Talk:Android (operating system)

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:

• 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.

Further comments welcome. – Steel 14:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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 Jenova20 ^(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)

(edit conflict) 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 SoWhy 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)

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)

 Done – 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)

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)

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 Jenova20 ^(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 Jenova20 ^(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 Jenova20 ^(email) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Move

Move to Android. 117.227.166.109 (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

NNo can do. WP:Commonname - Android is more commonly a robot, not the Google operating system. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(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 Jenova20 ^(email) 12:23, 20 December 2012 (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)

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)

 Not done 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 operating system architecture, Android Linux Kernel, other software parts, FHS

Android operating system architecture

Architecture diagram

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

References

There are a non-trivial number of references on this talk page. I've added this section so they show. If there's a better way of doing this please feel free to remove or refactor this section. Kiore (talk) 05:21, 7 January 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 SoWhy 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)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

Abubakar988 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 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.

 Done - Thanks very much for the tip-off. Don't forget to sign your post next time by adding "~~~~" at the end ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:39, 12 February 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)

{{Reflist|30em}}

Viewing this article in Android Icecream Sandwich OS (default settings, desktop mode), the template {{Reflist|30em}} 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 {{Reflist}}.[1] --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)

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 Jenova20 ^(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)

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'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's Sander Cohen (talk) 01:49, 27 February 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'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'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!

disambiguation link

why isn't there a link to the disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

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)

USB & MTP

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

Ref for Java

I see that Isacdaavid added {{citation needed}} 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. [2]
• 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. [3]
• [Discussing the success of Android] Of course, that may make Android an even more attractive patent suit target. [4]
• Microsoft is using its patent arsenal to make some cash out of Android's success [5]
• 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". [6] (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: [7] [8] [9]). 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)

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 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 partof 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)

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: Protalinski, Emil (2012-07-17). "Android malware numbers explode to 25,000 in June 2012". ZDNet. Retrieved 2012-11-09.)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 SoWhy 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): [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. 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 SoWhy 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

• Android (operating system) → Android
• Android → Android (disambiguation)

– 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)

• 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)#Etymology, 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)
• Support. The issue is not what the word brings to anyone's mind, but what readers are most likely to be searching for. Try googling android -wikipedia. Everything on the first page refers to the operating system. "Recentism" has nothing to do with the determination of a primary topic. There is an "educational value" rule that applies. But I hardly think sci-fi robots are an educational topic. Warum? (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)