Related
Just read the news about these two getting the update that fixes the SMS bug but no mention of any other 2.2.x O/S'd phones getting it. Can't be far off surely?
http://phandroid.com/
I just want that SMS fix, I've seen two I9000Ms do it. I pinged Samsung Canada on Twitter, we'll see what their response is.
v.2.3 2012
v2.4 2022
v3.0 2050
maybe
My20 said:
v.2.3 2012
v2.4 2022
v3.0 2050
maybe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
maybe ayes maybe naws
My20 said:
v.2.3 2012
v2.4 2022
v3.0 2050
(American variant releases not guaranteed)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fixed that for you.
i somewhere read that we can expect 2.3 for SGS for the end for the first quarter of the year...but are you people using stock ROMS ? i think Darky's ROM is working on a multi-device able to detect and flash devices accordingly, shouldn't that fix your sms problems ?
ps: i have the i9000, but what is "the sms problem", i don't think i have it..
Everybody bug samsung to skip 2.3 and prep for 3.0.
With carriers charging 15-20¢/SMS and having a free replacement (google voice, google talk, emails)
I really couldn't care less about SMS. I should even remove the SMS app from my phone.
Why do y'all want honeycomb (3.0), it's for tablet, not SmartPhones :|
t1mman said:
Why do y'all want honeycomb (3.0), it's for tablet, not SmartPhones :|
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's for both.
t1mman said:
Why do y'all want honeycomb (3.0), it's for tablet, not SmartPhones :|
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So wrong, it hurts.
rumor
the rumor is here :
i like the way they say
"site called SamFirmwares – one we’ve never heard of before."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they better all listen to these site ! i wonder how these big companies would react to
all the amazing roms out there !
JCopernicus said:
So wrong, it hurts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is it? Then prove me wrong...
From google:
Honeycomb is the next version of the Android platform, designed from the ground up for devices with larger screen sizes, particularly tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/01/sneak-peak-of-android-30-honeycomb.html
That's the reason Google is naming "honeycomb" 3.0, and later Tablet optimisez releases will be 3.x where smartphone will stay on 2.x
Before saying crap at one another, do some research...
t1mman said:
Is it? Then prove me wrong...
From google:
http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/01/sneak-peak-of-android-30-honeycomb.html
That's the reason Google is naming "honeycomb" 3.0, and later Tablet optimisez releases will be 3.x where smartphone will stay on 2.x
Before saying crap at one another, do some research...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's literally hurting my brain that you think that. Check back after 3.0 line is cut and put up on AOSP, you'll see all the honeycomb roms(for phones) floating around.
JCopernicus said:
It's literally hurting my brain that you think that. Check back after 3.0 line is cut and put up on AOSP, you'll see all the honeycomb roms(for phones) floating around.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can get rom floating around of about anything, doesn't mean it's made for it... You can even get a whole Linux distrubution working on SGS, still it's not "official" or optimised...
Still, nothing will be official and Honeycomb is still optimised for Tablet. I don't know why your "brain hurts", but when google sais their thing is optimised for something, since they made the thing, you'd better beleive them!
hell, you can put a Corvette engine in a Civic, still it's not meant or optimised for.
t1mman said:
You can get rom floating around of about anything, doesn't mean it's made for it... You can even get a whole Linux distrubution working on SGS, still it's not "official" or optimised...
Still, nothing will be official and Honeycomb is still optimised for Tablet. I don't know why your "brain hurts", but when google sais their thing is optimised for something, since they made the thing, you'd better beleive them!
hell, you can put a Corvette engine in a Civic, still it's not meant or optimised for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-3.0-highlights.html
Honeycomb adds "tablet" (ie big screen) specific support. It's not an independent branch, feature sets will trickle down accordingly to phones, they will both be 3.0.
P.S. A rom built from AOSP is as official as you can get in regards to Android.
JCopernicus said:
http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-3.0-highlights.html
Honeycomb adds "tablet" (ie big screen) specific support. It's not an independent branch, feature sets will trickle down accordingly to phones, they will both be 3.0.
P.S. A rom built from AOSP is as official as you can get in regards to Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't read title can't you?
"New UI designed from the ground up for tablets"
The reason it's (honeycomb) taking another number (3.0) instead of following the same (2.x) is because it's for tablets...
as far as AOSP vs. Official, their's a huge difference between official source code (from google) vs official rom (from samsung).
I can't tell the future, but I can most certainly say that Kies would offer 2.4 hell before 3.0 for our devices (which are smartphones, not tablet).
t1mman said:
You can't read title can't you?
"New UI designed from the ground up for tablets"
The reason it's (honeycomb) taking another number (3.0) instead of following the same (2.x) is because it's for tablets...
as far as AOSP vs. Official, their's a huge difference between official source code (from google) vs official rom (from samsung).
I can't tell the future, but I can most certainly say that Kies would offer 2.4 hell before 3.0 for our devices (which are smartphones, not tablet).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The large screen views (which never existed) are built from the "ground up" because, guess what? They never existed in the first place.
The reason it's taking 3.0 is because it's a huge jump in feature set, and qualifies as a version realease and not just a point release.
If a device has a certain feature it can access certain API from the android OS. If a device doesn't, then it can't. It's that simple.
"tablets" have the big screen feature and they can access the nested view API's. You don't know how android works. there is ONE line, which sits at 2.3.2, and it's device independent.
Just like the Nexus S can access the NFC api's because it has an NFC chip.
AOSP is the code that google/samsung/moto/acer/etc pull from, and build more on top.
Cyanogen roms are on par and equivalent(better actually) as google's roms, you can't get more "official" than AOSP. MFG roms are actually less true to AOSP as they are modified. You probably won't see 3.0 on the current galaxy line at all, but that has nothing to do whether it works on there or not.
Chill out dude! Take a deep breath....
This is getting nowhere, running in circle...
I'm pretty sure we won't see Honeycomb as a release by the makers (Samsungs, Motorola, LG, HTC, name em) on any smartphone. Don't know why this is such a big deal for you and what you don't get on the whole deal but if you want,
You can bookmark this thread and if you see an official honecomb as an official release by samsung or LG or HTC or google on a Smartphone, revive it from the archives and rub it on my face, I'll gladly take the fall...
Chill out? I think I'm just typing normally on a keyboard? Maybe I'm smashing keys, and don't recognize it?
You don't understand how android works if you think it won't appear on phones, we're not going around in circles. You're just wrong.
http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-confirms-incredible-s-ship-froyo-will-get-update-24-soon-after
I wonder what this means for our over due upgrade.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
were we ever even 100% confirmed to get 2.3 on the evo from google/sprint?
I think the only upgrade they ever officially promised was froyo but for how often we were getting upgrades it seems odd we've been so long without one. Especially with evos still on back order some places.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
xHausx said:
I think the only upgrade they ever officially promised was froyo but for how often we were getting upgrades it seems odd we've been so long without one. Especially with evos still on back order some places.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i don't think the evo will get gingerbread at all tbh. well except ports from the devs. face it guys, the phone is going on a year old shortly.
fixxxer2008 said:
i don't think the evo will get gingerbread at all tbh. well except ports from the devs. face it guys, the phone is going on a year old shortly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
funny.. .the people over on mac rumors complain like hell that their two year old phone cant run the newest software.
aimbdd said:
funny.. .the people over on mac rumors complain like hell that their two year old phone cant run the newest software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
never said the evo could not run it, i said i doubt we will get it officially.
It's almost a year old but there must be a lot of demand for it still if some places are having trouble keeping them in stock. HTC is known for supporting their phones and right now it's still the best one sprint has imo
And honestly, for all ever trash done topic users talk, I would love to be able to rub it in their faces that we are 2 or 3 builds ahead of them lol
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
fixxxer2008 said:
never said the evo could not run it, i said i doubt we will get it officially.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha no i wasnt making fun of that, meh never mind haha
Come to work at 7...
DarkManX4lf said:
Come to work at 7...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what are you talking about?
xHausx said:
It's almost a year old but there must be a lot of demand for it still if some places are having trouble keeping them in stock. HTC is known for supporting their phones and right now it's still the best one sprint has imo
And honestly, for all ever trash done topic users talk, I would love to be able to rub it in their faces that we are 2 or 3 builds ahead of them lol
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is why I have mixed emotions about Htc' s underwhelming offerings at MWC. As long as the Evo is top dog at Sprint, we should see regular updates.
Guys, do read the second part of the article: "will get 2.4 soon after". 2.4 is Gingerbread. If you've been following MWC 2011, you might remember that 2.4 is just HTC's own numbering for their own spin on Gingerbread with additional coding from their side. For all intents and purposes, it is Gingerbread.
To put it in further context, remember that HTC has been using the 2.4 along with the title 'Gingerbread' throughout MWC, and in fact touted their entire MWC line-up (save the Incredible S) as having '2.4 Gingerbread', when we all know there there has not been any Android 2.4 release, nor even any indication that Ice Cream Sandwich is close at hand.
So yes, the Incredible S will get Gingerbread, just not at launch. In fact, the article and source both say that the Gingerbread upgrade will follow after shipping.
Also, for your own reference, the primary source which this topic on a topic on a topic was based upon: http://twitter.com/htc/status/37504723019894784
On a side note, however, I do wonder about the implications of HTC's move on the future numbering of Android releases. Assuming that HTC has received Google's blessing to do this, does it imply that Ice Cream Sandwich will not even be a 2.x release at all, but 3.x (3.1?)? After all, given what Schmidt said about the next 'I' version of Android being device-agnostic and an upgrade to both Gingerbread and Honeycomb, this seems likely.
Madrenergic said:
Guys, do read the second part of the article: "will get 2.4 soon after". 2.4 is Gingerbread. If you've been following MWC 2011, you might remember that 2.4 is just HTC's own numbering for their own spin on Gingerbread with additional coding from their side. For all intents and purposes, it is Gingerbread.
To put it in further context, remember that HTC has been using the 2.4 along with the title 'Gingerbread' throughout MWC, and in fact touted their entire MWC line-up (save the Incredible S) as having '2.4 Gingerbread', when we all know there there has not been any Android 2.4 release, nor even any indication that Ice Cream Sandwich is close at hand.
So yes, the Incredible S will get Gingerbread, just not at launch. In fact, the article and source both say that the Gingerbread upgrade will follow after shipping.
Also, for your own reference, the primary source which this topic on a topic on a topic was based upon: http://twitter.com/htc/status/37504723019894784
On a side note, however, I do wonder about the implications of HTC's move on the future numbering of Android releases. Assuming that HTC has received Google's blessing to do this, does it imply that Ice Cream Sandwich will not even be a 2.x release at all, but 3.x (3.1?)? After all, given what Schmidt said about the next 'I' version of Android being device-agnostic and an upgrade to both Gingerbread and Honeycomb, this seems likely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's been a lot of confusion about what 2.4 will be called but I'm pretty sure Google announced at MWC it would called Ice Cream (or Ice Cream Sandwich). HTC on the other hand has been sending mixed messages so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
xHausx said:
There's been a lot of confusion about what 2.4 will be called but I'm pretty sure Google announced at MWC it would called Ice Cream (or Ice Cream Sandwich). HTC on the other hand has been sending mixed messages so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but here's Eric Schmidt's exact words from his MWC 2011 keynote:
We have an OS called Gingerbread for phones, we have an OS being previewed now for tablets called Honeycomb. The two of them. You can imagine the follow up will start with an I, be named after dessert, and will combine these two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nowhere does he mention that the next iteration will be 2.4 (or even specifically Ice Cream Sandwich, for that matter), but I haven't actually checked Google's other press releases, so I can't be sure on that either. When you think about it, if Google has actually already announced the next version as '2.4 Ice Cream Sandwich', why should Schmidt beat around the bush about its number and name?
Anyway, I've been doing some additional research, and one of the things that has been wracking my brains is that other manufacturers also seem to advertise the OS of their upcoming phones as "2.4 Gingerbread", so this suggests it can't simply be a HTC-only phenomenon.
For that matter, there seems to be a 'leak' from ViewSonic that claims 2.4 is actually an official update of Gingerbread from Google that adds support for dual-core processors and apps to ensure that apps are compatible across Honeycomb and Gingerbread devices (and not just HTC's spin on 2.3). Makes more sense now, doesn't it?
In addition to that. The same source also says that Ice Cream Sandwich will likely be 3.1, rather than 2.x. So no, Ice Cream Sandwich will not likely be 2.4.
Source: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/38311/android-2-4-april-release-date
ya, I read his quote after I wrote that so who know. He would make a good politician for how vague he is. I just hope HTC hurries up and either gives those of us with older devices an update to something or leaks a sense ROM with something newer than Froyo. We went from getting updates once a month to nothing for three now.
They did the same thing with us as far as releasing the Evo with 2.1 and we had 2.2 within a month or two so hopefully it won't be too long.
Funny that you said that, because HTC has recently announced that the entire Desire line-up will get 2.3 Gingerbread in Q2. Given that the EVO was released later the Desire, and the fact that it's really just a 4G version of the DHD, it would probably get a Gingerbread update too.
And here's another update, and it's certainly a confusing one: HTC now says that what it originally called 2.4 Gingerbread is really just 2.3.3. But if that was the case, what about all the other manufacturers who said they were running 2.4 Gingerbread? Are they going to come out and say that they're actually just running 2.3.3 too?
Source: http://www.fudzilla.com/mobiles/item/21915-new-gingerbread-is-233
Also, this could hint that 2.4 might be Ice Cream Sandwich, but until the above is clarified, nothing is certain. Boy, am I confused.
Speak of the devil!
HTC Incredible S port for HTC EVO 4G
Perhaps this could tide you over in the meantime?
Madrenergic said:
Speak of the devil!
HTC Incredible S port for HTC EVO 4G
Perhaps this could tide you over in the meantime?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still Froyo, rest assured I've been keeping an eye on Sniper's blog for that GB/IC/whatever RUU to show up though.
xHausx said:
HTC is known for supporting their phones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess the Hero was an exception Canada sucks get all the good phones last (well I personally blame Telus since they are lazy asses because Bell got the Desire Z quite fast) and our 3 year contracts suck big time...
I think 2.4 is Gingerbread just for dual-core and "universal" app support (Honeycomb to Ginger and vice versa) as stated above, and I read it some where also.
MentalDeath said:
I guess the Hero was an exception Canada sucks get all the good phones last (well I personally blame Telus since they are lazy asses because Bell got the Desire Z quite fast) and our 3 year contracts suck big time...
I think 2.4 is Gingerbread just for dual-core and "universal" app support (Honeycomb to Ginger and vice versa) as stated above, and I read it some where also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm just happy we don't have contracts (or can choose not to have I should say) ... Sure contracts allow for cheaper phones but I'm sure in the end you'll pay more then the initial full price of the phone, at least that is the case here.
As for getting the the latest and greatest phones last ... We can have that here too, like the iPhone or something like the HP PALM Pre or whatever.
Anyway, going off topic here ... sorry Didn't want to hijack the thread.
I'm sure there will be an update to this phone, what it will be remains to be seen, HTC has some great phones, but in the communication department they are missing some radio-roms I'm thinking
check out the article in businessweek.com/technology/ regarding honeycomb source (sorry, not enough posts to add links to my thread)
looks like we're waiting awhile for a full-scale port of HC
Wow... what a load of crap. I am giving you the biggest middle finger i can right now Google......
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2011/tc20110324_269784.htm
well this just blows!
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA Premium App
This actually kind of makes sense. By not releasing the code, Google can control what kinds of devices actually run Honeycomb. Look at how many extremely crappy Froyo tablets there are out there from hole in the wall manufacturers. The hardware is crap. Performance is crap. The reliability is crap. It makes Android look horrible. If Honeycombs source got released today, you'd see crappy $100 tablets in Wal-greens running Honeycomb. They would suck huge monkey balls and make Honeycomb look horrible. People would buy the $100 iPad alternative, find that it was a POS, return it and never buy an Android device again.
I wish they would have released it though and done something else. Like maybe not allow any maker to use the "Android" name in advertising unless it met their requirements? Similar to what they do with the "With Google" on the back of phones.
Heck they could take it a step further and only allow phone manufacturers to produce pure Google Experience phones instead of wrapping it up with their own skin.
And this is why Richard Stallman is always, always, always right.
yeah this blows, a lot. Engadget has a good article too.
This is not going to help Android gain more market share. The money hats are sure working on Google.
cadium said:
I wish they would have released it though and done something else. Like maybe not allow any maker to use the "Android" name in advertising unless it met their requirements? Similar to what they do with the "With Google" on the back of phones.
Heck they could take it a step further and only allow phone manufacturers to produce pure Google Experience phones instead of wrapping it up with their own skin.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How can you have open source, but still tell OEMS what they can and can't do?
A. Nonymous said:
How can you have open source, but still tell OEMS what they can and can't do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By doing exactly what he said in his post. Not allow them to use the android name. Also, don't allow them access to the market and other google apps. They can't force OEMS to do anything, but they can give them incentives. I think them restricting the android name to google experience devices would be excellent. Ubunutu is based on Debian Linux, but you don't see them calling it Debian anywhere. In fact, if you didn't look it up, you would have no idea that Ubuntu even had anything to do with Debian. It's very similar, but it's been modified and is therefore no longer called Debian, just like sense, motoblur, touch-wiz and others should not be called android.
They already do that though. The $100 tablet you can buy at Walgreens doesn't have the Google name on it. Doesn't have the market or google apps. Still makes Android look bad. Besides, not giving them the Android name would be great for OEMs. They would drop it all together, call it HTC Sense OS or MotoBlur OS or whatever and the consumers would then be extremely confused.
I was upset about this at first, but it makes perfect sense. Like people have said, it makes Android look like crap. IMHO, Honeycomb is an embarrassment as far as polish when it comes to iOS. Get me right, I'm an Android fan through and through, but lacking polish and stability can really hurt Android right now. I'm sure we'll get the source eventually while it's still relevant. Remember, the first commercial device running that software is barley a month old...
I see a final SDK Honeycomb build in our future.
i assume we will never see a 3.0 aosp at all. it isnt meant for phones and i think google initally wanted to branch off but decided against that. and from seeing our development they have realized that >3.0 is bad for tablets and 3.0 is bad for phones. they know we will try to do it anyway and just discover that the other half (phones or tablets depending on version) is very inadequate so they plan on making ice cream the version of android that works on both
still sad that they wont even let us try to get it working, hell the preview release is running pretty well already, this " we decide what is good for you " stance is worrying from an open source os
By "indefinitely" I understand the exact release date is not definite. Thats all. Android >>>>>>>> iOS
Pretty terrible news. Really puts a mark on future android releases for the community. Really sad even if there are business reasons for it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. They're either open source or not. They can't try to have it both ways.
xdabr said:
And this is why Richard Stallman is always, always, always right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep. I can't tell you how many times I've rolled my eyes at something he's said and considered it to be extreme but it's true.
They are probably just working on making it stable...
Remember, google is the forerunner for open source.
chrome(based off chomrium open source)
chome os( based off chomrium open source)
android(obviously linux)
Definitely disappointing. Would love to see my Nook Color running Honeycomb AOSP.
I don't buy their reasoning. I don't see why anyone would go rushing to put Honeycomb on a phone??? If anything it's all these cheap tablets running pre 3.0 that is making Android look bad.
This is pathetic!!!! So much for it being "Open Source"!!!
It's probably full of stolen code or something.
veeeee said:
Definitely disappointing. Would love to see my Nook Color running Honeycomb AOSP.
I don't buy their reasoning. I don't see why anyone would go rushing to put Honeycomb on a phone??? If anything it's all these cheap tablets running pre 3.0 that is making Android look bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the point. Google is trying to avoid cheap tablets running Honeycomb. Let's be completely honest here. In terms of polish, iOS is a better OS than Honeycomb. That's to be expected given that Honeycomb is a first-gen tablet OS. Google is pushing it as it's answer to iOS though. They don't want it plastered on crappy ass tablets that barely run and definitely don't want it on phones that won't run it well at all. It would make Honeycomb look awful even though it's a very nice OS if it's run on a device that can actually run it.
Ice cream sandwich to release next week?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20...xt-week/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
CNET said:
Google is expected to serve up Ice Cream Sandwich--the newest version of Android--on Tuesday at the Samsung Unpacked event in San Diego.
That revelation comes courtesy of the official Android Developers YouTube channel, which earlier today posted a placeholder video titled "Android ICS launch." The site now says, "This live event is no longer available. Sorry about that." Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said last month that the next flavor of the company's mobile operating system would debut sometime in October or November.
Samsung is also expected to use the event to unveil a new Android phone, perhaps the Nexus Prime, which would likely be the first Ice Cream Sandwich phone. Samsung has posted a teaser video that includes the words "Something big is coming"--perhaps an indication of the phone's screen size.
Ice Cream Sandwich is Google's first attempt to create one single unified mobile OS, taking Honeycomb features and interfaces and adapting them to run across both smartphones and tablets. ICS developers will get new open-source APIs and a framework that will help them optimize their apps to run on a variety of different Android phones and tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hoping to see this on my nook soon
Sent from my NookColor using xda premium
Hopefully we get a full source release soon after.
---------------------------------
Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk
If this post helped you don't forget to say thanks!
Doesn't Google usually release to one manufacturer first and then to everyone else some 6 months later? I recall that has been a concern of phone manufacturers since Google announced they wanted to buy Motorola, ie; Motorola might then exclusively get the 6 month jump. Usually Google would rotate manufacturers.
The question now is, which will come first: CM7.1 stable, or CM8?
CM8 FTW!!!!!!!!
CANCELLED!
Just saw the announcement from Samsung
I don't think we will see any ICS code anytime soon.
Personally, I think, first, they introduced the ICS (which just got delayed) then waiting for certain period of time (who know how many months) before release the source codes.
I think it's good to call CM8.
votinh said:
I don't think we will see any ICS code anytime soon.
Personally, I think, first, they introduced the ICS (which just got delayed) then waiting for certain period of time (who know how many months) before release the source codes.
I think it's good to call CM8.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I'm strongly disagreeing with this statement, with the exception of Honeycomb, Google pushes its source code to the repo's within hours or at the most a couple of days after it launches. With all the leaks lately, I wouldn't be surprised to see ICS leaked pretty soon. If it doesnt though, I'm sure we'll have source within 2-3 weeks tops.
RileyGrant said:
No, I'm strongly disagreeing with this statement, with the exception of Honeycomb, Google pushes its source code to the repo's within hours or at the most a couple of days after it launches. With all the leaks lately, I wouldn't be surprised to see ICS leaked pretty soon. If it doesnt though, I'm sure we'll have source within 2-3 weeks tops.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See my post above. Google usually gives one manufacturer a jump on the rest and rotates. "hours" is not really much of a jump unless they are going to change their release habits.
patruns said:
See my post above. Google usually gives one manufacturer a jump on the rest and rotates. "hours" is not really much of a jump unless they are going to change their release habits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I read that post, but that's not the case. They don't do that with the software, just the phones. For instance, the Nexus S came out on T-Mobile, then eventually Sprint, etc. When the new software is released/launched however, they push it directly to their "AOSP" (Android Open Source Project) repositories, and from there, developers have open access to the source code. Technically, since Android is licensed under the Apache Open Source license, if they are to call it "Open Source" they must post the source code within a certain time limit (which is only a couple of weeks) or else it violates the license.
Well I'm pretty excited to see some ICS efforts. New OSs are fun. I'm particularly interested in trying out the newest stock web browser.
RileyGrant said:
Yeah, I read that post, but that's not the case. They don't do that with the software, just the phones. For instance, the Nexus S came out on T-Mobile, then eventually Sprint, etc. When the new software is released/launched however, they push it directly to their "AOSP" (Android Open Source Project) repositories, and from there, developers have open access to the source code. Technically, since Android is licensed under the Apache Open Source license, if they are to call it "Open Source" they must post the source code within a certain time limit (which is only a couple of weeks) or else it violates the license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know they promised then delayed then ignored then decided not to release the Honeycomb source code, right?
There is no such a "must" from them.
But anyway, if you're correct, which I and the rest of us also wish, then it's great. I want to see them release ICS code ASAP, 3 weeks like you said is reasonable and if 3 days or even 3 hours then it's more than expect.
We all hope for the CM8, should we?
votinh said:
You know they promised then delayed then ignored then decided not to release the Honeycomb source code, right?
There is no such a "must" from them.
But anyway, if you're correct, which I and the rest of us also wish, then it's great. I want to see them release ICS code ASAP, 3 weeks like you said is reasonable and if 3 days or even 3 hours then it's more than expect.
We all hope for the CM8, should we?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They released what was required by the license for honeycomb but Google has confirmed that ICS will be an open source release.
---------------------------------
Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk
If this post helped you don't forget to say thanks!
votinh said:
You know they promised then delayed then ignored then decided not to release the Honeycomb source code, right?
There is no such a "must" from them.
But anyway, if you're correct, which I and the rest of us also wish, then it's great. I want to see them release ICS code ASAP, 3 weeks like you said is reasonable and if 3 days or even 3 hours then it's more than expect.
We all hope for the CM8, should we?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reason I heard is that Honeycomb was a quick throw together for a tablet OS.
Not really an excuse, but considering they've been working on ICS for quite a while now, I think it'll be in the repos pretty quickly.
RileyGrant said:
Yeah, I read that post, but that's not the case. They don't do that with the software, just the phones. For instance, the Nexus S came out on T-Mobile, then eventually Sprint, etc. When the new software is released/launched however, they push it directly to their "AOSP" (Android Open Source Project) repositories, and from there, developers have open access to the source code. Technically, since Android is licensed under the Apache Open Source license, if they are to call it "Open Source" they must post the source code within a certain time limit (which is only a couple of weeks) or else it violates the license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will agree to disagree But I do hope I am wrong!
Alright, let's hope that they do what they should have been doing.
Dalingrin said the HP Touchpad will get ICS and maybe the Nook Color.
patruns said:
I will agree to disagree But I do hope I am wrong!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya thats fine, a previous comment mentioned that they didnt have to release code such as what they did for honeycomb, however, they did release the required source for honeycomb but did not push the framework and what not because it was being saved for what we now know is ICS.
RileyGrant said:
Ya thats fine, a previous comment mentioned that they didnt have to release code such as what they did for honeycomb, however, they did release the required source for honeycomb but did not push the framework and what not because it was being saved for what we now know is ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think one of the main reasons for Google not releasing the source code was because they didn't want people to run it on phones, being a tablet OS.
Dalingrin said the HP Touchpad will get ICS and maybe the Nook Color.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When did he say that? That makes it sound that the touchpad will definitely get ICS and the nook color may get it.
I have a cousin who works with B&N, and he says that they are rushing to get the 3.0 kernel on the NC to accompany their locked-down skin. He says that there are some incompatabiliies, but that they have made progress. What are your thoughts? Is he crazy? Are we ever going to get a proper ICS OTA?
If B&N drops 3.0 kernel source for the Nook Color, the devs here will be quite happy because the current old kernel is the major impediment to ICS on Nook Color.
You sure they aren't doing this just for the Nook Tablet?
3.x is honey comb, not ICS. They'll prolly skip that all-together.
gallahad2000 said:
3.x is honey comb, not ICS. They'll prolly skip that all-together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Talking about the linux kernel.
It makes little sense to me for them to update the core Android OS and Linux kernel if their reader, custom apps, and the apps in their store work fine with Froyo. But if they're going to keep selling the NC as the budget media tablet model for a while longer then a more up-to-date Android version makes sense in avoiding any possible compatibility issues down the road that could prevent them from seamlessly bringing the latest and best versions of Android apps across to the B&N market. Their separate B&N market wouldn't be very sustainable or a good selling feature if they had to only offer older versions and/or ask developers to add backporting compatability fixes for a two year old version of Android. Then again, that's just a lot of speculating on my part
I don't have hope for that, in fact, I doubt it.
They just released v.1.4.1 and it still is Froyo, I don't think they implement ICS for NC.
I could actually see them doing this just so that it will be easier for devs to convert their already tablet friendly ICS apps for the BN market.
---------------------------------
Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk
I would think they would like to keep the operating environment the same across units (if possible). This will cause less customer confusion/dissatisfaction and fewer support issues. Apple IOS is a good example of this IMO.
gmanvbva said:
I would think they would like to keep the operating environment the same across units (if possible). This will cause less customer confusion/dissatisfaction and fewer support issues. Apple IOS is a good example of this IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apple allows old devices to upgrade to newer iOS versions (my gf's 3g is running iOS 5). They just cripple the features they don't want those devices to have (siri, folders, etc). Apple's relative lack of issues comes from controlling the hardware (no powerVR, tegra, qualcomm incompatibilities, short driver list), OS (no carrier or manufacturer modifications) and app store (too many bugs and your app is gone).
I doubt B&N would drop the full functionality of ICS on their customers (especially when they've fenced them in from froyo). ICS would open the door to tablet-centric apps which would help them compete with Amazon. It will most definitely come to the Tablet but I wouldn't expect it to come to the Color (since they need to differentiate the models to justify the price difference).
Would be great if they did release it, but lets face the truth, its unlikely.
If you guys want ICS your best bet is buying dalingrin and / or fattire a beer.
Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk
MrColdbird said:
Would be great if they did release it, but lets face the truth, its unlikely.
If you guys want ICS your best bet is buying dalingrin and / or fattire a beer.
Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe true, but if this works it would certainly give dalingrin and fattire some help with the issues they're having, not to mention speed up the entire process.
Limvot said:
Maybe true, but if this works it would certainly give dalingrin and fattire some help with the issues they're having, not to mention speed up the entire process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If what works? I'd love to have official ICS on my NC, but as others have said, they're still using a fluffy coating on Froyo. No GB and no HC means ICS is highly unlikely.
Now what would be very nice would be an updated kernel, as well as some direct contact with B&N techs about drivers for the chipset and other hardware. But I find that to be unlikely.
The newer Nook Tablet is based on Gingerbread, isn't it? Perhaps they're working on this first and foremost to crank out a third future device that supports APIs from ICS such as fragments. The updated code would then trickle down to Nook Tablet and possibly eventually NC.
Sent from my Nook Color!
zombieflanders said:
If what works? I'd love to have official ICS on my NC, but as others have said, they're still using a fluffy coating on Froyo. No GB and no HC means ICS is highly unlikely.
Now what would be very nice would be an updated kernel, as well as some direct contact with B&N techs about drivers for the chipset and other hardware. But I find that to be unlikely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No HC doesn't mean anything as it was not open source... This is not completely unthinkable. Remember the NC was on 2.1 before the 1.2 release where they upped it to 2.2.
Sent from space
votinh said:
I don't have hope for that, in fact, I doubt it.
They just released v.1.4.1 and it still is Froyo, I don't think they implement ICS for NC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course, 1.4.1 came out just before ICS source was released, so maybe B&N figured they do a quick patch of the existing ROM, rather than go through all the work to do a rebuild on GB and then to ICS...
any news/rumors about this?
speedfreak007 said:
any news/rumors about this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Other than slow but steady progress on the CM9 build (and no new releases for now), no.
traumadog said:
Of course, 1.4.1 came out just before ICS source was released, so maybe B&N figured they do a quick patch of the existing ROM, rather than go through all the work to do a rebuild on GB and then to ICS...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have more faith in the B&N corporate staff than I do, but your optimism may be warranted, given that the NT doesn't seem to be totally ignored by the press in the same way the NC was.
zombieflanders said:
... You have more faith in the B&N corporate staff than I do, but your optimism may be warranted, given that the NT doesn't seem to be totally ignored by the press in the same way the NC was.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder how much other integration B&N is looking for with other content providers to match what Amazon is doing. I would think upgrading to ICS would make some business sense, in that with a fresher underlying OS, you might be able to keep app developers in the fold working on the NT.
cmstlist said:
The newer Nook Tablet is based on Gingerbread, isn't it? Perhaps they're working on this first and foremost to crank out a third future device that supports APIs from ICS such as fragments. The updated code would then trickle down to Nook Tablet and possibly eventually NC.
Sent from my Nook Color!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I understand... The new Nook Tablet has a locked bootloader, more or less precluding it from easy rom replacement.
Though, perhaps I have been misinformed.
Yoinx said:
From what I understand... The new Nook Tablet has a locked bootloader, more or less precluding it from easy rom replacement.
Though, perhaps I have been misinformed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Difficult if not impossible for 3rd parties providing roms but not for B&N. They have the security keys allowing them to provide whatever rom they choose within the hardware limits.