Google Releases Android 4.1 Source Code

Unlike previous releases, where months passed between Google announcing a new version and the code being released, Google has made good on their promise to release the source code to Jelly Bean in record time. Unfortunately, the gitweb instance on kernel.org is still down so you'll have to download the entire thing to take a peek. Hopefully the Cyanogenmod team will find time to start on a community enhanced version soon.

Comments

Number one thing i want from Cyanogen

[Daetrin]

Is an option to add back the settings/menu button. I like having the settings always in a known and easy to reach place rather than depending on the app author to place it someplace convenient. And i wouldn't mind having the search button back either. Really the bottom button bar ought to be much more configurable than it is.

Re:Number one thing i want from Cyanogen

[AbRASiON]

MOD THIS GUY TO THE 'N TOP.
TO.THE.TOP!

I've been ranting about this for months, it's difficult to put into words my thoughts on this without sounding like a raving lunatic or a badly broken record.
I am _sick_ of companies making stupid decisions with their user interfaces.

Why on EARTH would we want a nice, consistent location for a button to now become a random location on the screen? and what makes them think three odd little dots represents 'settings' or 'menu' clearly? WHAT?

I do not exaggerate when I say one of the PRIMARY reasons I switched from Apple to Android was the complete and utter logic of having nice, consistent buttons for routine functions. Back, menu, home seem logical to me. I also NEVER, EVER use the multi-task button, why would I? The OS handles it all perfectly for me, when I hit home it minimises the application (so to speak) and when I re-open the application, it's where I wanted it. Furthermore, holding down the home key (Samsung) seems logical to multi-tasking to me, not a dedicated button.

I am extremely, extremely baffled and pissed off at this completely and utterly idiotic move and it's also one of the primary reasons I got the Galaxy S3, possibly one of the last Android phones with a logical button scheme.
Sadly, I'm only one person whining about this but by god does the Google engineering group who decided on this change need a mighty fucking slap with the logic bat.

Re:Number one thing i want from Cyanogen

[TheInternetGuy]

It's essentially ALL the options and customization you didn't realize you needed, but once you've got it, you'll never go back to vanilla.

But will my camera work?

Re:Samsung Galaxy S III

[Mr0bvious]

Before Samsung? I'd say certainly. I'm still waiting for ICS on my Galaxy Tab 10.1 and JB is already out. I wouldn't be overly surprised if Cyanogenmod supported JB for the Galaxy Tab before Samsung roll out ICS.

I know there are rumours of ICS being released for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 over July/August but I'm not holding my breath until I have it.

But really Samsung why are you playing games with releasing ICS for us? I like your products, but your lack of willingness to provide timely updates makes me question if I will buy from you again. /rant

Google support of third party mods

[toejam13]

I am actually surprised that Google does not have a dedicated development team working in co-operation with an independent mod group such as Cyanogenmod.

It is fairly clear that one of the greatest problems with Android is with version fragmentation. Mobile carriers have been very sluggish or outright hostile regarding major firmware upgrades on their handsets. It would be preferable for Google to ensure that carriers are contractually obligated to support OS upgrades for at least four or five years. But until that happens, throwing resources at the issue through a back door would be a nice thing.

Re:Google support of third party mods

[Andy Dodd]

Wrong. It's pretty clear that the carriers are the major blocker for updates.

For example, the Samsung Infuse 4G was originally released with Android 2.2. Canadian devices on Rogers received Gingerbread (Android 2.3) in late July/early August 2011. AT&T devices did not see Gingerbread until February 2012.

The Samsung Captivate was nearly identical to the original Samsung Galaxy S. The similarities were enough that community developers were able to have the I9000 Gingerbread release fully functional within weeks of Gingerbread for the I9000 becoming available. The Captivate did not receive an official upgrade through AT&T for NINE MONTHS.

The AT&T variant of the Samsung Galaxy S II (SGH-I777) is nearly identical to the international version (GT-I9100). As a result, there are only a handful of software differences required between the two handsets:
1) Change the digital I/O settings for the audio chip to a different sample rate - this was included in the GT-I9100 source code release
2) Change the keymap for the touchkeys - This was also included in the GT-I9100 source code release
3) Unmap the GPIO line for the HOME key which doesn't exist on the device - This was missing from the GT-I9100 source code release, but took less than a week to identify and fix
4) Swap the audio channels for the noise cancelling and main microphones - This took me a single Saturday to reverse engineer and fix

Despite these minor changes, the AT&T ICS release was delayed for more than three months, and was of worse quality than some of the early I9100 ICS leak builds. In addition to poor battery performance, frequent crashes, and other bugs not present in the initial I9100 ICS release, the SGH-I777 official release contains a severe bug that can permanently damage the device's eMMC storage if the user performs a factory reset.

If carriers didn't get in the way, the SGH-I777 would not exist - users would have received the GT-I9100 and would have received a high-quality ICS build in mid-March instead of an awful hackjob in late June.

Re:No kidding

[Jethro]

That's why I always buy Nexus phones. Unlocked. Costs more but I keep 'em going for a few years.

Re:Samsung Galaxy S III

[Mr0bvious]

Yes that's why I referred to them 'playing games'.

But it may not work in their favour, instead of me buying a new device from them I'm actually less likely to every buy their devices.

What's more (and supports your assertion) is their current replacement offering (Galaxy Tab 2 10.1) has little to offer over the previous version other than the OS version - so there's no way I'm forking out for a new device just for an OS upgrade. Yes there are other differences, but not enough to warrant another purchase.