Talk:Android Nougat

Final name to be revealed??

Traditionally, web sites have predicted the name "Nutella". However, I learned today that the name will have an a as its second letter, and Nutella has a u; so this can't be right. Georgia guy (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this the proper place to be throwing down guesses? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This is currently a useful post because I'm sure some user will make this article say "Android Nutella" sometime between now and when the software is out. We must include, if possible, information related to the statement that it's now known that the second letter is going to be an a. Georgia guy (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Without a good reference it is just a guess and inappropriate. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why it's good to watch out for someone who puts in this article that the final name will be "Android Nutella". Georgia guy (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to this section, it is just garbage. Please delete. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest report is that it is being called New York Cheesecake internally. [1] Pmsyyz (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

DP2 announced

http://developer.android.com/preview/support.html Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Version number?

Version number of Android N? 6.1, 6.5 or 7.0? 139.195.29.213 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It is supposes to be 7.0 as all the Android marshmallow system files are 6._

174.118.156.47 (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Release status

There's been some edit warring about the code's current status. I have to agree with the guy saying it's a Developer Preview. Despite it being accessible via Android's Beta Program and them saying the latest release was somehow more usable than the previous ones, Google refers to the current status of Android N as a Developer Preview. Source --uKER (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the edit warring and I don't claim to know the answer but here is a reference that seems to counter the above reference: https://developer.android.com/preview/support.html Quote:

This Developer Preview release is for app developers and other early adopters...

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What does that counter again? Your link also calls it a Developer Preview. --uKER (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What does status mean? It does not mean a name that google calls it. Beta status is a well understood status. Also if status is meant to convey intended audience then for "... other early adopters..." means more than developers. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As you say, Beta is a known status, and Google haven't said it's Beta, so anything besides saying it's a Developer Preview is your interpretation. --uKER (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are references for google saying it is beta status:

https://developer.android.com/preview/overview.html Quote: Preview 3 (incremental update, beta)

http://www.slashgear.com/google-lets-loose-beta-quality-android-n-preview-19440709/

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/the-third-android-n-preview-is-here-and-it-should-be-stable-enough-to-use/

https://developer.android.com/preview/support.html

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Shocker. You post 4 links. Two of them aren't from Google, so what's the point? Out of the two from android.com, one just mentions the Android Beta Program, and only the last one casually describes Preview 3 as a beta. Note that they're still calling it Preview 3 and not Beta 1. Weird, huh? --uKER (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see how people can be confused between the name of the program and the quality status of a release. All references that discuss quality clearly state that the latest release is beta and not alpha. Google on their overview page clearly states that the first two releases where of alpha quality and the third release is of beta quality. There are third party references which wikipedia often prefers. See wp:source for more info. Daniel.Cardenas (talk)

Having a related discussion here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_OS&action=submit#support_status_-.3E_release_status   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel.Cardenas: Hi. Why have you inserted a link that opens the editor for Template talk:Infobox OS? Do you want us to see something in the editor?

That said, |support_status= must contain texts describing the software maintenance strategy of the developer. Neither "Pre-release beta" nor "Developer Preview" are support strategies. (They are part of the software release life cycle.) So, whatever the result of this discussion, please exclude it from the wrong place in the infobox. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Promoting post-N versions of Android

I reverted a recent edit of this article that promotes the existence of post-N versions of Android, but my revert was reverted. Do you think it's okay to promote post-N versions while N still isn't out?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think articles should be about their subject. The subject of this article is Android N. The graf in question is about post-N versions. It therefore doesn't belong here. Articles on products don't talk about next year's models, right? There is also violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL: Even if there's an article where this belongs (the general article on Android, perhaps), the most we can say now is that someone has claimed or stated this; we can't say in Wikipedia's voice that it will happen, not until it's happened. "Promotion" is not the issue to me. Jeh (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you guys read the reference? It is about Android-N, not about Android-O. Also the text is not talking about future version. There is no crystal ball. I'm really surprised people don't read the text or the reference before reverting. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Lacking citation for claim regarding switch to OpenJDK

The second part of this sentence

"Google promoted that the shift was part of an effort to create a "common code base" between Java on Android and other platforms and allow use of popular Java 8 features in code,[2][17] but it was actually to address then-ongoing litigation with Oracle surrounding its use of copyrighted Java APIs as part of the Android platform (OpenJDK is expressly licensed under the GNU General Public License)."

namely

"but it was actually to address then-ongoing litigation with Oracle surrounding its use of copyrighted Java APIs as part of the Android platform (OpenJDK is expressly licensed under the GNU General Public License)."

is lacking a citation to support this claim. Neither [2] or [17] seem to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohanTibell (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It came from VentureBeat article. I changed it to "but it was speculated[17] to be motivated by" to appease unsupported attributions as it flows into the court ruling sentence, but those two sentences could be just as well removed altogether as far as I'm concerned. xlynx (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the two sentences, as there is already the dedicated article Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., and I don't believe legal speculation is a good fit for the "Platform" section, which is generally expected to be technical and matter-of-fact. xlynx (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Creating an article for Android O

What is the first event that is needed before we can create an article for Android O (even at the draft namespace)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

To meet notability guidelines would probably require that Google say something about it. Otherwise other articles about it could just be called conjecture. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There have been lots of recent news articles on Android O. Any thoughts yet on whether it's time to create an article in the draft namespace?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The best time is probably after Google I/O 2017, as that's usually when Google announces a new major version of Android. Calvin Hogg (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, check out Draft:Android Oreo. If you don't like this name, feel free to move to Draft:Android O, which is a re-direct without any history, but please don't rate it as if it were in the article namespace. Georgia guy (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

supported / unsupported processors

The section is not looking very encyclopedic. I regret creating it. Perhaps delete everything without a reference? Or just delete the section entirely? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think this section should be reined in. One line would be sufficient to cover it, if at all, but definitely not two paragraphs of meaningless unsourced model numbers. – Steel 18:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this Talk section! It's good to have a conversation around it! I agree with Steel, the paragraphs of model numbers is unsourced and even if correct, doesn't have any major encyclopedic value. I'd argue that mentioning Qualcomm's lack of updates is relevant, but I still really question the sources we have on that, neither of which come from published articles, but an anonymous Twitter user and an informal post by a moderator on Google+. My honest opinion is deleting the section itself, as we do not have credible, verifiable sources, but if people disagree with me, I'd also be okay with removing the list of processors and keeping the information on Qualcomm and Sony. LocalNet (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Will probably try to add this unless someone else adds it first: No Android 7.0 Nougat for Xperia Z3, Sony explains why   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I see the section was deleted. I probably won't try to add it then. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well okay, now we're talking better sources. I think that article works as a credible source. I suggest creating a section with information from that article. I will most likely try to write the section today when I have time, unless somebody else has the opportunity to before me. LocalNet (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! As a quick note in regards to the back-and-forth reverts of edits made now, I just want to explain that the articles I cited when I created the section explain the 800/801 chipsets update situation. We need additional sources to confirm other unsupported chipsets. And when it comes to supported chipsets, that's not relevant to the section as it covers the issue and controversy related to the unsupported models. Thank you for trying to help out, it's very appreciated! But we need sources and we need to stick to relevancy :) LocalNet (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Here you have other unsupported processors: [[2]].--193.33.125.242 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the Talk page. While the current, long list of processors and devices looks very weird and unorganized, you are at least able to link to the Vulkan article. I honestly don't care enough about that section to edit it to make the list look nicer, but at least for now I will end my participation in this reverting process and thank you for your contribution! LocalNet (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Now it look better.--193.33.125.242 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Android 7.1.1

Hi. We have three sources, including a Google press release, to support December 5 release. The other source isn't an announcement and doesn't have enough information to stand on its own against three specific sources. LocalNet (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Mass changes

Hi @ViperSnake151: I appreciate you making changes to the page, but you just made massive changes in the matter of three edits. Many of your changes aren't properly explained, and I'm tempted to revert you for WP:BRD, but I thought I'd hear your reasoning first. First of all, I agree that individual device updates is too much detail, but why is Unicode 9.0 support "too much detail"? Second, what's the deal about changing "publisher" to "work"? Genuinely wanting to know. Third, why is Android Police not a good source? Fourth, is "division of Verizon Communications" important? LocalNet (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The emoji thing is already mentioned earlier. Additionally, the disclosure is a matter of WP:NPOV, as the company is now owned by a wireless carrier itself, and may indicate a potential bias in coverage. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, your reply just confused me even further. I understood the emoji thing, but you lost me after "Additionally". What exact bias are we implicating by not posting "division of Verizon Communications"? We're not discussing wireless connectivity (unless I'm missing something). But you still didn't answer me about changing "publisher" to "work" and why Android Police isn't a reputable source? LocalNet (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Android Police is a blog. Does it qualify under WP:IRS? Also, work is the semantically correct field under WP:CS1; it also applies italics automatically, so you don't have to go |publisher=''Ars Technica''. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info on that. Ars Technica shouldn't have been the publisher anyway, that's Conde Nast. But regarding Android Police, your link states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - Android Police is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's not the opinion of one person, it has a whole team. What about it isn't a reliable source? And what's the differences between that and, let's say, Engadget? LocalNet (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Do the writers have credentials? This site also frequently reports on rumours and speculation (particularly those from leaks and data obtained by disassembling Google APK files). ViperSnake151  Talk  16:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Visiting the profile of a random writer, it says "Jacob is a PhD student of communication and technology writer". Doesn't that qualify? Also, The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the iPhone switching ports, which are rumors. Reputable sources aren't required to stick to 100% facts 100% of the time, they write what people want to read. Also, why was the disclosure of Verizon Communications important? Like I said, we aren't discussing wireless connectivity in this article. LocalNet (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Separate section for release

Hi everybody! Is it necessary to have a separate Release section for that information? Couldn't the info just be moved into the History section, since almost all of it concerns history? In fact, the first sentence is the same as the one in the History section, so that can even be removed if we move it? I just think it would make the article appear more streamlined to have that information in the History section, instead of dividing up the content into two separate locations. LocalNet (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow! I had COMPLETELY forgotten I even wrote this. Haha, awkward. Issue still stands, though, and there hasn't been any objections, so I will go ahead and make the edit. :) LocalNet (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Developer settings: Logger buffer sizes

Last week, I found a feature called logger buffer sizes. What does it do? Ajax-x86 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)