Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases the SDK For Version 1.6 of Android

Posted by timothy on from the equivalent-to-which-nexus-model? dept.

Qwavel writes "This release includes improvements to the Android Market, the Search Framework, and Text-to-Speech. It now has support for more screen resolutions and CDMA phones. Android 1.6 is based on v2.6.29 of the Linux kernel and is expected in phones that will be available next month. The mystery of Android 1.6, however, is Google's continued unwillingness to commit to a Bluetooth API and any Bluetooth functionality beyond the basic audio functions."

18 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Grr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want real Bluetooth :(

  2. Why the hate towards bt? by toopok4k3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google doesn't seem to like bluetooth. But why? I don't see them making a new solution for short range wireless communications.

    1. Re:Why the hate towards bt? by cdgeorge · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no hate, just a matter of time. From http://source.android.com/projects/bluetooth-faq: "Q. When will Java Bluetooth API's be released in an SDK? A. We are not ready to announce a release target for Bluetooth API's. We do understand there is demand for a Bluetooth API, and it is a top priority for the Android Bluetooth team."

    2. Re:Why the hate towards bt? by Qwavel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure that Google could have finalized their Bluetooth API by now if they wanted to.

      The scary thing is the idea that Google might be considering going the same route as Apple: a proprietary Bluetooth protocol that they can license and control, rather then supporting the Bluetooth standards. That wouldn't be like Google, but it is otherwise hard to understand their hesitation.

    3. Re:Why the hate towards bt? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2

      The scary thing is the idea that Google might be considering going the same route as Apple: a proprietary Bluetooth protocol that they can license and control...

      That's the first I've heard of any such thing. A quick Google search seems to indicate iPhones work with regular bluetooth, offering a moderate selection of services. I know iPods communicate with a proprietary protocol over wi-fi when talking to Nike shoes of all things, but I've never heard of proprietary bluetooth being used. Do you have a link?

    4. Re:Why the hate towards bt? by Qwavel · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you want to create a peripheral or software that works with the Bluetooth of the iPhone or the iPod (excepting the basic audio peripherals) you have to apply for Apple's "Made for iPod Licensing" program.
      http://developer.apple.com/ipod/apply.html

      If you need a Bluetooth chipset supporting the Apple protocols you can buy them from CSR.
      http://www.embeddedstar.com/weblog/2009/07/28/csr-ipod-touch/

      If Apple can achieve the sort of dominance in the consumer smartphone market that they have achieved with their iPods then this will pay off very well for them. They will make money from licensing and other companies phones won't be able to communicate with iPhones/iPods.

      On the other hand, whether they are successful or not, this is bad for their users. This being /. I probably don't have to explain why standards are good.

      At this time, if you want to e.g. sell a Bluetooth garage door opener for smartphones (yes, this really exists) you could support it on RIM, Nokia, MS, and even some LG and Samsung phones. I hope that Android phones join this camp.

      I'm interested to see some of the things that people will do with Bluetooth now that the quality of the hardware and software support is getting good enough (it wasn't good enough on a lot of the older phones). It would be sad if the lure of proprietary were to curtail the potential of Bluetooth.

    5. Re:Why the hate towards bt? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

      All of which don't add "revolutionary" features, but only things that should have been in 1.0. Its almost as bad as the iPhone OS releases, but at least Android is free.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:Why the hate towards bt? by cerberusss · · Score: 2

      That's the first I've heard of any such thing. A quick Google search seems to indicate iPhones work with regular bluetooth, offering a moderate selection of services.

      I wouldn't call it a 'moderate selection', the iPhone support for BlueTooth is quite limited. It supports wireless earpieces and headphones, but stereo audio was only recently added in the 3.0 update.
       
      The audio support is not complete, because only a couple of devices seem to work, and then the play/pause/volume buttons will not work. I'm speaking from experience; I recently bought a beautiful Sony-Ericsson bluetooth headset only to find out that the iPhone cannot change the volume (always has it running full-volume).

      The iPhone does not support the OBEX file transfer protocol. You can't connect to your PC and cannot exchange files, business cards, or photos with other phones over BlueTooth. Keyboard usage over BlueTooth (which Nokias can do) is also out of the question.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  3. Why is it? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that Android (and other cell phones) seem to have some obvious feature left out that developers are unwilling to fix? And usually they aren't "this will take years of R&D and some genius to realize we left it out" but blindingly obvious features. Why isn't Android embracing Bluetooth? I can think of a lot of good reasons for it, for one would be P2P networks for gaming, file sharing, etc. Or perhaps a feature that would let you use text messages and MMS over Bluetooth rather than using the cell network. If there was a phone with the openness of Android/WebOS, the polish of the iPhone, the large amount of networks like the BlackBerry, all in one phone it would sell like crazy. Instead they leave out important features and make phones that are decent, but not great.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Why is it? by pvcf · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why is it? Possibly... WiFi.

      Many higher end smartphones already support WiFi. Bluetooth is still great for connecting user interface devices like headsets/mics etc. But for the other things you mention, WiFi is better.

      One of the posts above quotes from the Android development team saying they understand there is demand for Bluetooth. Perhaps it is simply they feel there are more pressing priorities right now.

      Could also be that their product manager feels that support for Bluetooth peripherals is all that is needed and the rest will be handled by WiFi.

      --
      F U NE X N M? Son: "Dad... How do you spell 'hourly'?" Dad: "0 * * * *"
    2. Re:Why is it? by double07 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If there was a phone with the openness of Android/WebOS, the polish of the iPhone, the large amount of networks like the BlackBerry, all in one phone it would sell like crazy.

      You may be interested in this: http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/

  4. Already using 1.6 more or less. by w0mprat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yet Android 2.0 is going to be the worthwhile update. It is expected to include multi-touch. Its irrating how slow development on the official Android source seems to be, it would have been nice to see this stuff 6 months to a year ago. Never fear, the community has taken matters in to their own hands. Modded ROMs such as Cyanogenmod http://www.cyanogenmod.com/ already incorporate the latest code far ahead of any ROM official releases from OEMs.

    If your on a edgy modded ROM your likely using 1.6 (Cupcake) and some 2.0 (Donut) code.

    (The latest experiemental Cyanogen ROM includes BFS (!) my first taste of the new scheduler on any system all I can say is the speed is mind boggling).

    Delightfully, there is a glut of android phones on the way from various OEMs which should see the market grow and the code improve. Not that Android needs improving, in a year of having a G1 it never needed a hard reset, even with shitty crashing applications. I can't say as much for my iPhone.

    Multitouch is coming to Android, now that Google is no longer affraid of Apple.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  5. I'd rather have an N900 by levell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Android (and Palm's new WebOS) phones seem fairly cool but I'd rather use a phone that had more of the normal Linux userland. The FreeRunner still has lots of very rough edges but the new Nokia N900 with Maemo 5 looks really mouth-watering

    .

    --
    Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
    1. Re:I'd rather have an N900 by guest235 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well... see http://wiki.maemo.org/Why_the_closed_packages . not nearly all of n900 userland is opensource :-(. Nokia seems to make packages closed by default, and only opensources when they see benefit _for them_...

    2. Re:I'd rather have an N900 by RedK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Linux is more than a kernel ? There's a lot of userland stuff that is missing from Android.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    3. Re:I'd rather have an N900 by BusterB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, the Native Development Kit (NDK) lets you build native code. There is a regular C/Unix environment underneath. If you look at a project like the Android Scripting Environment, they've managed to make Python, Ruby and Lua work on the phone, packaged as an .apk and not requiring root access. http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/

      You can compile pretty much anything for the phone, without needing root/Debian, though its not always as simple as 'apt-get install', for sure.

  6. Re:No Calendar-app, no SyncML by kidblast · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not only BT is missing. There's no calendar-app, and still no SyncML. Why? Even the Siemens S55 I bought in 2003 had a really pleasing set of Bluetooth-profiles, had SyncML, a calendar and J2ME... In my book, these are default, but required features. (ok, J2ME not so, since there's an alternative)

    Google calendar was available on the G1 by default.

  7. There are at least a couple of ways by BusterB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One way is to use the Native Development Kit, which lets you run regular C code on the phone. Here's a post explaining how to bind to bluez: http://blog.blackwhale.at/2009/08/android-bluetooth-on-steroids-with-the-ndk-and-bluez/

    The other way is to use the existing android bluetooth API: http://code.google.com/p/android-bluetooth/

    What that developer has done is use java reflection to wrap the existing (just not documented) android.bluetooth class API. I've been using it to communicate with an OBD-II adapter with some success (thought the dynamic port discovery API doesn't work entirely.)

    For tethering, Wifi Tether works pretty well, since it doesn't even require the laptop to support bluetooth. It makes your phone a portable ad-hoc access point. Does require root access, for which there are some one-click solutions out there.