Talk:Android (mobile device platform)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Android (mobile device platform). Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
|
 |
Citation This page was cited by : Cox, John (2007-10-08). Why Google’s GPhone won’t kill Apple’s iPhone. Network World. “The GPhone project has ignited intense speculation on the Web. A search on Google’s own Web site turns up over 2.7 million references to “GPhone.” One of them is a Wikipedia entry, which sifts an array of news accounts for details and clues.” |
 Archives |
|
Contents |
[edit] Hardware
On what hardware does Android actually run? --Nate3000 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links
Seems like we're still having a problem with editors (mostly anonymous IPs) placing external links to things like forums and fan sites. As per #11 of links to be avoided:
- 11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET.
Also, sites requiring registration are to also be avoided:
- A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by talk)
I'm sure most of these edits are completely good faith edits and would suggest editors who want to add external links to read the policy first. I have the mindset of leaving external linking only in the references because it kind of verifies the link is a useful one. Thoughts? Roguegeek ( 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)217.83.153.110 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] gPhone?
I would like to say that google has said (on a video) that its not gPhone, its android. I just wanted to tell you guys about it, im not going to change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.35.77 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there's much question about that issue. In fact, I made sure to quotebox a direct quote from the Google CEO on the issue. Are you seeing something in the article that I'm not? Roguegeek (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the word "gphone" shouldnt be anywhere on this article
ok LightSpeed3 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
why exactly not? people have been referring to the google mobile effort as the 'gphone' for months now and the term has been used on numerous articles on the subject. regardless of where the term came from or it's accuracy, it should be mentioned. while the term is used twice in the article at this point in time, the issue surrounding the gphone term i've mentioned is completely passed over on. apologies for not sorting this myself, but i've things to do and it's much easier to state what seems to be the obvious to me than to fix the problem --MilkMiruku (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Statement too Limited
"Android is an open source mobile phone platform..." It's actually a full software stack, meaning it will be used for phones but that will not be its only use. I will eventually change it myself but then a lot more things will need to be changed as well. gameplace123 (talk) 10:18, 05 December 2007 (UTC)
most of the Android platform will be made available under the Apache v2 open-source license In the press release, Open Handset Alliance says: The entire platform will be made available under the [...] Apache [...] license in 2008. Same in the FAQ. Please specify what parts they won't release contrary to their announcement, and give sources.--87.162.54.100 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] awkward
I think that "an open source software phone operating system" sounds a bit too awkward. Could you give any suggestions for improving it? --Kushalt 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well if it is a phrase directly quoted, please don't take my above statement too seriously. --Kushalt 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The sentence comes as follows:
Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source software phone operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.[10]
First suggestion:
Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source phone operating system, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.[10]
--Kushalt 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Second suggestion:
Network World reported that Google’s phone was actually an open source operating system for use in cell phones, rather than a specific hardware device like the iPhone.[10]
--Kushalt 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Android platform availability
"When released in 2008, most of the Android platform will be made available under the Apache free-software and open-source license." Isn't it available already? ~RayLast «Talk!» 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] what good will the android be to me
hi all, although i understand technology, i have read about android , but i fail to understand how it will be good for people. what will it do to my mobile experience, i will still have an instrument, will still have to dial a nmber, will still use my ear to hear, still use my fingers to type the txt,
what will be different, plz excuse me if i have asked stupid questions
thanks kd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.47.200 (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the platform is hoped to bring some more competition and freedom to the mobile OS market.--Kozuch (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
could some one please explain it to me in a lay man terms thanks kd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.47.200 (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Its open nature will make it more accessible to developers and increase innovation. The idea is that this will bring some killer apps.--Kdingo (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "full-fledged operating system"
The section in question is:
It is not a full-fledged operating system, as it currently does not support the execution of native code.[2]
After reading the article, I found no mention of Android not being a "full-fledged operating system", a term I have never heard used in my ComSci education. I think what this person meant to say was this:
It does not allow the developers to write code that runs natively on phones, instead all user applications are executed by a specialized interpreter.
The OS must support execution of native code since many of the libraries must be optimized in order to function properly on a mobile phone. Also, drivers must be written in low-level code in order to control hardware. Many user-space programs, however, are written in interpreted Java (such as the dialer, UI, SMS, etc.). See the diagram of the Android Architecture [1] to get a better picture. From the diagram you can see that the drivers and libraries are either at the same level or lower than the Dalvik virtual machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokstad (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A few factual errors: what's the process?
There are a few factual errors on this page. As a Google employee, I'd correct them myself, but I'm not sure how Wikipedia policies apply to editing content about your own stuff. I'll point out the errors below, and maybe someone else can correct them. Or, if this is kosher for me to do, someone let me know and I'll do it.
- Second sentence is "It does not allow third-party developers to write native code, instead all user applications are executed by a specialized Java interpreter." While (currently) true, this strikes me as kind of irrelevant at this point in the article. It's mentioned adequately later, so it doesn't need this prominence. It's awkward enough to my eye that I suspect it was placed there by a native-code partisan, so I question its NPOV. I suggest that at the least it be rephrased to more neutrality, such as "It allows developers to write applications, primarily in the Java programming language, that run on an interpreter rather than native code."
- Last sentence, last paragraph, under "Google Acquires Android, Inc." The reference to Phoronix, OpenMoko, and the pre-launch rumors seems kind of spurious at this point, and lacks notability. I'm not sure what the standards are here, but it doesn't seem like a partial litany of pre-launch rumors is particularly useful, and to an incautious reader may be interpreted as fact. I suggest striking this sentence. Even if it remains, a discussion of pre-launch rumors does not seem like it belongs under that section heading.
- In the Patents section, it seems like the final example (re: GPay) could be brought in line as a bullet along with the others above it.
- Under "Development", second para: this also has NPOV issues by my reading. The first sentence (and tone of the overall para) is apparently based on a single op-ed piece. Criticism certainly does exist as cited, but I could also produce a list of pro-Android reviews, as well. Currently there's some selective citation here, which makes me question NPOV.
- Under Development, second para, final sentence: though reported, this is untrue. Snake is actually one of the sample applications included in the SDK. The sentence implies it was a third-party application, which is not the case.
- Under Development, the reference to the Android Developer Challenge could use a link to that site.
- Under Development, last 2 paras. These seem like they don't belong under that section header, since they are talking about hardware. I suggest a new section.
- Under Development: "In the Mobile World Congress in February 12, 2008, Google unveiled at least three Android operating system prototypes." This is untrue; several other members of the Alliance demonstrated hardware, but Google did not. Also this para and the one following it really ought to have a citation.
- Under Features: "slowly being released" was probably a harmless turn of phrase, but there's enough NPOV going on in the article to catch my eye anyway.
- Under Features: I don't see anything factually wrong in there, but the language is all over the map, and the section could stand to be cleaned up for an encylopedic tone. Also, this isn't a comprehensive feature list; not sure if it's intended to be.
- The Criticism section is kind of a mess, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a Google employee. :) Citations 30 - 33 appear to be blogs, meaning they are opinions. Technically they are identified as such, but again, there's some selective citation. I could also produce favorable blog entries, etc. Also, language like "another issue is" is presenting someone's opinion as fact, etc.
In a nutshell, I'm just comparing this article to, say, Symbian's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian) and finding that this article does not compare favorably. It looks to me like someone with a biased POV happened to be the first one to edit this, and it just hasn't received much attention since. I could edit it, but I hardly have a NPOV myself, so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.210.185 (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you on the subject of the first paragraph containing misplaced information. I only put that new sentence in there in order to correct the previously placed sentence, but I didn't take the time to consider if it was of enough importance to justify its position. Since I am not a Google employee, I will commit your proposed change for the first paragraph.
Pokstad (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I have marked this page as requiring a cleanup for the following reasons:
- Reads like a story
- Lots of quotes
- Lots of links
- Facts and neutraility are disputed
Dueynz (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
