Google's Gingerbread Man Has Arrived

Daetrin writes "Last weekend Google received the next statue in the sweets-themed series that commemorates the major updates of the Android OS. In the past this has meant that the release of the next SDK was right around the corner. However this time there's some doubt as to what the version number will actually be. Many sites (including Slashdot) have assumed that 'Gingerbread' was synonymous with '3.0,' but now there's some evidence that everyone may have jumped the gun and the next version will actually be 2.3."

Comments

2.3 == 3

[Compaqt]

It's the new math, previously put forth by Sun when they started calling Java 1.2 "Java 2".

Not to mention version jumps from SunOS to Solaris:

After Solaris 2.6, Sun dropped the "2." from the number, so Solaris 7 incorporates SunOS 5.7, and the latest release SunOS 5.10 forms the core of Solaris 10.

Re:2.3 == 3

[hansamurai]

Winamp skipped version 4 because they said what became version 5 was the best of both versions 2 and 3 (2+3=5).

And of course the general disconnect between Java versions of what the consumer sees and what the developer works with. Java 1.5 to the developer, Java 5 to the end user, etc.

2.3

[surgen]

I hope its 2.3. Many of the 1.x handsets never got a 2.0 upgrade, but 2.x handsets seem to have decent offerings for upgrades in the 2.x version. I don't want to see handsets that could otherwise support Gingerbread have support dropped for them just because the marketing plan says to stop supporting certain handset when the next major version come down the pipeline.

Yes, yes, there's always rooting the device and custom firmware but that's not an option for every one (be it technical limitation or user limitation)

Android development is moving too fast

[erroneus]

I sincerely hope that they maintain backward compatibility and things of that nature. Already there is a division between 1.5 (and older) and 1.6 (and newer). I would hate to see another division after that.

There has already been much said about the scattering of various (usually carrier-driven) modifications to the OS that cause compatibility problems with apps in that an app on one model/make of phone will not work with another where the OS version is the same. (That's a big deal) I think it is important that this sort of consistency problem get resolved. I am sure wireless phone carriers have no problem with users not being able to run apps that were not purchased through them. But the market will very quickly become larger than mobile phones and consistency issues need to be resolved before that happens.

Re:And this is important because?

[Errol backfiring]

By approximately 0.7

Seriously though, companies are sometimes fooled by the looks of the numbers. 3.0 sounds like a whole new shiny redesign, while 2.3 does not.

Re:And this is important because?

[DragonWriter]

I may be missing something, but what does it matter if it's 3.0, 2.3, named strawberry pie, or whatever?

I believe Google said that tablets should wait for 3.0 (not any particular codename). If Gingerbread isn't 3.0, that means that there is at least one more significant release than people expected between now and the time Google thinks Android is tablet-ready. This probably matters to some people.

Re:says the gingerbread man to apple

[No. 24601]

Heh, still waiting for OTA updates from T-mobile for my wife's Android 1.6 myTouch 3G. They've been promising it "just next month" since February :P

Tell me if I'm wrong, but what incentive do the carriers have to provide OTA updates after a customer has purchased a phone and data plan? I think the answer is: very little and probably not at all. I myself would like to believe that customer satisfaction would be a good reason, but I think it's the just a matter of.. once they have your money and updates are not specifically scheduled in the contract then tough luck.