Material from the associated project or article page was split to other pages. The page histories of the associated projects or article pages now serve as the attribution history for part of the contents of those pages. Please see the events in question for more details:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Android (operating system) is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
Initially, Google's supported integrated development environment (IDE) was Eclipse using the Android Development Tools (ADT) plugin; in December 2014 Google released Android Studio V1.0 as their primary IDE for native Android application development.
I realize it is cute in some way to use the Android green for the colors in this chart, but it makes it very, very hard to read. Why not just use a series of readily distinguished colors? I'd be bold and do so, but I am concerned that there may have been a consensus formed long ago that agreed to make it like this. I must say, it took me minutes to process information that should have taken seconds as I tried to compare shades and distinguish them. Huw Powell (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just change it, I don't think there has been any such consensus. The colours are changed back and forth semi-regularly between those who prefer using Google's colours for some reason (this part of the article is copied almost exactly from android.com) and those who find Google's colours unhelpful. – Steel 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
See edits, I put this in and now it is not a separate section. And a fact-template.
I think it is not in dispute that Android runs on laptops and desktops. There are I think at least an example of either/both (or was?) that was sold, in the article. That is not the issue however. Android is software. It only matters if Android is capable of running on these devices , and at least one reviewer says it is great to do..
I acknowledge that most do not do install (me included.. AOSP links here) Android themselves (ignorant?) or buy as a desktop or laptop. There are not that many. This page is also for device makers that also may be ignorant..
I note also that Chrome OS already "run" Android apps (while that OS is not "Android"). That is premature here.. but I see these OSes merging in the future.. Even been stated right?
Addition: I can't remember whether the hardware (review) was about the actual laptop or the actual desktop(and must have been removed from the article – as "promotional?) – shouldn't matter, as both considered the "same" platform for OS reasons. This text I quoted , was very intentional, as he must have used it on either or both – and it indicates a not-much known feature ("Alt-Tab") in Android (you never would on a smartphone) – about the software – that is Android:
"You can even Alt-Tab between running applications, something you don’t really notice until you use Android on a laptop or desktop." comp.arch (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! IMHO, a separate section on desktop/laptop use is justified, but not in its original form that consisted primarily of a few rather long citations. It should provide more descriptions and facts, and as such would fit very well. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an objection in principle to a section or subsection on desktops and laptops. I only removed the section heading because once the long quote had been removed there wasn't enough content to justify a whole section. Regardless a description/review of the user experience on desktops and laptops is clearly not 'Market share', so I've gone ahead and moved it back to 'Use outside of smartphones and tablets'. The long quote is still an issue. – Steel 17:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Most popular "of any kind" - including RTOS and non-RTOS embedded OS?
Note, I did not put in "of any kind". I'm not really objecting, but I like the truth more than sources. But this one may be true..
I do not like to take the word of newspapers (even the New York Times) on technical matters: "Android is now not just the globe’s most popular smartphone operating system but the most popular operating system of any kind."
I have a source (a reliable survey) saying Android is most popular in embedded (at 16%), above FreeRTOS at 13%, but after "inhouse/custom" (at 24%). Note, inhouse are many OSes - if that..
Now, embedded is not only RTOS (that is also included in (most) Android, while Linux there isn't, right?).
Android is not the most popular RTOS as it isn't - but it might be more popular than any single RTOS there is (or all combined?). Similarily, while not a server OS (can't be, w/o rooting), Android is probably more popular than all server OSes combined - at least any one. Or all desktop OSes.. comp.arch (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The source does not state that Android has the largest installed base, but rather that it has sold more than Windows and iOS in the previous year. Please, update the source or the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloalmeidaff9 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[Please don't look at your (possibly) biased non-global or US/North American viewpoint. Yes, even iOS just got a slight edge there in sales in a quarter and web use (and Win 7 more popular than both, at least by web use). Neither take the other extreme, Asia, Android most popular (yes, not one version..) at 34.7%, Win 7 (yes only one version..) 29.13% OR the whole world, as web use is also biased showing Win 7 at 32.45%, then Android at 23.55% and web use is not the same as installed base.]
More popular for years, not just one year. Is the installed base somehow unbelievably large(r) anymore? In the article: "Three billion Android smartphones are estimated to be sold by the end of 2014 (including previous years). According to Gartner research company, Android-based devices outsold all contenders, every year since 2012. In 2013, it outsold Windows 2.8:1 or by 573 million. As of 2015, Android has the largest installed base of all operating systems; as of 2013, devices running it also sell more than Windows, iOS and Mac OS X devices combined." This had a citation (for combined, but 228 is also a good one) when I put it in.., somehow got lost in reorganizations..
Source 11, The New York Times: "Android is now not just the globe’s most popular smartphone operating system but the most popular operating system of any kind. More than a billion Android devices were sold in 2014, a c cording to the research firm Gartner. That’s about five times the number of Apple iOS devices sold, and about three times the number of Windows machines sold." WP article says only "Android shipped over four times more than iOS and OS X combined".
The "Three billion" estimated is of course, lower than all PCs ever made. Those, do not however constitute "installed base", most (only in 2007 two billion PCs had been made in decades, who keeps those..?) of them are in landfills (some but not most of Android are also..). Getting clear estimates of installed base is difficult (and people apply different metrics for when old ones are thrown out (justifiably, at least in the past) for Android vs. iOS (vs. PCs)..), at least a *one* source for PC vs. smartphone compared (but see next ref). I went over this previously (should be in talk-archives). I think the onus in now in on those thinking PCs more popular giving a source for close to three billion (PCs estimated 1.5 billion in December 2013 (look at the graph there - projected 2 billion in 2014). Even Microsoft says they have a 20% market share in a WP:PRIMARY-source (from memory, echoing Goldman Sachs below). Android is more popular in embedded than FreeRTOS (the next-most popular (non-proprietary/non-commercial), by a survey I've provided and also more popular than proprietary VxWorks who say they are most popular commercial RTOS ("Deployed in over 1.5 billion devices").
What years (since 2012) of high market share (Android) and low market share (Windows) gives you is high installed base (Android): "The Goldman Sachs report considers traditional computers, tablets, and smartphones as all being computers, and takes a look at the market share of Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Back in Microsoft's glory days, in 2000, the report says, 97% of all computers ran a Microsoft operating system. By the end of 2012, the report says, Microsoft will have a 20% market share, trailing Google, whose Android operating operating system will have a 42% market share [..]
Goldman Sachs doesn't see Microsoft becoming the king of computers again for the foreseeable future. It projects that by 2016, Microsoft will have a 26% market share"comp.arch (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)