Talk:Android (operating system)

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

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)

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): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. 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

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)

• 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)

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 — 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 [[7]]. 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)

Optional hardware section and possibly keeping/readd it later it in the versions article

Thanks for moving here. I put it in the versions article and intended to expand it (or hoped someone would) to include in what versions certain features got added or dropped as requirements. Since nothing such is mentioned I can see that it fits here.

What I mean with "Android supports OpenGL ES 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0." is that all these versions have at one point been supported as the most recent version (and I wanted to know at which Android version). For this article as it refers to the most recent version of Android, saying only OpenGL ES 3.0 might seem enough but that is wrong. Note 1.1 and 2.0 APIs are not compatible. I think 3.0 is with 2.0. Hardware that supports newer versions probably always supports all older onces. 1.1 might theoretically be an exception, not sure any hardware only support 2.0 and newer in practice.

I'll change to "OpenGL ES 1.1, 2.0 and 3.0". I assume 1.1 is compatible with 1.0 and 1.0 needs not be mentioned. Note 1.1 and 2.0 are not compatible, I think 3.0 might be with 2.0.

Regarding: "Android devices can include still or video cameras, touchscreens, GPS, accelerometers, gyroscopes, barometers, magnetometers, dedicated gaming controls, proximity and pressure sensors, thermometers, accelerated 2D bit-blits (with hardware orientation, scaling and pixel format conversion), and accelerated 3D graphics." I copied this and all seem optional. I guess screens are not optional but touchscreens are in principle. Does anyone know of a mobile device though that doesn't have a touchscreen? comp.arch (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! I had exactly the same thoughts as you've just described above — it would be great to have such a list within the Android revisions history article, so we know which version required what, hardware-wise. Though, if you agree, starting that within the revisions history article would be much better with some kind of a requirements matrix instead of a list, so people can more easily chip in later, filling in what's missing. Also, that way it should be much more readable, and thus much more usable — if you agree?

Regarding Android devices having a acreen not supporting touch input, I really can't recall one. -- Dsimic (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, (touch)screens are optional. Just think of all those "HDMI sticks" running Android. -- Dsimic (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we make sourcing this section a priority please? – Steel 14:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the subsection in this article, or to the planned subsection in Android version history § Hardware requirements? -- Dsimic (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

For now, the whole hardware requirements section in this article (assuming it does stay here at all), some of which has been sitting with citation needed for weeks now. – Steel 16:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There you go, please check it out. -- Dsimic (talk) 16:23, 16 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) 15:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)