-added the info for the last time, hope there will be no more "reversion disputes"... --SF007 (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 15 November 2011
This page asserts that the number of natural languages supported in Android 2.3 "more than doubled," But the citation provided makes no reference to this.

130.212.120.45 (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * C T J F 8 3 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Version History layout
Can someone please either merge the Version History page back to the main page(as a table) and new number point(not under OS history) like it use to be or just get rid of the "recent version history" and only link to the other page. The current layout is very fragmented and harder to follow than it was before. Wherever it ends up it REALLY needs to be in a table like before. --Jimv1983 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The double post was an accident. I forgot my signature and tried to stop the page loading to add it. I guess it had already went thought. If someone would delete the first one that would be great.--Jimv1983 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest Version Layout
I have been working on a Linux Users Group resource page and need some conformity of all the Wiki Linux versions and distributions. Debian has an excellent template and I have made an RSS reader to pluck version data from the wiki page. Would be nice if I could get all of them to follow this method and my page could keep up to date with all the latest versions. RSS source path http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&feed=rss&action=history RSS Template. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&action=edit

Keystroke recording controversy
Just found a page claiming Android devices record your keystrokes, your browsing and reads your messages. If it proves to be true, it should be mentioned in the article.   —  Ark25  (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not Android devices - apps installed on Android devices. But that's not relevant to the operating system, just like a malicious program does not belong in the Windows article for example. We already have an article about Carrier IQ and if specific controversy ensues, it should be included either in the articles about the carriers selling handsets with such software installed or the manufacturers producing them. Regards  So Why  22:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this probably does not belong here. A similar analogy would be HP/Dell/Toshiba/other PC manufacturer selling copies of Windows with rootkit/diagnostics software: not really a problem with Windows itself nor Microsoft fault. In addition to that, what can be called the "official Android phones", the Google Nexus phones, don't seem to have that problem. --Jerebin (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Carrier IQ
This keeps getting added, but it's not an Android specific issue. While some news reports are still relaying the week-old initial report that Carrier IQ was found in Android, more recent reports make clear that it has been found in Android, Blackberry (RIM), Symbian (Nokia), WebOS, and recent reports even state it has been found in iOS. Basically, the only one not identified to have it thus far is Windows phone.

See recent coverage at:
 * http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video
 * http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/so-theres-a-rootkit-hidden-in-millions-of-cellphones/16708?tag=content;feature-roto
 * http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/1/2602313/google-nexus-android-phones-and-original-xoom-tablet-do-not-include (note: this link added here after some of the replies in this thread)

As a result, I've again removed the mention from the controversy section, as it's not an Android-specific controversy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It deserves a mention, so if not here then where?  J e n o v a  20 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's already mentioned at Carrier IQ. Also, I just found reports stating that the devices found with Carrier IQ are primarily restricted to AT&T and Sprint (although some European carriers are also being reported to have it to a lesser degree).  Thus far, I haven't been able to locate any reports of it being found on Verizon or T-Mobile devices.
 * http://gigaom.com/2011/12/01/verizon-no-carrieriq-no-way/
 * http://www.extremetech.com/computing/107427-carrier-iq-which-phones-are-infected-and-how-to-remove-it
 * So, this item may be better suited to the carrier articles once the story develops enough for additional sources to provide information on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on the Carrier IQ page, you're right  J e n o v a  20 17:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Android approved by The Pentagon
It might be relevant to mention that Android (or a particular version of it) was approved by The Pentagon. --SF007 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Added it into the "Uses" section --SF007 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Design issue"
I have removed this sentence:

"One design issue is that average users cannot monitor how applications access and use private and sensitive data (e.g. location and hardware ID numbers). Even during installation, permission checks do not often indicate to the user how critical services and data will be used or misused"

I removed it because this happens in all computer systems capable of running user code: You can never be sure what an app is going to do! If you run an app on Windows, god knows what it is going to do! Same thing if you run an app on any other system, certainly not Android-specific. --SF007 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I'm not aware of any operating system, certainly not any mobile operating system, where "average users" (which I assume means non-technically inclined users) can monitor such things. - SudoGhost 04:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Uses
Can we have this section bulletpointed as it's growing at about 1 device every 2 weeks. It now also covers fridges, washing machines and glasses so it's going to keep expanding. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact we need to start thinking about how many niche uses we're going to allow in the list. The purpose of this page is not to exhaustively document every time someone utters the word 'Android' or experiments with Android on their washing machine (seriously?). I'm going to prune the list a bit. – Steel 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not need to prune the list, since it's well sourced and still on the core subject.
 * I would contest pruning the list when other sections take up so much space and this is crucial to showing the rapid expansion and openness of the system.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say a blog is "well sourced", plus the washing machine does not run Android, it connects to your phone, which may or may not run Android. - SudoGhost 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted it's not the best reference but all of the stuff there is verifyable.
 * And you are correct that the washing machine is not on the Android OS.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...the open and customizable nature of the operating system allows it to be used on other electronics, including ... treadmills.
 * Treadmills? That is ridiculous. A treadmill doesn't fit this enumeration of devices.
 * Further, ... the OS has seen applications on wristwatches, headphones...
 * The treadmill might fit this list. BUT this list can not possibly be exhaustive. It must be limited to some typical implementation of Android. Else I must insist in having my bathroom mirror included. :-) --Pyrometer (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not at all an exhaustive list, it takes up a couple of lines of what is an article about the Android OS, not just it's use on phones as the rest of the article is.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is: If treadmills should be mentioned at all, they should definitely not be mentioned in the list thery are now in (Kinds of electronis devices). A treadmill is a dumb mechanical device.
 * Treadmills might be mentioned in the second list (Useful or brainless uses of Android on this and that). That's a matter of taste, since this list gives only some examples (illustrating inventiveness (as well as the dumbness of some) of the implementors). :-) --Pyrometer (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry is this a serious conversation? If a treadmill has an OS then it quite clearly is electrical and not a "dumb mechanical device".
 * As to which section it is in, it's in the appropriate section entitled "uses". Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is semantic pedantry, but a treadmill is just a conveyor belt with a motor and I don't think soldering a cheap Android tablet to one really recategorises it as an electrical. Btw I am going to edit this paragraph to restore the "niche" phrasing that was used a little while ago before someone changed it - if we must include all the gimmicky uses let's at least make things clear. Maybe afterwards I'll attach Android to my cat somehow and add that to the list. – Steel 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And a phone is a block with chips. Your point?
 * The article is entitled Android (Operating system) and not Android (Phone) so the uses are verifiable, appropriate and referenced. And i contest the removal especially as the list is hardly big. You want to trim the section then get rid of the examples, live view is one of only 3 smart watches on sale as far as i'm aware so that could go, i wouldn't think we needed an example.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To Steel i have changed the treadmill reference to a more reliable one from engadget. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

New pic needed
The Android emulator has a very old image (1.5 android os). It needs updating. Could someone upload it here? --200.98.197.34 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Android as an Open Source Brand
My edit was deleted:. I changed a link to better reflect the statement. Part of Android's success is Consumer loyalty towards Open Source Brands. Having the source code out there somehow makes the product look more appealing, which is why Honeycomb tablets like Xoom didn't sell that well, when Google refused to release the source code. is this version better? --Ne0 (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of Android's success is Consumer loyalty towards Open Source Brands.
 * Android being open source is probably a major point in its favour compared to the competition, but this is problematic for so many reasons. For starters, the link discusses how users of one open source product are more likely to use other open source products too. It makes no statement about there being any consumer loyalty to open source in the general population. Second, even if it did say that, that's only a point about the general characteristics of open source brands, and the general characteristics of open source brands don't necessarily and automatically apply to every specific open source brand (for example Android). So this source is not OK for this claim.
 * Having the source code out there somehow makes the product look more appealing, which is why Honeycomb tablets like Xoom didn't sell that well, when Google refused to release the source code.
 * Even if being open source can increase sales (which, per above, you haven't established properly), that doesn't necessarily mean that Honeycomb's unavailable source was the reason it failed (Honeycomb failed because Android tablets were crap and expensive and pointless). You can't take a source that says open source is good and conclude that because some product isn't open source, that's why it isn't selling. This is totally fallacious reasoning. – Steel 16:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's Original research and it can't be added without a source that says it for you. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is time for the Version Distribution to be updated.
I was going to do it, but seeing how there is a lock on the page: http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.16.100 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012
Many people are confused regarding the naming of different android version. For instance there is a misconception that android names are based upon ICE creams not desserts(Not every one in every part of the globe knows what is ginger bread and what is the difference between froyo and Ice cream). So I request you to add a note that clearly specifies that these names are not based on ice creams e.g.

'Each version is named, in alphabetical order, after a dessert' should be changed to 'Each version is named, in alphabetical order, after a dessert(not ice cream)'

Thank You.

Rajatsaini4u (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've wikilinked the term "desert", and that article explains the usage. You may prefer that a parenthetical is added to the article, but I don't think it's feasible to try and cover ever regional variety of English throughout articles. The English Wikipedia has its article at desert so I think it's safe to assume that's the most common term, and therefore we should use it here as well. Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Android Icon Design Credit
Android Icon Logo was not designed by Ascender Corporation. Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) "Android, not built by robots" Creative Review. Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

--Sashatemov (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2012
In Marketing section please change "The Android logo was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation." to "The Android logotype was designed along with the Droid font family made by Ascender Corporation. Android robot icon was designed by Irina Blok, as part of Google marketing team. "

Ascender corporation designed the original Android logotype, not the Android logo. Android logo is a little robot character, and logotype refers to the words of a logo. Please add a correction that Irina Blok created the little green robot (known as the "bugdroid" among Android team members) in the fall of 2007. She was a member of Google's marketing communications team, which was helping Android team out with copywriting and graphic design in preparation for the announcement of the Open Handset Alliance on November 5, 2007 and the early look SDK on November 12th.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_logo_and_logotype

Woyke, Elizabeth (September 26, 2008). "Android's Very Own Font". Forbes. Retrieved 2012-02-16.

Evamy, Michael (October 2011) Creative Review;Oct2011, Vol. 31 Issue 10, p72 Android, not built by robots Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Kim, Sung Hu (May 2012) Android (OS): Who designed Google's Android icon? Retrieved 2012-04-12.

Blok, Irina (November, 2007) Creative Portfolio Retrieved 2012-04-12.

https://plus.google.com/101462943424829477427/posts/fGfDcMxuZjk

http://www.linkedin.com/in/irinablok (this profile includes proof that Irina Blok designed the logo, and peer reviews from Google that attest to that)

Sashatemov (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:Unfortunately the sources you provided either don't fulfill our requirements (quora.com, irinablok.com, google+, linkedin) or require a subscription I don't have (Creative Review), so I couldn't verify the bit about the marketing team, but I've found a book that credits her for the icon. We don't do inline links to external pages, so I left that out as well. --Six words (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - Whitewashing friends and foes
There is a long section on this Talk Page referring to a Criticism section (Criticism section has grown to about a quarter of the article)in the Article. But there is now no Criticism section at all!!. What criticism remains seems to have been ... buried in various place e.g. the Applications section.

I came to the article to find whether the Android OS prevented installation and use of other browsers. It is inexplicable to me, in a very long article, dealing with an OS controlled by Google, that the word "browser" only appears in the following paragraph:
 * The web browser available in Android is based on the open-source WebKit layout engine, coupled with Chrome's V8 JavaScript engine. The browser scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test on Android 4.0.

It is an OS controlled by Google?!

Reading the article I want a Criticism section more not less. For instance: are users allowed to: "disable Google's location data collection functions" if Apps (eg Skyhook) aren't?? Are other mobile OS's approved by the Pentagon?

Of course I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when Google makes twinkly utterances on their ethics, but still I believe a Criticism section is not only merited but required here. Amongst other issues it should outline the issues of "privacy" (aka "surveillance" with spin!) involved in Google's move into the mobile devices market and the functioning of Android in covertly/overtly delivering Google's monitoring/data collection/etc strategy. What government would NOT be interested in a company/devices that collected and maintained extensive databases of its citizens? Times change and promises are easily broken.

A Criticism section is a standard feature of a Wiki page, so, because of the immense significance of Android, I think not having one is an NPOV issue. I stand to be corrected but otherwise I intend to attach the relevant health warnings.

LookingGlass (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no criticism section because it was considered WP:UNDUE to have it in the article, as it was disproportionately large. The article doesn't require an entire criticism section, if an article is well written it will present this criticism in the appropriate sections. - SudoGhost 19:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Who considered it? Where is the reasoning?  Sorry but I can see only a distorted logic in what you have written Ghost. If the section is too long then the appropriate action is to shorten it, not to delete it.  To me, the entire article is too long but I wouldn't suggest that deleting it was therefore appropriate!  It also rambles.  It reads to me as an chaotic mixture of fine detail and broad summary.  I hear what you say regarding "well written" articles not needing a Criticism section but cannot agree, both because this article is not that well written and because that is not the way Wiki articles are generally presented.  I mean no offence by that.  Writing of such an order is something that few if any writers posess.  As it stands currently, there is virtually no "critical commentary" regarding the items I mentioned for instance.  Without a Criticism section there is no place to describe such points.  Without trawling and analysing the entire article it is not possible to find the information upon which to draw any conclusion.  Others have raised these points regarding NPOV and they appear to have been simply ignored.  To me it appears that the matter has simply been swept under the carpet.  Whatever opinions may be about the merits or otherwise of the Android project or of Google's ambitions or potential, the matters pertaining to surveillance/data gathering/what you will, as enabled by mobile devices and Google's unrivalled potentiality in this field are  matters of substance worthy of appropriate coverage in their own right in the same manner as the other areas pertaining to this OS. It doe not HAVE TO BE a long section.  There simply needs to be a section.  So, how do we take this forward?  I believe very strongly in the NPOV issue here and do NOT believe that Google should be held exempt from standard Wiki practices. LookingGlass (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a criticism section there is no place to describe such points? How about where the pros of these points are being described, as an article should? Nobody said anything about the length of the article being a factor in removing the section.  The section was completely WP:UNDUE, the sources used did not give any weight for something of that length, and it was discussed on the talk page.  I don't think there is a need for a criticism section, anything "critical" of any specific aspect can be presented in the appropriate section, that's how good articles are written, by presenting information where appropriate, not by drawing undue prominence to criticism of the article's subject by creating an entire section devoted to it. Such a section creates a very slippery slope in adherance to NPOV, and isn't necessary if the criticisms are placed appropriately.  This is not some exception of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but the adherence of them.   - SudoGhost 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Android is a normal OS and as such does not prevent the installation of any alternative browser (dozens are available in the market) and in fact you are free to install any software whatsoever. This fact is hardly notable (unlike the opposite case - iPhone) so it is not necessary to fully elaborate on it. If you find a good source about Android and Google data collection you can incorporate it. Richiez (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Galaxy Nexus images
Do we need 3 of them all in the same section/article? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it further up. If someone else wants to remove it, that's fine. Not really that bothered. The images in this article are getting a bit clutteriffic. – Steel 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Android smartphone share
According to http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/24/idc-q1-2012-world-smartphone-share Android has nearly 60% of world smartphone share. Someone should update the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

XobotOS
Need info abot XobotOS project: C# port Android. More: http://blog.xamarin.com/2012/05/01/android-in-c-sharp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRedRat (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Activations
Can we get a table for the speed of Android sales or just combine it in the Android Market/Google Play one? I have references and dates for:
 * 100,000 in May 2010. (citation same as June 2010)
 * 160,000 in June 2010.
 * 350,000 in April 2011. (citation in article)
 * 500,000 in June 2011. (citation in article)
 * 550,000 in November 2011. (citation in article)
 * 700,000 in December
 * 850,000 in February 2012.
 * 900,000 a day in June 2012.
 * If noone wants to touch this with a bargepole i'll do it later. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 15:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ignore last message, i just cleaned it up and the table is very nice  J e n o v a  20 15:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Are Google for Android applications part of Android?
Are Google for Android applications part of Android? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.119.132 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, no. Some of them are included in AOSP ROMs (like Maps, Gmail, Play Store etc.) but not all of them (for example Streetview, Drive, Chrome, Earth, Currents) and some popular ROMs like CyanogenMod even provide a working Android system without those apps so there is no reason to assume that they are actually part of the system in any way. Similarly, the Android running on the Kindle Fire does not include them. Regards  So Why  20:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not limited to custom ROMs either; there are some devices (such as this one) that don't have any Google applications installed on the device, not even the Android Market/Play Store. - SudoGhost 20:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

– The OS is the most common use of Android, android AND google returns more google search results than android NOT google TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Android (operating system) → Android
 * Android → Android (disambiguation


 * Oppose As a regular Android user and technology enthusiast, the word Android to me still connotes to robots, particular ones in humanoid form but obviously the word is open to interpretation from different editors with different backgrounds. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the Avatar decision, "Android" should be the robotic topic, as the most encyclopedic/educational topic, and not the Google OS. Indeed, Google uses a stylized robotic android as the symbol for their Android trademark, so Google itself thinks the robotic form is primary. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I doubt the most common use of "android" is the operating system, given the long-term, significant definition for robots (and the long lasting notability of some of these fictional androids, with some that date several decades before Google). I also think that such a Google test is suspect given Google's conflict of interest. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – WP:RECENTISM. –BarrelProof (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – WP:RECENTISM. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for practical reason: though robotic topic would be a better choice for paper encyclopedy's primary topic, most people looking for "Android" on Wikipedia would look for information on more current and evolving operating system. This choice makes even more sense as most of the information about robotics topic is either widely known or of some narrow interest. The last but not the least is the fact that the OS article receives 20 times more trafic (see stats for operating system and robot). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As stated for the Wikipedia definition, The word Android is used for robots since the 19th century, and it's a general term, Android for the operating system is only a few years old. The number of Google results is not relevant, considering that they might even be used byGoogle as a marketing tool. Hervegirod (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jelly Bean
We need to update the relevant sections for Jelly Bean --James Freeman 20:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Current Version
The current version shows 4.1 but 4.1 Jellybean has not been released yet. Being announced and demoed by Google is NOT the same thing as being released. The official release date is the first date it is officially pushed to or released on a device. Even if you go by the day the source code is released from Google(which does not count as the release date) it still isn't out yet. Google has said that Jellybean will be released in mid July. --Jimv1983 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the version number is not reliably sourced then it should be removed as it is speculation. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone going to change this? I could do it myself but I often miss stuff and don't remember when 4.0.4(the actual latest version) was released. --Jimv1983 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry i misunderstood. If Google showed off Jelly Bean and the version number then it has to stay. If the case is that it is speculation, then it should be removed.
 * The article title is Android (operating system) not Released Android versions.
 * Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get it. The infobox says "Last stable release". That implies that it has been RELEASED. I demo from Google is NOT the same as being released. The release date is the date that it is publicly available. For that to happen either a device has to start shipping with it or get an official update to it. --Jimv1983 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Nexus 7 has Jellybean and is on sale and multiple devices are being updated to it. This is the most stable release and the AOSP has access to Jellybean too i believe. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism: Tivoization of Android
The article doesn't mention that many Android handsets are tivoized. I think it should. -- 62.156.43.210 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I own multiple Android devices for years now, I heavily follow Android news and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Regards  So Why  20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried looking online to maybe get a better understanding of what you mean by "tivoized", and I have no clue what that's supposed to mean. Could you please elaborate? - SudoGhost 20:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Stallman writes about "tivoization" here. Basically, it's the use of hardware to make any changes made to GPL code useless. If you modify Tivo code, the Tivo hardware will not run it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.231.44 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is even relevant to Android after reading the link. Any manufacturer who creates hardware to disable parts of Android will lose customers to the manufacturers who don't disable those features. And considering the growth of cyanogen, this is a non-issue and not relevent to the article. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

batería del smartphone android no es suficiente
Sistema operativo Android en el mundo dentro de la cuota de mercado cada vez más ocupado y posición. Desde teléfonos móviles, Tablet PC a TV BOX, todos los dispositivos móviles, puede ver su sombra. Era de Nokia a la era de los teléfonos inteligentes, no más de un largo tiempo para completar la sustitución, pero el problema generalizado de máquinas inteligentes ha estado allí, no mejora - batería no suficientemente durable en teléfonos inteligentes Android. La era de las máquinas inteligentes no, Nokia, y el tiempo de espera de hasta una semana es algo muy simple, no debido a la gran capacidad de la batería, pero el consumo de energía reducido. Máquinas inteligentes no es el mismo consumo de energía, que se manifiesta en la Tablet PC y teléfonos inteligentes de gran tamaño más obvio, suele ser normal un día y dos días, usted tiene que cobrar por él, lo cual es un inconveniente. Como por ejemplo el iPhone ahora básicamente completado 24 horas no se puede lograr, por lo que deriva una gran cantidad de carga móvil del dispositivo para el iphone. Por supuesto, sólo en espera del smartphone, Android es bastante durable, este es un problema técnico, de software a problemas de hardware para resolver. Soy un ventas dedicados móvil Android Tablet operadores de sitios web de PC tienen un más profundo entendimiento para Android, la fuente de este artículo: www.barato-smartphone.com Por reimpresión por favor indique la fuente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barato-smartphone (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

English Translation: "Android operating system in the world in market share and increasingly busy position. From mobile phones, Tablet PC to TV BOX, all mobile devices, you can see his shadow. Nokia was the era of smart phones, no more than a long time to complete the replacement, but the widespread problem of intelligent machines has been there, no improvement - not durable enough battery on Android smartphones. The Age of Intelligent Machines no, Nokia, and the waiting time of up to one week is very simple, because of the large capacity battery, but the power consumption. Intelligent machines is not the same power consumption, which is manifested in the Tablet PC and smartphones obvious large, usually normal one day and two days, you have to charge for it, which is a drawback. Such as the iPhone now basically completed 24 hours can not be achieved, so that derives a great deal of mobile charging device for the iphone. Of course, just waiting for the smartphone, Android is quite durable, this is a technical problem of software to hardware problems to solve. I am a dedicated sales mobile operators Android Tablet PC websites have a deeper understanding to Android, the source of this article: www.barato-smartphone.com For reprint please indicate the source"
 * ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a blogger arguing that smartphones aren't smartphones unless they only have to be charged once a week. I'd ignore it as he/she's trying to promote baloney ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert by SudoGhost
Sudo if you're here, although i didn't make the edit in question can you explain to me how this isn't a reliable source in the edit? It seems fine to me. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Android Open Source, or Open Source with an asterisk?
Google has stated that there are apps inside the Android builds that are in fact not open source — Gmail, Google Maps and YouTube chief among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.37.13 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Key Lime Pie info?
Any info on the next release, Key Lime Pie? --209.133.95.32 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't include speculation unless it is at least 95% likely and backed by multiple reliable sources. Read WP:CRYSTAL for more info. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Market Share transformed to Reception
In a subtle -2833 characters minor edit (sic) user:Steel replaced the previous market share table with the same information (I hope) in a boring monotonous text version. I made the opposite previously, justifying my edit : chronologic table for clarity. Because as a reader, I don't want to read a boring paragraph just to know when android was the majority of smartphones, or when 1M activations per days were reached. I agree with him above that an aggregation of statistics is messy. When he said it needs to be rewritten to include opinions, that was insightful articles on market share, not pseudo PR langage for just a single info, which is best in a line in a table. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say with:
 * When he said it needs to be rewritten to include opinions, that was insightful articles on market share, not pseudo PR langage for just a single info, which is best in a line in a table.
 * I haven't gotten around to this yet, but the idea is to find interesting things to say about Android's market share, and how it has changed over time, etc, rather than just list a bunch of random statistics. Is that what you meant? – Steel 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * exactly : insight and statistics apart. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Updates on market share
Please, update Android worldwide marketshare. 75% on third quarter of 2012 according to IDC (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23771812). Second one is IOS with 14.9%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.249.61 (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Steel 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Current version
The current version needs to be updated. I tried to do it myself but I could not find the current value to change. It currently shows 4.2 as the latest release being released on 10/29/2012 but that is not correct. 4.2 will not be released until 11/13/2012(this is correct on the Android version history page). The current version should have: 4.1.2 released 10/9/2012. Can someone please fix this? --Jimv1983 (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason this was moved to Template:Latest stable software release/Android (operating system) – Steel 14:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Version history
A long time ago the Android version history used to be on the main page and was very easy to find. When it got moved to it's own page(made sense because of how big it has gotten) it was still very easy to find from the main Android article. Now it's pretty hard to track down from the main page. It's just a single link under the "Update schedule" heading. Not a good place for it. Not sure what would be better but anything would be easier than what it is now. --165.193.240.4 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of extra links and cleaned up the "see also" section so it's easier to find from there as well. Does this work? – Steel 18:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Q3 Android Market Share in China (90%)
According to http://www.techinasia.com/android-market-share-china-2012/ Android's market share in China for 2012 Q3 has raised to 90%. I think its worth mentioning on this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The "interface" section
The intro of HTC Sense has it that it is "a graphical user interface developed by HTC Corporation for mobile devices running Android" How does this work? Android seems to have its own UI, so does Sense replace it, or run yet on top of it? Yes i could ask this there, but it seems that some info about 3rd-party UIs could be added here. Thanks in advance, --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the manufacturers run a custom "skin" on top. Samsung uses "Touchwiz" for example, HTC uses "Sense". Maybe the article could be clearer...Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is look at screenshots. This is a HTC Sense homescreen whereas this is default Android on the same phone. These are HTC Sense settings screens, whereas this is the default Android settings screen on 4.0 and above. They're fundamentally the same, but Sense is a customised version of the default interface with a slightly different layout, colour scheme, fonts, etc. It might be nice if an image whiz could upload something showing the default look, Sense and Touchwiz side-to-side.– Steel 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that as the best way Steel. Are you able to do this? I would love to but only have the one camera. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Chances are that Commons will have some free images of the interfaces that could be combined into one image using like, Paint or something. I'll have a look later. – Steel 13:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. If possible, try and get a range of comparisons for more than one brand, ie not just Sense or Touchwiz. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Move
Move to Android. 117.227.166.109 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No can do. WP:Commonname - Android is more commonly a robot, not the Google operating system. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WHAT IS ANDROID ?
Android is a Linux-based, open-source operating system designed for use on cell phones, e-readers, tablet PCs, and other mobile devices. For users of smart phones, Android provides easy access to social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and smooth integration with Google products like Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Calendar. While it is owned by Google, it should not be confused with Google’s Chrome OS, a web-resident, thin-client operating system designed primarily for netbooks and tablets rather than for mobile devices. Android has been adopted by a number of manufacturers, including Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and Sony Ericsson. The expanding assortment of applications available on this platform suggests that Android-based phones will continue to be strong competitors in the smart-phone market.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqubool Alam (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is for the improvement of the article. Your last comment gives nothing to aid that. Please clarify if possible. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Screenshot
Why use a modified version of Android as the main screenshot which informs everyone of how Android looks like? A vanilla screenshot should be used however you like your Galaxy Note thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.84 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Note should NOT be used, as it is not stock Android. It would be useful to demonstrate OEM customizations however. Also, the list of items (widgets, search bar, etc) is incomplete without also listing "live wallpaper." --Ratnok (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time the other user complained about the Galaxy Note image, someone had moved it into the infobox. Nobody else agreed with that so it was moved to the interface section where it's mostly fine. That section does discuss manufacturer customisations after all. I'll mention Touchwiz in the caption. – Steel 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2013
A Link should be added on the references heading. Way2all (www.way2all.in) should be added in the reference, and androidauthority.com should also be added to it. Thanks

HariWorld (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Links only appear in the reference section if they actually support and verify the veracity of the content, otherwise it belongs in the external links section, however links there must comply with WP:EXTERNAL YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Openness of OS and SDK
The reference for Android OS for being open source is just a link to an overview http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

It might be worth adding more specific links- http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html http://source.android.com/about/philosophy.html

---

Also it appears that the SDK software development kit is not open-source in a way that is open - ie- you can't copy, modify or reverse engineer it. ''3.3 You may not use the SDK for any purpose not expressly permitted by this License Agreement. Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not: (a) copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt, redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK; or (b) load any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK with other software, or distribute any software or device incorporating a part of the SDK.'' http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html

reference to this not being understood as an open-source license http://ostatic.com/blog/does-android-still-qualify-as-free-software Jonpatterns (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Android Linux Kernel
The Android operating system consists of the Android Linux Kernel, which is fork of the mainline Linux kernel. From Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich onwards, it's a fork of Linux Kernel 3.x, Android Linux Kernels of older Android Versions are based on Linux Kernel version 2.6.?.

Android's linux kernel has further architecture changes by Google outside the typical Linux kernel development cycle. Android does not have a native X Window System by default nor does it support the full set of standard GNU libraries, and this makes it difficult to port existing Linux applications or libraries to Android. Support for simple C and SDL applications is possible by injection of a small Java shim and usage of the JNI like, for example, in the Jagged Alliance 2 port for Android.

Certain features that Google contributed back to the Linux kernel, notably a power management feature called wakelocks, were rejected by mainline kernel developers, partly because kernel maintainers felt that Google did not show any intent to maintain their own code. Google announced in April 2010 that they would hire two employees to work with the Linux kernel community, but Greg Kroah-Hartman, the current Linux kernel maintainer for the stable branch, said in December 2010 that he was concerned that Google was no longer trying to get their code changes included in mainstream Linux. Some Google Android developers hinted that "the Android team was getting fed up with the process," because they were a small team and had more urgent work to do on Android.

In August 2011, Linus Torvalds said that "eventually Android and Linux would come back to a common kernel, but it will probably not be for four to five years". In December 2011, Greg Kroah-Hartman announced the start of the Android Mainlining Project, which aims to put some Android drivers, patches and features back into the Linux kernel, starting in Linux 3.3. Linux included the autosleep and wakelocks capabilities in the 3.5 kernel, after many previous attempts at merger. The interfaces are the same but the upstream Linux implementation allows for two different suspend modes: to memory (the traditional suspend that Android uses), and to disk (hibernate, as it is known on the desktop).

Everything but the Kernel
Further parts of the Android operating system are middleware, libraries and APIs written in C, and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony. Android uses the Dalvik virtual machine with just-in-time compilation to run Dalvik 'dex-code' (Dalvik Executable), which is usually translated from Java bytecode. The main hardware platform for Android is the ARM architecture. There is support for x86 from the Android x86 project, and Google TV uses a special x86 version of Android.

FHS on Android
cf. Filesystem Hierarchy Standard The flash storage on Android devices is (always|generally) split into several partitions (you mean directories?), such as "/system" for the operating system itself and "/data" for user data and app installations. In contrast to desktop Linux distributions, Android device owners are not given root access to the operating system and sensitive partitions such as /system are read-only. However, root access can be obtained by exploiting security flaws in Android, which is used frequently by the open source community to enhance the capabilities of their devices, but also by malicious parties to install viruses and malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echinacin35 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 January 2013‎ (UTC

Edit request on 6 February 2013
Abubakar988 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Reference link spamming is not allowed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

New device to add to the 'Beyond Smartphones and Tablets' section
New item to add in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Beyond_smartphones_and_tablets

There is now an IP desktop phone running Android 2.3.


 * ✅ - Thanks very much for the tip-off. Don't forget to sign your post next time by adding " ~ " at the end ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Viewing this article in Android Icecream Sandwich OS (default settings, desktop mode), the template adds an extra column to the entire article, that contains just a couple of references, while reducing the article's font size by half. See (permanent link). So I've replaced it with . --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  12:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Both ref templates are displaying the references and prose flawlessly for me(1980*1080), what resolution are you viewing the article at? Not to disadvantage you but if the problem only affects a rather unpopular resolution, restoring Reflist|30em would benefit more readers as it is able to reduce the length of the article by at least 1/3 of its current length. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm using a Samsung Note 10.1 at its default settings. What are you using? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disputed text
I have removed the following text from the article for discussion:
 * With many OEM's being see as "destructive parasites" by damaging the reputation of Android, Google responded by limiting the availability of the Android source code starting with Android 3.0 "Honeycomb".

This "destructive parasites" thing was expressed by one person on Macworld.com in 2011, and is not representative of the general opinion of Android OEMs. Presenting a niche opinion like this as if it's a widespread one is a violation of WP:NPOV. Macworld.com is probably not the best source for this anyway since they're obviously going to favour the Apple approach.

The other half about Google limiting the availability of Android source code is also problematic: Google did withhold Honeycomb source code, but to the public, not OEMs, and everything was made freely available again with ICS. So this particular line is just outdated and wrong, and I don't think any of the sources provided actually state that Google limited availability because of troublemaking OEMs - Wikipedia is making that connection. So please don't add any of this back into the article. Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'll weigh in and you can ignore any or all of this. It can be interesting and productive if positive critiques by well-known sources are counterbalanced by well-known or widely regarded contrarians.  In which case, that person or source can be duly cited as a, for example, noted polemicist (e.g., as with Matt Taibbi).  Acknowledging that the subject matter of an article has received noteworthy scathing criticism can be, if transparently presented, useful and productive.  That being said, I couldn't tell you if that's the case here.842U (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I should be clear that I don't have a problem with criticism where criticism is due. This article is already very critical in places and much of it was written by me. It's just that this particular piece of criticism is bizarre and outdated at best. Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

2.3 devices
"Most Android devices to date still run the older OS version 2.3 Gingerbread that was released on December 6, 2010, due to most lower-end devices still being released with it." Is this still a current perspective in 2013? Most I see in the shops are 4.0 and later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.9.238 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. The latest data from January 3, 2013 still has GB at 47%. Your personal experience probably does not take into account that Gingerbread is used in low-end devices, mostly sold in developing countries, that are not fast enough to run ICS or above. Regards  So Why  07:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Being from a developing country (Turkey), also a Gingerbread user(Huawei Sonic), I can confirm that phones that use Gingerbread are way common. Usually stuff like Samsung Galaxy Ace, a lot of Huawei devices and anything within the same price range. People buy those because anything that uses an above version cost at least 1000TL. An S3 for example costs about 1500~1700TL(read:a lot of money)--PN8 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Legal concerns
I rearranged several subtopics (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&oldid=539236732#Legal_concerns) but they were restored because I "didn't talk first". So what is the problem? Please also respond to my Talk page. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is already structured in a sensible way: Introduction - History - Description - Development, and so on. Your changes involved taking a handful of random, unrelated points from the article and moving them right to the very top for no apparent reason. I'm not sure how that was an improvement... Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would it be ok if I moved it to the bottom instead? --David Hedlund (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottom would be better than the top since that doesn't place the it as the highest importance topic in the article, but I still think the current setup is best. For example a number of things were placed under the heading "legal concerns" which aren't "legal concerns" at all, like the info about how Android is released under the Apache licence and the modified Linux kernel under the GPL, or application piracy, which is copyright infringement in most cases, but that doesn't make it a "legal concern" for Android.
 * The fact that Android phones ship with non-free binaries and non-free Google software when much is made of Android's "openness" is worth mentioning in the article, but I think what you've done more recently (i.e. subheadings under development or licencing) is better than a slightly misleading legal issues section at the beginning or end of the article. Rapture&#39;s Sander Cohen (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Android Logo
Hello. I have noticed that on http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/promote/brand.html the Android logo cannot be used, but the Android robot can.

I was just wondering if this wiki page is permitted to use the logo, for it appears at the top of the screen.

Also, this article refers to the Android robot as the Android logo. This is not correct.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.155.246 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link
why isn't there a link to the disambiguation page Android? the word android existed before google seized it ... and I don't want my vocabulary to be dictated by google ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.28.38 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The name of this article is 'Android (operating system)', with the disambiguating qualifier in the parentheses. That makes it clear this is definitely an article about the operating system and nothing else. We do not put a hatnote here, because anyone who looks up 'Android (operating system)' explicitly is unlikely to be looking for something else. Android (with no additional qualifiers) is the disambiguation page, so anybody looking up 'android' will get that. See also WP:NAMB.  — daranz [ t ] 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Android and Bill Gates Speech, Information at your fingertips
I think there is another view of "What is Android?" And that is Bill Gates Speech 1995 in Stockholm I heard, Information at your fingertips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPwChPPJXI and I really loved it. And the pen computer he was really thrilled about. I felt very sad that MS turned into extreme proprietary solutions like C# and .NET, MS University and other odd stuff, and we never looked to be able to see Bills vision real. I even gave up after a few years. But in my view Bill Gates taked about an Android phone or surfpad. And it is not an iPhone or iPad because that is something completely different, the vendor is telling the user what to do, Android is the complete freedom and fulfils the visions of a young programmer having full control over the gear and system. I am really thrilled. And I think this ideological basis of the Android OS comes from the fact it is an Open system based on volunteers perspective of life and computing, sponsored by the very odd Google company that is so hard to understand and communicate with and exploited quite OK by HW manufacturers. From an ideology perspective am am really glad about the existence of the Android OS and that one of the real beautiful visions of Bills Gates got real.

Bill Gates left management of MS in the mid 90ies and with it a lot of views I believe and also what he learned from IBM in the 80ies (that later generations of IBM also did not get the IBM basic business ideas and marketing setup was fantastic in the early 80ies, and it was only indirectly a matter of computers. Working for a large customer the "force" of the ideas were admirable. Somthing Bill Gates copied partly and later was dropped from MS.)

The real odd aspect of this story is how MS goofed this market so totally? 5 years ago MS had 100% PDA OS market share with Windows mobile and it was completely useless in a PDA (that was the common gear for it at that time). I had a FS Loox and I couldn’t even get a Swedish keyboard and sorting into the installation. If I patched them the security system just copied the original over it to make certain the user was not able to alter anything. And on top of that was the refusal of customer service. MS told FS should do it and FS told MS should. And even if there were newer versions and other national versions of the OS, it was not for sale, just not available, The gear could not be used for anything except as a Tomtom navigator and show pictures with it, until the Tomtom with HW got cheap and much better (today Google navigation is by far the best). All just because MS wanted to get ride of the support costs by fooling the HW vendors, and at the same time the users. As a SW manufacturer there was no chance believing a user would make the PDA work with the SW = no chance making money on SW sales. Such a treatment is something the market never forgets and MS Windows mobile is dead. And the consequence is that stuff like .NET and C# are getting off road because it can't be used with other operating systems than those from MS, and there aren't such in the smartphoens, because MS goofed. The question is how much will this impact on MS position in the SW market? Real big enterprises have just gone away very fast in this industry the past 30 years, Xerox, Philips, Wang, Lotus, Word Perfect, DEC, Compaq, IBM ... is no more (what they were), and where Ericsson and Nokia is going? I liked them all, but sudden turns and mismanagement made it very fast something in the past. In fact I think success in the computer market needs a lot, qutting it just need som bad management with large bonus and it all just vanish in a small little blue smoke.

The amsing thing is that Android is what bill Gates was talking about in his speech and MS totally goofed an entire market that is getting larger than PCs.

This ideological perspective of ANdroid is very important and very hard to describe in Wikipedia, but it is one of the most important perspectives of the computer industry the påast 50 years, it can’t just be ignored?

Another ideological question is if Android can be goofed as long as it is Open sorce? Getting there is one thing needning alot but getting goofed with an open source, is that posisble?? (I don't know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Noticeable is that at that time Win 3.0 if I remember right had voice command recognistion and multimedia features that was on paper impressive. However just not good enough and easy to say, that the HW was not enough, I think the will was not enough and that Bill might were slightly alone at MS with this vision that obviously was realised when Android came? Also Spotify success (56% of the income of the record industry in Sweden 2012) are at a much later date. Where the Pirate bay opposition against media industry conservatism (that is the only real content of it) is also many years ahead. Was it possible for information at your fingertips to appear in the 1990ies, talking about the media industry aspect of the story? I think Pirate bay was what was needed to make the media industry to reform enough making it all posisble? And if we are not talking about that Android feature we will come to the same reflexion about most others as well?

But I thinbk it is thrilling Bill Gates talked about Android 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Changes/Edits 4/24/2013
In one of my classes we had a group project to follow updates to Android over the course of the past two months. We found the following information and thought it might be relevant to be added to the article.

In the Security and Privacy section, mention that Malware had ended up on the Google Play store with the intent of stealing information and infecting PCs. This malware is able to send SMS messages, upload all SMS messages to a master server, delete SMS messages, enable Wi-Fi, gather information about the device, and upload all the contacts, photos, coordinates, and SD card contents to a master database.

There are have been a few notable developments and Android-based software worth adding to the article's Development, Open Source Community, and Non-Free software sections. WindowsAndroid, a tool that allows a user to run Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) as a native application on their Vista, Windows 7, or Windows 8 machine, was released in February. Released by a Beijing company known as SocketeQ, this allows for Android-only apps to be run on PCs and Macs. Going in the opposite direction, Wine for Linux is also going mobile. Wine for Linux is an emulator that allowed for Windows apps to be run on Linux machines. Now though, developments have allowed for Windows apps to be run on Android mobile devices. In March, Microsoft’s Windows Azure cloud was extended to East Asia and began to support Android as a service product for mobile app developers. This new support includes an Android SDK that will allow developers to push notifications via Google Cloud Messaging and authenticate users. Opera also released a preliminary version of its own Android browser. Its beta, which allows data compression for poor network conditions, a combined search and address bar, saved history, private browsing, and storing web pages so that they can be read even if there is no network connection, is available on Google Play.

References:

DerMeisterMike (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ref for Java
I see that Isacdaavid added regarding the listing of Java in the info box, and that Gu1dry reverted the change saying "If you look at the language breakdown it shows Java accounts for 10% of the code." Well, I looked all over the page linked in the ref given and I did not find this. If we're going to "look at the language breakdown", someone is going to have to provide a link to where that breakdown is, i.e. a citation is indeed needed, IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * link from the infobox: http://www.ohloh.net/p/android/analyses/latest/languages_summary 9.8% even. Shaddim (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this passage: "The operating system's success has made it a target..."
The full text: "The operating system's success has made it a target for patent litigation as part of the so-called 'smartphone wars' between technology companies."

This sentence has some problems. One is neutrality, which is violated by the use of "success." "Prevalence" would be a far more neutral word choice. Another part is relying too heavily on the single Forbes article for analysis, rather than just its quoted facts, embodied by the first clause of the sentence, "The operating system's success has made it a target." Finally, it actually speculates beyond material relevant to the source, when it ties Microsoft's litigation against Google to "the smartphone wars." In fact, the article discusses how much money Microsoft makes on Android, which would be contradictory to the idea that the purpose of their litigation is to suppress Android, which is what the "smartphone wars" reference is clearly meant to imply.

I think the sentence should be removed entirely; litigation has its own section in the article already. This sentence vaguely hints at a small amount of factual information without even actually stating it, (that Microsoft has won patent lawsuits related to Android and thus receives royalties for it) that doesn't justify its own presence, and indicates both bias, and speculation on top of its own citation. It's just wildly out of place on a Wikipedia article. If there are any objections to this that address these concerns, I'd be interested to hear them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyvn (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One is neutrality, which is violated by the use of "success." "Prevalence" would be a far more neutral word choice.
 * It can't be a violation of neutrality to refer to the success of something which has in fact been successful. But obviously success can be measured in different ways. I suspect you're stumbling here because you think the article is awarding Android some kind of unspecified, undeserved success when I think most readers would safely assume the article is referring to the kind of success described in the previous sentence. Besides, independent sources are happy to use the word success, as seen below.
 * Another part is relying too heavily on the single Forbes article for analysis, rather than just its quoted facts, embodied by the first clause of the sentence, "The operating system's success has made it a target."
 * There are plenty of sources that more explicitly support "The operating system's success has made it a target" if that's the problem:
 * But Android's success has drawn the ire of competitors, particularly Microsoft and Apple, which offer their own competing mobile platforms. 
 * Instead, as Android has become a success, it’s become the target for what is arguably the most powerful company in the technology industry, Apple.
 * [Discussing the success of Android] Of course, that may make Android an even more attractive patent suit target.
 * Microsoft is using its patent arsenal to make some cash out of Android's success
 * He said 550,000 Android devices were being activated every day and its success has resulted in a "hostile, organised campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents". (Referring to the words of a Google executive, so discount this one at your leisure)
 * Finally, it actually speculates beyond material relevant to the source, when it ties Microsoft's litigation against Google to "the smartphone wars." In fact, the article discusses how much money Microsoft makes on Android, which would be contradictory to the idea that the purpose of their litigation is to suppress Android, which is what the "smartphone wars" reference is clearly meant to imply.
 * Patent litigation as part of the "smartphone wars" is not limited to attempts to shut down or suppress Android. Microsoft's strategy has always appeared to be about making Android devices expensive, thereby making Windows Phones more competitive in comparison (Sources:  ). As the article notes further down, at least one settlement includes a deal for the Android manufacturer to spend more time making Windows Phones. So there is no contradiction.
 * However I accept that the single Forbes source used by the article currently is not ideal, and, looking at it now, it's no wonder someone raised such concerns. I've replaced it with a couple of the links here instead. – Steel 13:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes are satisfactory, though I still take issue, for the record, with the word "success" here, despite its use in news sources. As far as the "stumbling," I don't see it as awarding Android anything, undue or otherwise.  I merely find it vague, and presumptuous about the impetus for creating, purchasing, and developing Android, which could potentially be successful without being widely used, or be widely used without being successful.  I don't intend to edit the page over it, particularly not without building some sort of consensus, but my objection/preference/whatever you'd call it, stands. – Meyvn 5:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

i18n and l10n
It appears that neither i18n and nor l10n are taken into account neither by android nor by this wikipedia article.

In some web sites such as http://f-droid.org the web site is exclusevely available in the english language and information of availability of application in an appropriate language is not provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.0.236 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Section with just one sentence
The Proprietary binary dependencies section has just one sentence in it. Looks a bit strange like this, if you ask me. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I thought I dealt with this ages ago but apparently not. Thanks for pointing it out. – Steel 22:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedback
A decent amount of feedback for this article could be solved by people being made aware of the Android version history article. Can someone increase the links to it a bit without overlinking? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

typo should be corrected in 'Despite app support in its infancy...' to 'Despite LACK OF app support in its infancy' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.65 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GPLv2 and Apache 2.0 incompatibility is not a practical issue
"Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have been critical of Android and have recommended the usage of alternatives such as Replicant[129][130], because the licenses of the kernel (the GNU GPLv2), and Google's code (the Apache License[11]), are incompatible,[131] and because drivers and firmware vital for Android devices are usually proprietary and because Google Play allows non-free software, as well."

should be shortened to:

"Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have been critical of Android and have recommended the usage of alternatives such as Replicant[129][130], because drivers and firmware vital for Android devices are usually proprietary and because Google Play allows non-free software, as well."

The incompatibility is a non-issue. Both are free software and Stallman only prefers copyleft to Apache (and GPLv3 to GPLv2).

NB. Replicant also uses Apache 2.0 and GPLv2 (that can't be upgraded to GPLv3), so I doubt Stallman would use that as an objection. comp.arch (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. – Steel 21:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Made more changes today, including readding non-free banner: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=558280203&oldid=558193046 comp.arch (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Proprietary SDK
Mention Android non-free SDK (see above)? I wander if the Replicant free SDK can be used instead (from their page): "On the 3rd of January, 2013 the project released version 4.0 of their fully libre SDK, partly in response[11][12] to concerns over Google updating the license for add-ons and binaries under a proprietary agreement." comp.arch (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Security And Privacy section
I have a bit of a problem with the following:
 * "Research from security company Trend Micro lists premium service abuse as the most common type of Android malware, where text messages are sent from infected phones to premium-rate telephone numbers without the consent or even knowledge of the user. Other malware displays unwanted and intrusive adverts on the device, or sends personal information to unauthorised third parties. Security threats on Android are reportedly growing exponentially" (with this ref: )


 * 1) The ZDNet article simply quotes a Trend Micro blog page, so why not use that source instead?
 * 2) Searching for Emil Protalinski in WP, i find him in many occurrences as a Windows guy, not so much as an Android expert.
 * 3) Trend Micro is a security outfit, their concerns are malware, and i wonder whether they are hyping the threat level.

So, i wish that we rather rely on several neutral entities as sources. I find the passage above cheap and sloppy. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first half of this paragraph is just a simple description of the Android malware found so far, which is pretty uncontroversial information. No problem changing the source to Trend Micro if you like, which addresses points #1 and #2. (Note that the article doesn't state that threats are growing exponentially, just that there are reports saying so.) No idea why you've even raised #3 as a concern, since the possibility that the threat level is being hyped is very clearly covered in the second half of the paragraph. – Steel 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mismatching between chart caption and chart metadata
In the article you can find in the usage section this caption under the pie chart

"Usage share of the different versions collected during a 14-day period ending on March 4, 2013"

But the Metadata of the gfx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_chart.png

mentioned an other date

"Description English: The following chart - presents the prevalence of various Android versions. It is based on the number of Android devices that have accessed the Play Store, with data collected during a 14-day period ending on December 3, 2012."

So what is correct March 2013 or December 2012? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.128.171.198 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like the correct date is May. People have been uploading updated graphs without updating the text that accompanies it. – Steel 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Better performance and less power usage with Intel inside
Is the move to Intel processors worth mentioning here? Hcobb (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * references available for a trend? Shaddim (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.infoworld.com/d/computer-hardware/intels-new-atom-chips-peak-performance-power-consumption-218014 http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/06/04/intel-confirms-reuters-report-atom-z2560-processor-powers-the-10-1-inch-samsung-galaxy-tab-3/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/05/intel_silvermont_arm_killer_computex/ etc. Hcobb (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This link and this link report on claims by Intel that Intel processors are better than ARM-based processors. Naturally, Intel are not independent, impartial sources on the relative merits of Intel processors versus the competition. This link discusses the release of the Galaxy Tab 3, a tablet which contains an Intel processor. Unfortunately, one tablet does not indicate any kind of large scale (or even small scale) move towards Intel processors in smartphones and tablets. I am genuinely concerned about why you linked to these three articles when they plainly aren't sufficient to justify your original assertion. – Steel 17:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I at least corrected the impression the article left that Intel was a tiny niche player in the Android market. Hcobb (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Improving this article
For some time I have been toying with the idea of bringing this page up to featured article standard. This is a bit tricky because, unlike important historical events or people, Android is a current, ever changing product. That, and because most software articles on Wikipedia are terrible, so we have to figure everything out for ourselves and don't have the luxury of copying some established article format. Last month I began reorganising the article so that it looks the way I think it ought to look (compare with with a revision from August or earlier), and I think we now have the structure more or less how it should be. The remaining issues, then, are with the content, and there are quite a few areas that need improvement: Further comments welcome. – Steel 14:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead: This is not a very good summary of the article IMO, and a bit short. That said, it feels like the kind of thing that will fall into place really easily once the rest of the article is sorted.
 * History: This section has four really good paragraphs about Android's pre-development and early history, but as soon as we reach 2008 there's three lines on the Nexus devices and that's it. It's been four years since 2008 and according to the article nothing happened during those years. I was thinking of adding an extra two or three paragraphs to document major developments such as the user interface overhaul in ICS, Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility, or whatever. I would appreciate suggestions here. This section might overlap with the version history, but it cannot deteriorate into a changelog of anything and everything.
 * Description: I think we can expand on the description of the OS a bit, as the article takes for granted that people already know what mobile operating systems like Android and iOS look like and how they work. http://developer.android.com/ is a really thorough resource that we should use for ideas.
 * Applications: This feels too short to me. There must be something to expand here.
 * Multitasking: There is a hidden note in the edit window here to expand this section with more information about how Android manages memory differently to desktop OSes. We might want to move this section to development.
 * Security and privacy: Again, another couple of paragraphs to expand it. Maybe about how previous malware affected devices, where it came from, etc, but also how the threat may be exaggerated by security companies with vested interests in playing up the dangers (there should be WP:RSes for this).
 * Reception: This is by far the worst section in the article, a muddled mess of any old random statistics. It needs to be rewritten from scratch to include actual opinions, both good and bad, and both from Android's release to the present day. And, yes, statistics, but relevant, significant ones.
 * Beyond smartphones and tablets: Probably not the best title for this section, but I have only just added it today. There should be more information about Android's extended applications, such as the games console Ouya, the Xios DS media player, that home automaton stuff that Google demonstrated last year. Having said that, we have to bear in mind that 99.9% of Android is phones and tablets. WP:UNDUE is a concernn here, which is why I have preliminarily added this short section to the end of the article.
 * Agree fully =D and you could always split some stuff into other articles?
 * For Beyond smartphones and tablets: have you considered "Other applications"? That seems like a better header. Keep up the good work! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That occurred to me, but I didn't want to use 'applications' when the same word is used with a different meaning in another heading. – Steel 16:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you could make this a FA, that would be great. Some comments:
 * History: The problem is that as a software product, once Google acquired Android and it became a solid product, not much changed. Sure, the OS was improved - drastically - over the years but that's been outsourced to Android version history instead of being incorporated into the history section. You can always reintegrate some key points from there. Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility though probably belongs to the article about Google because so far this has not yielded any Android-related news.
 * Applications: IIRC Android software development was created as a fork because there was too much info in the main article...
 * Reception: I agree with you there but there are not really many neutral reviews of Android itself - with most manufacturers redesigning the OS to look (mostly) worse, almost all reviews are about the version of Android those devices run, not the actual version released by Google. And those reviews belong to the articles about the devices.
 * Beyond smartphones and tablets: I think it's a good idea to highlight such projects because they show that Android can be used with other devices as well, a core feature even if it's currently not used much.
 * Regards  So Why  15:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, all. These are valid points. – Steel 16:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no information about the Nexus program on this page, I think it is extremely relevant to Android and the Android ecosystem, it deserves it's own section. We can use the new Nexus lineup images from Google - Android is a modern OS, it should be presented with modern information and Google has really been pushing the Nexus program as of late. Walkop (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Searching for Android Browser redirected me to this page, but there is no browser information on this page. Where then should all the stock application information go for each release of Android software? In particular I want to know for Android 4.1.1, which browser is "stock", Chrome or the original one? Where would this question get answered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.62.158 (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is about Android in general. We also have List of features in Android, but anything that's specific to a particular version of Android will be in Android version history - I think the 4.1 Jelly Bean table mentions something about browsers. It would be even better if each version had its own article, because then Android 4.1 Jelly Bean would have been the obvious place to put this information. Unfortunately that idea didn't get a whole lot of support last time it was proposed, but I might give it another go once I'm done here. – Steel 03:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Intellectual Property: The use of the phrase "Intellectual Property" reveals either a bias towards (or ignorance of) the fictions it presupposes and perpetuates. Even if you take the dubious step of assuming the term is in common usage, patent concerns, copyright issues, trademark disputes, etc. each merit a separate subheading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dns-bind (talk • contribs) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Omate for 'Beyond Smartphones' section
Being a bit tired of my edits getting reverted, i'd first like to discuss here. I think the Omate_TrueSmart deserves mention, because it is the first and so far only smartwatch that is a true full standalone Android watch, complete with the ability to run all apps from Play store on the watch itself, make calls, navigate, etc. without using a companion phone. PizzaMan (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of new version
ViperSnake151 keeps reverting my edit in which i mention the upcoming version in the "Update Schedule" section. I appreciate that the extensive version history information has its own page. But isn't at least a short mention of the current and upcoming version in place? Surely an article about Android isn't quite complete without at least mentioning the current and upcoming version? And surely the "Update Schedule" is the place where people look for this information, it's also the place where the link to the version history page is found. Just want to help people find the information they're looking for. Opinions please. PizzaMan (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Per Summary style, the main article should contain the most important facts of the topic and I think the name of the current and next version are important facts although one sentence would probably suffice. Regards  So Why  19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A mention of the current version is appropriate (and already listed in the section). But for the next version, all we have is a name - no release date nor confirmed new features of 4.4 have been released.
 * Once we have a confirmed release date and/or confirmed new features, then I can see mentioning the next version. But for now, to me, simply having a name for it fails to meet being one of the "most important facts" about the version information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Like SoWhy proposed, you don't want more than a short one sentence mention anyway. For details, there is the version history page. Not mentioning details means details are irrelevant, means it's not important how much details are currently known. PizzaMan (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, all we have is a name - that's not an important detail, it's trivia. When we have a confirmed release date and/or confirmed features, then we'll have important details that will be of significance to mention in the main article (pointing towards the version history article). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a name, a version number, an API-level and a lot of coverage because of the unprecedented use of a commercial product name and the resulting cooperation, be it good or negative (considering how many people are critical of Nestle):     . I think the fact that it's the first product tie-in for Android ever - not to mention 50 million candy bars to promote Android  - is significant enough to warrant at least one sentence in this article. Regards  So  Why  09:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The version number and API level are no more significant than the name; we new they would be higher than the old, the specific value could have been whatever Google wanted it to be - it tells us nothing about the actual release date, features, or product enhancements.
 * On the other-hand, the argument to mention the first-time ever marketing tie-in does make sense. I'm not sure the "Update schedule" section which has been discussed so far is the best place for it, but I'm not seeing anywhere else that would be a better fit either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of NSA-created code in Android keeps getting tossed out
I have the following paragraph below that has been tossed out twice in the past 24 hours:

"In July 2013, Google confirmed that the National Security Agency provided some of the code currently in use in Android. The NSA says the code is intended to enhance security against hackers and marketers, but Google would not confirm whether it also aids the NSA in monitoring the global internet. The news came amid revelations of Google's participation in the PRISM surveillance program, and NSA efforts to routinely work with telecommunications, software, and security companies to subvert the code and security in their own commercial products."

I cited three reputable sources (Bloomberg Businessweek, Washington Post, Guardian), gave Google's response of no comment, gave NSA's explanation of why the code is there, and gave the real-world common speculation about why the code might be in there, the same speculation originally in the Bloomberg news report and others. The PRISM program and news of NSA routinely working with major tech companies to subvert code is also mentioned in order to provide necessary context.

Despite that, the entire paragraph keeps getting tossed so that now not only is my addition no longer there, but there is no mention at all in the entire article about the NSA-created code being inserted in Android. That was widely reported in July, so I don't see why even if my paragraph wasn't satisfactory why it just wouldn't be edited and discussed instead of being completely deleted twice. Or why the editors deleting it wouldn't give more substantive reasons about it here first before doing so, instead of leaving me to justify why widely-reported scandalous news should be mentioned in the article.

Barek, one of the deleters, said "some of this appears useful, but much is worded to imply something that isn't true, or mentions web issues unrelated to Android"

The "web issues" are the immediate context which explains why the news is causing such scandal in the first place. And as for implying something that isn't true, none of us here knows if it's true or not. Google was asked to confirm or deny it but wouldn't, and their no-comment followed by educated speculation by tech journalists and security experts is the actual news story that is worth mentioning, in conjunction with the admission of NSA-created code being in the OS.

Could others please weigh in and consider reverting my addition? Spiked105 (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What was left out of the source you provided, but which was widely reported elsewhere, was that the "inserted code" is publicly available for review under the Android open-source license. The code can be freely downloaded, reviewed, and reused by tech enthusiasts. And has been shown in news sources, none of that review has found anything compromising in the NSA code. With that fact in mind, the web-issues become a coat-rack to try to give credence to a non-issue.
 * I have no doubt that the NSA has access to view cell-phone activity - be it via PRISM, recently reported ability to break common encryption methods, or some other tools. And if any of the publicly available code that they have provided is ever found to enable that, then that would both be notable as well as being an insanely stupid move by them to place such tools in plain sight. But as it stands, that's not the case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole article mentions the open-source nature of the code repeatedly, including at the very top in the second paragraph, so I thought that was a given. If that was what the deletion was about (since you and Steel keep mentioning that) why not just edit my addition and add "open-source" instead of removing the entire thing? And since you said as part of your edit that "some of this appears useful", what specifically do you find useful and how do you propose integrating that with the article?Spiked105 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply adding the mention of it being open source would be inadequate; more accurate to say that the implications from the wording of your content is entirely unsubstantiated, and nothing has been found in the publicly available open source code to support anything problematic in the added code. News sites (predominantly tech sites) have stated this, I did a quick Google search and found multiple sources pointing this out on just the first page of results.
 * As I said, I have no doubt that the NSA has access via PRISM and other means. But there is zero evidence from any source that the code provided to Google by the NSA is in any way part of that. If a reliable source does state that the added code in any way supports NSA programs, then that would be notable - but I'm yet to find a source that supports that claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Barek has taken the words from my mouth. The paragraph wastes no time associating the NSA's SELinux code with PRISM, while omitting that Android remains open source and that the cited Businessweek article even quotes a Linux Foundation executive saying that the code has been widely peer-reviewed. Hence my comment about cherrypicking information from the sources. – Steel 16:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is cherrypicking, since I gave the NSA response and explanation, and you can revert the text but with the addition of "open-source" if cherrypicking is your concern.Spiked105 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed article text actually says that it is about a non-issue: "Google would not confirm whether [the code] also aids the NSA". So who's saying it does? Oh, us! This isn't a tabloid newspaper! Making things up, then pointedly saying that people refused to confirm what we've just made up, is not something that Wikipedia's own voice ever, ever does. "Despite repeated questioning, Nigelj still refuses to confirm that he is actually an extraterrestrial lizard dressed up in a human suit." --Nigelj (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a wide-spread, international, sustained concern about possible malicious code, Google's collaboration in spying, subversion of internet protocols, etc, that many reputable news organizations are reporting on and speculating about at length, and I don't think mentioning NSA code in Android in the context of that controversy and those concerns is the same thing as making things up and being a tabloid. So what is Wikipedia's stance on controversies? If there's a huge, ongoing controversy in the world you can't mention the fact that the controversy exists at Wikipedia because that's tabloid news? Bloomberg Businessweek is a reliable source that mentioned the code, asked about it and got an evasive reply (believe it or not, a large news organization asking a large corporation's spokesperson about something reasonable (remember, context: wide-spread, international, sustained concern) and getting an evasive reply is not the same thing as random people making outlandish accusations about a Wikipedia editor), and then the Businessweek article was mentioned by many secondary news sources.Spiked105 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is clearly controversy; there's plenty to go around; but the specific issue you are pushing is a non-issue. Forbes just did a story yesterday about the NSA, pointing out multiple controversies - the one you are pointing at wasn't listed - there's just too much visibility to that code and there is nothing that has been found in it, there is no controversy. If that ever changes, then that would be notable. But trying to build-up a non-issue that has been debunked by multiple tech news sources is not productive. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, the operating system ranked #163 in Wikipedia traffic over the last 90 days. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Android (operating system) → Android
 * Android → Android (disambiguation)
 * Support, per nom. Would Oppose, per everyone below. but my only rationale is that I don't like it. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC) 14:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on account of the shortest distance between two points being a straight line. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per all five main WP:CRITERIA at WP:Article Titles. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Android is an android, just as illustrated by the green android logo of the Android (operating system). Page views are only one part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not greatly relevant in cases where a popular brand is based on a generic item, which doesn't give a brand rights over its symbol, see Apple. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Page hits and traffic are heavily skewed via recentism and recent news. The Android (robot) topic has several decades old, long-term significance that, IMO, offsets the recent 90-day traffic towards the operating system. The android robot concept was been the subject of various works spanning decades. The operating system has only been available to the general public in only the past few years. In addition, the operating system was named after the android robot concept (after they initially used names of fictional robots). It is no different than, as In ictu oculi mentioned, the current articles titles of Apple vs. Apple, Inc. We should restrain from changing the primary topic every single time a topic is affected solely because it is the latest and greatest "hot item" to search for in the past couple of years -- especially if the "current hot item" is a recent product/brand name/marketing scheme of a multinational corporation, that is named after a decades-old generic concept. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above opposers, and 2012 (4), 2011 (3), 2010 (2), 2010 (1) - the four previous requested moves. Google itself clearly thinks the humanoid robotic creature is primary, since that is what the logo looks like, thereby reemphasizing the humanoid robot. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: to most people an android is a robot, well known of via science-fiction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not convinced that the operating system is the primary topic. At least not yet. Maybe in ten years time, but not today. JOJ  Hutton  03:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as recentism. If anything, the primary topic should be android (robot). As can be understood from android (robot), other uses are derived from this. Just because the wealth of online sources currently refer to the OS doesn't make it the primary topic outside computing. e.g. literary, sci-fi and spoken (radio broadcast) references also need to be considered. The OS may only have a life of a few decades, at which point there'd be another naming discussion to be had! -- Trevj (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Personally when I see the word "Android" or it's brought up in conversation, it's almost always used to refer to this subject. I do see the rationale in moving it, but I think confirmation bias plays a part in that as most people that edit this article (especially editors that edit articles that fall under the WikiProjects that this one does) are probably going to be more involved in the fields and culture that know Android primarily as the mobile operating system.  It may one day (soon) become the clear primary topic, but I'm not seeing any indication that it's happened yet.  It can certainly be argued that it's possibly the primary topic, but not overwhelmingly so by any means.  I think it makes more sense to leave Android as a disambiguation for now. - Aoidh (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox caption
The caption for the image on the main articles page is wrong. It is a screenshot of Android 4.3 on LG Nexus 4.


 * Thank you for pointing that out. Got it corrected. -- Dsimic (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

AOSP Apps being abandoned
Under the Licensing header the phrase is inaccurate.

In recent years, a number of open-source Android apps have been abandoned and replaced by closed source versions, while Google Play Services inherits and introduces development API's which are also proprietary.

Calendar app released on oct27, 2012. updates to AOSP app

Google Music Released on Nov, 2011 updates to AOSP app

Camera updates

All have been developed and improved on AFTER the release of the corresponding google app. A handful of changes were made, but any development negates the "abandoned" label

Ryftstarr (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Got the language improved a bit, so it's now slightly better describing the replacement of open-source applications. -- Dsimic (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The apps don't get "abandoned and replaced". They are still available and continue to be updated in AOSP .  They may not appear in the end product devices, but that is because they are replaced by the OEM. Ryftstarr (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing the line "In recent years, a number of open-source Android apps have been gradually abandoned and replaced by closed source versions, while Google Play Services inherits and introduces development APIs which are also proprietary." Ryftstarr (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The open-source applications aren't actually deleted from the AOSP repositores, but they're receiving no new features &mdash; making then pretty much obsolete when compared to their closed-source versions. I'm sure you've checked out the references, where that's clearly visible. -- Dsimic (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Could the "However, most Android devices ship with additional Google software that is proprietary" be replaces with "However, most Android devices ship with additional software that is proprietary" OEM's replace many AOSP apps with their own Samsung have S-Voice, They all have their own Camera, messaging, and email clients The Nexus devices ship with Chrome and Hangouts.  I don't think its accurate to single out Google.


 * I still think that the "In recent years, a number of open-source Android apps have been gradually abandoned and replaced by closed source versions, while Google Play Services inherits and introduces development APIs which are also proprietary." Line is very misleading as it implies that the AOSP no longer exist and that Google services are the only solution, which is not true. The updates to AOSP apps may be meager, featureless, and only done to insure that the app runs on the current OS but they are not abandoned still provide baseline functionality on the current OS.  Anyone can still contribute to them Ryftstarr (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're totally right regarding both Google and OEMs providing and shipping the proprietary software. I already went ahead and edited the first sentence, and a bit later I'll improve the second sentence as well. Please check it out. -- Dsimic (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Hope you'll find it Ok now. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Code clean-up? Move to proprietary?
Java (UI) in Infobox links to []. Note first that this might be unreliable (says Apache 1.1 not 2.0 license). However There is a large drop in code around 2012-2013. Anybody know why? Apps are still in ASOP but not used by many OEMs. Might it be that? comp.arch (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of ART (Android Runtime)
As per this article, Android KitKat introduces a new runtime, ART. This runtime compiles bytecode upon installation (Ahead-of-time) as compared to the current Dalvik runtime that uses Just-in-time and compiles bytecode each time an app is launched. This allows for faster execution and increased battery life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.30.249 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is meant to replace the Dalvik VM. I haven't had time to write about it, but it is due indeed. --uKER (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, this is still experimental stuff. -- Dsimic (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the "meant to replace" is meant to be literal. It doesn't completely replace it just yet. --uKER (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Proprietary Android!
See my last two edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=558281983&oldid=558281728

I know the Android source code (currently) isn't proprietary but it (its Linux-kernel, that often does) often includes propriatary drivers/blobs/firmware. So the 'whole package' is (often) proprietary. Even without considering Google Play, that you could say is essential which always is (would you consider that part of the operationg system, debatable, but most people would thing so). Feel free to revert or change.

NB. People use the OS, the binaries, and not the source code directly and the page is about that. And as a side note, maybe something about non-free SDK should be added ('required' (almost?) to make apps), but strictly not part of Android, and only an issue for developers. comp.arch (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

And, can someone help me and fix the link to not point to references. comp.arch (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There clearly was disagreement with my recent edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=558400644&oldid=558330733
 * Maybe this has been discussed before? I don't want to edit war. comp.arch (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this was only done for formatting reasons. I have never seen links that point to another section on the same page. If you want to quote a reference from that section, you should probably point to the reference directly instead of the paragraph. It is advisable to back up a statement like Android is non-free software by citing some reliable source, see WP:RS. And it would certainly be interesting to find out what the real legal facts are in that respect. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I see people have accepted my above change it needs expanding. What is meant by Android? Where do you draw the line between the OS in strict sense that is kernel as in kernel (then it would really just be the (modified) Linux kernel and would not deserve a new name?) and OS as in including all the programs you get with the device? I think the Infoxbox should mention more that proprietary drivers since most people are getting proprietary apps thinking they are also "Android". And I just saw some quotes went missing and thought of reverting until I tracked down (and see the additions are good):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_%28operating_system%29&diff=578179440&oldid=577811832

comp.arch (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that that often the end product from an OEM has proprietary elements that are unaccessible to developer (drivers, blobs, apps), but I would consider that a Derivative Work as defined by the Apache License, Version 2.0 The proprietary label of the derivative work should not be retroactively applied to Android.  Android can be built from source and run on hardware with drivers that are freely available   The proprietary blobs include NFC, camera, Wifi and other drivers, but The core OS will still function without them.  Would you label linux as "Open source with proprietary components" because it need display drivers that are not open sourced, but are still freely available?


 * The SDK, while it does allow a dev to used the proprietary Google Services API, does not include the services by default nor do you need to use them to create a fully functional Android App.


 * I believe that a clear distinction between the Android that consumers see and use, with all of the proprietary OEM and Google services added, and the Open Source Core OS of the Android Open Source Project needs to be made. This article should not use either to define the other.  Ryftstarr (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Would you label linux as "Open source with proprietary components" because it need display drivers that are not open sourced"? Yes, if Linux would need non-free. Note this is not the best example as the Linux kernel doesn't need non-free diplay drivers. Fully free ones are available. Also it doesn't need Wifi or a RIL and still Linux kernel says "GPL v2 plus various closed source binary blobs" in infobox. For most people Android means a phone OS (started as one). In practice none of the Android phones CAN do with the open-source code. If they could Replicant (operating system) would not exist (or would have succeded). I think that also applies for tablets. Android might be the most free phone OS (besides Replicant) but it's not fully there. If/when I'm wrong let me know. comp.arch (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Information collision: what is Android.
There is collision on article start and then in the more accurate information content. Article starts with claim: "Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel...." and then later it is revealed to reader with architecture: "On top of the Linux kernel, there are the middleware, libraries and APIs written in C, and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony." and it collides with the first claim what is false. Linux kernel is the operating system used in Android. The first paragraph should start in manner "Android is a distribution of Linux operating system designed for mobile devices..." (or a like). If any one watch the original Android architecture presentation, it collides even more with the claim "Android is the operating system" / "Android is Linux-based operating system" as those claims are not technically accurate. Readers who would think what they read from article, will find same problems that the statements on start are not true but are against the architecture of Android Androidology - Part 1 of 3 - Architecture Overview Golftheman (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Linux kernel isn't an operating system by itself. The kernel is just the core part, and on top of it there are system libraries, utilities etc., making up together a Linux distribution.  In a similar way, Android adds its own stuff on top of the (customized) Linux kernel. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Caption on image in "History" section has grammatical errors
The caption on the image says: "Eric Schmidt, Andy Rubin and Hugo Barra at a press conference for the Google's tablet Nexus 7."

I think this should be fixed to read: "Eric Schmidt, Andy Rubin and Hugo Barra at a press conference for Google's Nexus 7 tablet."

Kylrth (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅  Edit performed as requested. -- Dsimic (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)