Android's biggest asset is its open source nature and the dedicated developer community who prepare all those custom ROMS. That share of devices running ICS would be a lot less had it not been for custom roms
lol what is up with these dumb food nicknames such as ice cream cakes and jellybeans and vanillas and strawberries and cheese slices? Seriously, are we surrounded by a bunch of fat obese hungry developers? hehe. Seriously, why can't you just say, regular, or version 2, or 3rd revision? How hard can it be ? It's just mind boggling really... I'm sure someone will think, "Wait a minute... an edible phone? LOL I'm so witty ^_^
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]lol what is up with these dumb food nicknames such as ice cream cakes and jellybeans and vanillas and strawberries and cheese slices? Seriously, are we surrounded by a bunch of fat obese hungry developers? hehe. Seriously, why can't you just say, regular, or version 2, or 3rd revision? How hard can it be ? It's just mind boggling really... I'm sure someone will think, "Wait a minute... an edible phone? LOL I'm so witty ^_^[/citation]
Not witty at all, just a troll. If it hasn't occurred to you they do have version numbers, and most revisions of software and hardware have a codename associated with it. (i.e. Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer and such)
"But Android 2.3 still remains most popular version of Google's mobile platform."
I wouldn't say it's the "most popular" as it's the most common version for folks with slightly-older models to have been locked into. Carriers seem to have a vested interest in preventing older (and sometimes even then-current) models from remaining competative. I'd be interested to see how many phones are still running 2.3 simply because the carrier refuses to approve the next version for that particlar model. Heck, I remember my Fascinate taking FOREVER to get Froyo just because Verizon apparently had no real incentive to test and approve the upgrade. From the carrier's perspective, why would they give you the latest software for something you already own when they can force you to just renew your contract and buy a new device? It sucks, but it's reality (at least as far as my own experience).
@ jazz84. Blame it on the carriers. I'm looking at the Nexus 4 on a pay as you go Straight Talk service. $45 a month vs the $100 I was paying AT&T a few months ago. I've been happy. I hope more people give the big carriers the middle finger.
[citation][nom]aoneone[/nom]lol what is up with these dumb food nicknames such as ice cream cakes and jellybeans and vanillas and strawberries and cheese slices... I'm sure someone will think, "Wait a minute... an edible phone? LOL I'm so witty ^_^[/citation]
No, you aren't witty in the least. You are a trolling idiot. Either that or you are about 12 years old. Which is it? Like another poster said, just about every piece of major hardware (CPU, GPU) and every operating system has a nickname. For Microsoft, it's related to landmarks in and around the Seattle or Washington state area. Android selected types of sweets for theirs. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and sit down and drink a tall glass of shut up.
[citation][nom]zzz_b[/nom]I would not say "most popular". We are stuck with it because there is no update available for the devices, except rooting and doing it yourself![/citation]
Agreed 100%. The only reason my Fascinate got Gingerbread as soon as it did was because of the amazing devs behind CyanogenMod 7. Granted, the MTD implementation on the Fascinate can still be a bit buggy, but the level of support provided by independant developers vs. that provided by the carriers is mind-boggling.
The other problem is that some phones have updates, but you have to install it through your computer, it isn't over the air. Not many people are gonna be able to download the Android SDK and know how to update.
[citation][nom]Thomas Creel[/nom]Which version is the best ?[/citation]
Each one brings improvements, and not all phones support the latest; these are incremental releases as opposed to competing releases. If you're not rooting your phone, my advice would be to go with the most recent version available as an OTA update from your carrier, but only after doing some research to see how others with the same phone as you are faring. Again, speaking solely from my experience with the Fascinate (Verizon's hobbled Galaxy S SCH-i500), if I remember correctly, the initial OTA Froyo update had some issues that had to be fixed via a subsequent update. Unless you HAVE to be on the bleeding edge and are willing to deal with bugs, I always recommend waiting until the early adopters have had a chance to post feedback before updating your own gear.
I agree with the premise that the reason behind Gingerbread holding such a large portion of Android phones is due to the smartphone manufacturers who barely (if ever) offer the upgrade option.
But, lets face it, they operate within Capitalism - therefore the incentive to upgrade the OS is not really there especially if they can give you a newer phone that has the latest OS?
As for Jelly Bean - I find it a bit ludicrous that they say its not possible to run it on ARMv6.
It IS - with proper hardware acceleration no less - except in video because Qualcom conveniently never released OMX drivers for it (even though from a pure hardware point of view [technologically speaking] there's essentially no difference between ARMv7 and ARMv6 (except in the numbering - hardware capability though is there).
It's a good thing CyanogenMod was adapted for ICS and JB - I'm running JB on my almost 2 years old ZTE Blade.
Works just fine for the most part - and besides, I don't really use videos on it.
@deksman: EXACTLY. If the carriers felt they could get away with it, every phone sold would stay at the factory-installed OS (plus bloat, of course). We only get OTA OS upgrades because enough "average consumers" know to demand it. If the vocal majority of consumers didn't know any better, the carriers would never devote the resources necessary to test, bloat, deploy, and support "free" OS upgrades for existing hardware. That, or they'd try to figure out some way to implement a nominal (read: ludicrous) update fee.
What a joke. iOS hit 60% in a few weeks. Yet another reason why developers (myself included) gave up on the mess that is Android to code for iOS instead, despite Android having more market.
Don't blame the carriers either. Google should put their foot down and make carriers update within a certain time after a new version is out. Blaming carriers/OEM'S is just a cop out. Google has strict rules in place for members of the ZoHA (Open Handset Alliance) which makes Android far less "open " then all the people claiming its "open" think it is.