The manufacturer chooses to ignore it not Google. Google has done it's part in updating the OS, it's up to the manufacturer to make it workable for their device. Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something. Google told Samsung not to copy iOS and they still did it, Google told Samsung not to put Gingerbread on a tablet and Samsung still did it. How can Google prevent a manufacturer from making a device with outdated components that can only run Gingerbread?
Yes, Google has done its part to be carriers' slave while at the same time bragging about openness. Isn't Andy Rubin boasted on stage 2 years ago about the program to make all Android phones up-to-date and failed miserably. Sounds like he didn't get your memo that it's not Google's job.
Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm wondering if naming it differently had anything to do with it. Amazon doesn't mention Android but they also don't name the OS something else.
No. the reason is clear and state plainly by Android chief but you Google shill doesn't want to accept it. Just googled it. It's because Google doesn't want any Android forks. They can strong-armed Acer, but they can't strong-armed Amazon.
I'm guessing one is allowed to do whatever they want with it just not give it another name. Having a "open" OS doesn't mean that they have to bend over and "open" their butt cheeks.
Google shill. :rolleyes: They just can't accept the fact that Google is a hypocrite company we all know it is, can they?
"In recent months, Google has changed the way it calculates the distribution of Android versions. While the company acknowledges that many devices are still on Gingerbread, first released in 2010, it now publicizes proportions only related to the users that access its Google Play Store, meaning that many Android device users essentially go uncounted with regard to developers.
Classic. They didn't like the numbers so they only counted what they want to see. This discounts all of the Android phones only being used as feature/dumb phones.
If so they should only count activations that "access its Google Play Store". You know, phones activated and being used as smartphones.
This is akin to the way the US Government calculates the Unemployment Statistics -- they don't count people who've been unemployed for such a long time that they have stopped looking for a job...
The Government reports unemployment as 7.5% of the workforce (April 2013) -- when the actual percentage is more than double that...
You massage the numbers however you can to make yourself look better!
No. the reason is clear and state plainly by Android chief but you Google shill doesn't want to accept it. Just googled it. It's because Google doesn't want any Android forks. They can strong-armed Acer, but they can't strong-armed Amazon.
I didn't read that much into it. I was making a guess. I wasn't defending them, nor justifying it, big difference.
That's simply pathetic. Either it's open or closed. So they want to create a level of [I]uniqueness[/I] by tagging hardware as 'Android compatible':
[quote] [B]“Real” Android[/B] What are “real” Android devices. These are what Google would call “Android compatible” devices. These are Android devices that have passed a technical test, one Google hopes allows those who buy the devices to be assured that Android apps will run correctly.[/quote]
Google hopes what? That the 'apps run correctly'? Maybe instead of hoping they should be copying the procedures that Apple undertakes for it all to just work. But that will be difficult, without any member on their Board.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Google shill. :rolleyes: They just can't accept the fact that Google is a hypocrite company we all know it is, can they?
1) He's not a Google schill.
2) Are Schiller fans called schillers? That's confusing. Although I do like Schmidt fans being called schmidtheads.
3) I've yet to see a company that isn't hypocritical or dubious in some way. I think Apple is more honest than Google as they tend to be very clear about what they will discuss and leave very little to question, whereas Google is more likely to use terminology and make statements that arr more "open" to interpretation. In that case Google really is more "open".
I didn't read that much into it. I was making a guess. I wasn't defending them, nor justifying it, big difference.
OK then. I misunderstood. The fact that Google wasn't happy with Alibaba is because it's Android fork that didn't use Google services. From Andy Rubin's:
"So there's really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that's gone into that platform by the OHA.
So if you want to benefit from the Android ecosystem, then make the choice to be compatible. [It's] easy, free, and we'll even help you out. But if you don't want to be compatible, then don't expect help from OHA members that are all working to support and build a unified Android ecosystem."
You massage the numbers however you can to make yourself look better!
And MS has us covered here: in Excel, instead of changing the numbers you can simply drag the line in the graph and the numbers will change accordingly!
Those visual representations of their Android version names are just hideous. I imagine that Jobs would say that Google has no taste to think these were a good idea.
"In recent months, Google has changed the way it calculates the distribution of Android versions. While the company acknowledges that many devices are still on Gingerbread, first released in 2010, it now publicizes proportions only related to the users that access its Google Play Store, meaning that many Android device users essentially go uncounted with regard to developers.
Classic. They didn't like the numbers so they only counted what they want to see. This discounts all of the Android phones only being used as feature/dumb phones.
If so they should only count activations that "access its Google Play Store". You know, phones activated and being used as smartphones.
That sounds like those numbers using 4.x are therefore much lower than the number of activations suggest.
They have the power and position as per the OHA agreement. Hence why they didn't say anything to Amazon because they couldn't because Amazon isn't part of the OHA.
It really isn't complex nor nefarious.
Yes it is, because it limits choice and stifles competition.
It goes against everything Google (marketing) stands for.
"Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something."
Google commanded, Acer listened.
Well, perhaps there might be other readers who would like to be educated rather than choose to remain ignorant of the issues. My mistake was assuming you had any interest in knowing the difference. Had you bothered to read the articles I linked you might have found areas where we actually agree. You just have no idea why.
It's a good thing the most important thing in technology is to implement a half-assed, barely functional version of something instead of doing it right the first time
Like half-assed iPhone 1: a smart phone that was not smart enough to copy/paste.
Like half-assed iPhone 1: a smart phone that was not smart enough to copy/paste.
Or like half-assed Apple Maps.
And yet Android still hasn't implemented cut/copy/paste as well or as completely as Apple did back in 2009 on their first attempt.
Your argument is like saying Dropbox sucks because Apple had iDisk years prior and yet you'd be a fool to say that iDisk was as good or secure as Dropbox. Of course YOU would never say that because YOU hate Apple but that just shows your inability to be fair or reasonable.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The manufacturer chooses to ignore it not Google. Google has done it's part in updating the OS, it's up to the manufacturer to make it workable for their device. Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something. Google told Samsung not to copy iOS and they still did it, Google told Samsung not to put Gingerbread on a tablet and Samsung still did it. How can Google prevent a manufacturer from making a device with outdated components that can only run Gingerbread?
Yes, Google has done its part to be carriers' slave while at the same time bragging about openness. Isn't Andy Rubin boasted on stage 2 years ago about the program to make all Android phones up-to-date and failed miserably. Sounds like he didn't get your memo that it's not Google's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Interesting, thanks for the link. I'm wondering if naming it differently had anything to do with it. Amazon doesn't mention Android but they also don't name the OS something else.
No. the reason is clear and state plainly by Android chief but you Google shill doesn't want to accept it. Just googled it. It's because Google doesn't want any Android forks. They can strong-armed Acer, but they can't strong-armed Amazon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I'm guessing one is allowed to do whatever they want with it just not give it another name. Having a "open" OS doesn't mean that they have to bend over and "open" their butt cheeks.
Google shill. :rolleyes: They just can't accept the fact that Google is a hypocrite company we all know it is, can they?
This is akin to the way the US Government calculates the Unemployment Statistics -- they don't count people who've been unemployed for such a long time that they have stopped looking for a job...
The Government reports unemployment as 7.5% of the workforce (April 2013) -- when the actual percentage is more than double that...
You massage the numbers however you can to make yourself look better!
I didn't read that much into it. I was making a guess. I wasn't defending them, nor justifying it, big difference.
[quote]There's Android, and then there's "Google Android"
http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664[/quote]
That's simply pathetic. Either it's open or closed. So they want to create a level of [I]uniqueness[/I] by tagging hardware as 'Android compatible':
[quote]
[B]“Real” Android[/B]
What are “real” Android devices. These are what Google would call “Android compatible” devices. These are Android devices that have passed a technical test, one Google hopes allows those who buy the devices to be assured that Android apps will run correctly.[/quote]
Google hopes what? That the 'apps run correctly'? Maybe instead of hoping they should be copying the procedures that Apple undertakes for it all to just work. But that will be difficult, without any member on their Board.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
1) He's not a Google schill.
2) Are Schiller fans called schillers? That's confusing. Although I do like Schmidt fans being called schmidtheads.
3) I've yet to see a company that isn't hypocritical or dubious in some way. I think Apple is more honest than Google as they tend to be very clear about what they will discuss and leave very little to question, whereas Google is more likely to use terminology and make statements that arr more "open" to interpretation. In that case Google really is more "open".
Every company does hypocritical things. I'm nobody's shill but my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I didn't read that much into it. I was making a guess. I wasn't defending them, nor justifying it, big difference.
OK then. I misunderstood. The fact that Google wasn't happy with Alibaba is because it's Android fork that didn't use Google services. From Andy Rubin's:
"So there's really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that's gone into that platform by the OHA.
So if you want to benefit from the Android ecosystem, then make the choice to be compatible. [It's] easy, free, and we'll even help you out. But if you don't want to be compatible, then don't expect help from OHA members that are all working to support and build a unified Android ecosystem."
And MS has us covered here: in Excel, instead of changing the numbers you can simply drag the line in the graph and the numbers will change accordingly!
Chocolate Froyo? 💩
It's not closed and not fully open unless Google's rules are followed so, it's really ajar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitychecks
They have the power and position as per the OHA agreement. Hence why they didn't say anything to Amazon because they couldn't because Amazon isn't part of the OHA.
It really isn't complex nor nefarious.
Yes it is, because it limits choice and stifles competition.
It goes against everything Google (marketing) stands for.
But Acer is part of the OHA...
Doesn't sound like one has many choices, kinda like income taxes where one is voluntarily compliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Blah blah blah
Context:-
"Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something."
Google commanded, Acer listened.
It depends upon what the meaning of "on" is... Bill Clinton
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Blah blah blah
Context:-
"Google doesn't control the manufacturers, they don't listen even when Google tells them something."
Google commanded, Acer listened.
Well, perhaps there might be other readers who would like to be educated rather than choose to remain ignorant of the issues. My mistake was assuming you had any interest in knowing the difference. Had you bothered to read the articles I linked you might have found areas where we actually agree. You just have no idea why.
Lkrupp is right.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157594/editorial-apples-billions-are-building-an-empire-for-the-future/80#post_2329647
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's a good thing the most important thing in technology is to implement a half-assed, barely functional version of something instead of doing it right the first time
Like half-assed iPhone 1: a smart phone that was not smart enough to copy/paste.
Or like half-assed Apple Maps.
And yet Android still hasn't implemented cut/copy/paste as well or as completely as Apple did back in 2009 on their first attempt.
Your argument is like saying Dropbox sucks because Apple had iDisk years prior and yet you'd be a fool to say that iDisk was as good or secure as Dropbox. Of course YOU would never say that because YOU hate Apple but that just shows your inability to be fair or reasonable.