Seems like the most notable part of this release will be the emoji upgrade :-P Rustaceans will appreciate the crab
The crab is a must.
Android Oreo
51–60 of 658 posts
Re: Android Oreo
#52Re: Android Oreo
#53A lot of people complaining about using a brand name here -- isn't Kitkat (the 'K' release) also trademarked?
That was a cross promotion, this probably is as well. Google is an ad company.
Re: Android Oreo
#54"Coming to a device near you"
Yeah, but not on my device. I didn't even get Android 7 :)
Re: Android Oreo
#55Why on earth did they go with a restricted trademark, Oreo? Oreo must have payed a good sum of money I suppose? Coming up with the legalese on how and where Google is allowed to use the Oreo trademark seems difficult.
Does INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC have a trademark for Oreo in the "computer and scientific" or telecommunications categories? If not, then there is no trademark issue. Google isn't selling a food, it's selling an operating system.
Are they really selling an OS? It's free right? They sell something else with android but can't figure out what...
Re: Android Oreo
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or even if just gets the chip manufacturers out of the equation, that alone fixes most of the problems. The OEM side is usually pretty easy / trivial in comparison. And there are a number of OEMs who would happily push updates but can't, because they can't get hardware packages from Qualcomm / Amlogic / Freescale / etc. That, more than anything else, holds back new Android releases on lots of hardware.
Supposedly the carriers are real pains as well. I've heard horror stories of months-long approvals processes on Verizon and AT&T ROMs. It's a game I wish they'd get out of entirely. There's no such thing as a useful carrier overlay.
Honestly, even after years of following Android, I still don't understand what the carriers even do to the ROMs. It's not like it needs special proprietary software tweaks just to connect to an ordinary GSM band. And it's also not like I get any kind of visual voicemail, WiFi calling, etc baked directly into the system either. Those carrier features are usually still separate apps, anyway.
Honestly, what are they doing, and why does it take them multiple months to do it?
Re: Android Oreo
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supposedly the carriers are real pains as well. I've heard horror stories of months-long approvals processes on Verizon and AT&T ROMs. It's a game I wish they'd get out of entirely. There's no such thing as a useful carrier overlay.
> I've heard horror stories of months-long approvals processes on Verizon and AT&T ROMs. Six months and counting, waiting for Verizon to approve the Nougat update on my HTC One M9. It has literally hit everyone else: [0] http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/12/09/unlocked-htc-one-m9-... [1] http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/02/23/android-7-0-nougat-o... [2] http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/03/21/t-mobile-variant-htc...…
Verizon is the Comcast of wireless. The next omen of the apocalypse will be when the Trump administration approves their merger.
Re: Android Oreo
#58"new emoji" is an OS-level feature now. Welcome to 2017.
> "new emoji" is an OS-level feature now.
System fonts have been an OS-level feature since the advent of OS with bundled GUI. Support of a larger part of the Unicode space in system fonts has been an OS-level feature since Unicode. New emoji has been a visible aspect of that, especially on mobile, for quite some time.
Re: Android Oreo
#59Why on earth did they go with a restricted trademark, Oreo? Oreo must have payed a good sum of money I suppose? Coming up with the legalese on how and where Google is allowed to use the Oreo trademark seems difficult.
Does INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC have a trademark for Oreo in the "computer and scientific" or telecommunications categories? If not, then there is no trademark issue. Google isn't selling a food, it's selling an operating system.
Only they're marketing it with oreo cookie mascot, look at all the material. I highly doubt you can just do that.
It's the same with kit kat, they probably couldn't just use that, either.
But it's a win-win for both parties, I doubt either of them paid.
Re: Android Oreo
#60Am I the only one who's really disappointed by the platform's shift in its stance on background execution? I was originally drawn to Android because it wasn't iOS. I wanted to develop on a platform where I could run a service in the background if the user wanted that. Apps that were bad stewards of battery life and phone resources were supposed to be scrutinized by users and removed if they were too poor. You can be a good steward, it's just harder especially when your monolithic app is an uninformed port of some legacy iOS code.
By issuing a hard restriction on background usage Google has brilliantly improved battery life for the masses while condonig the same lazy architectural patterns of the past, locked people into Firebase Cloud Messaging--a Google service not part of the AOSP, and potentially stunted Android adoption in domains outside of mobile. It's the turning of an era for Android, and my interests have moved elsewhere (from an app platform perspective, embedded Android is still vialble since everything you ship runs as a system app with no restrictions).