Slashdot Mirror


Android O Is Now Officially Android Oreo (theverge.com)

Android O is now officially going by the name of Android Oreo. The operating system is available today via Google's Android Open Source Project. OTA rollout is expected to arrive first to Pixel and Nexus devices, with builds currently in carrier testing. The Verge reports: The use of an existing brand makes sense for Google here -- there aren't a ton of good "O" dessert foods out there, and Oreos are pretty much as universally beloved as a cookie can be. There's also precedent for the partnership, as Google had previously teamed up with Nestle and Hershey's to call Android 4.4 KitKat.

132 comments

  1. Gimme a Break by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, sorry - wrong product placement.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Gimme a Break by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry - wrong product placement.

      I was thinking more about the 70's TV Oreo commercial that the proper way to eat it, was to "unscrew it".

      Could this be a hint to "root it"? Unscrew == root . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Gimme a Break by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Oh a kid'll eat the middle of an Oreo first,
      and save the chocolate cookie outside, for last!

      (yes, I'm old)

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Gimme a Break by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      go ahead and fiddle with the Oreo middle...
      'cause there's not a better middle you can fiddle... with.

      (worthless cruft taking space in my brain, thanks to 1000's of my most precious hours wasted watching commercial television... and yes, I'll pay you twenty-five bucks if you mow my lawn.)

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  2. Did they license the name? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Because they did with KitKat:
    https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/google-strikes-bizarre-licensing-deal-with-nestle-to-name-next-android-kit-kat/

    1. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they're idiots. There's going to be an enormous lawsuit, everyone's phone will be wiped, and they will lose billions.

    2. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would presume so

    3. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Oracle hasn't killed Android for using Java then I doubt anyone can touch Google.

    4. Re:Did they license the name? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Loads of muppets on Hacker News asking the same question... as if Google would launch a whole new OS and accidentally choose the name of a popular snack, and not sort out the commercials (advertising, payment etc).

    5. Re:Did they license the name? by BigFire · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Google is paying Nabisco for use of the Oreo name just like they paid for the right to use KitKat from Nestlé.

    6. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because they did with KitKat..."
      You bring up a subtle point... but then gain Subtlety is not Android's strong suit.
      They should have named it Hydrox; after all, the Oreo was a blatant copy of the original, and still lesser known Hydrox cookie. This is playing into the belief that Android is just copying, again. But now the really important point:
      "Hydrox" is up for grabs. It was an abandoned Brand by Kellogg's. Leaf Brands picked it up for making their Cookies and Kellogg's had no (Public) objection. "Hydrox" has been used elsewhere since. "Hydrox" itself is simply a contraction of "Hydroxyl Group", the OH part of H2O, and a case can be made that it should never have been allowed to be Trademarked in the first place.
      So Google could have used a recognized name without obtaining a license. But there is one reason why they may have chosen not to do so:
      From the beginning, and this goes back to that Chemistry bit earlier, in creating a water-based alternative for Cookies instead of the traditional Lard, Hydrox Cookies were always Kosher.

    7. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they did with KitKat: https://techcrunch.com/2013/09...

      Who gives a shit? On a tech site story about the latest version of what is arguably the most prominent personal computing operating system in the world your first question is about whether they licensed the name from Nabisco just like they did previously with Nestle?

      Given the history and the obvious legal ramifications of not doing that one would obviously assume that it is most likely that they did, but in this context is that really what you're interested in? Maybe you'd be better off on some legal/trademark discussion website.

    8. Re: Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hydrox doesn't start with "O" for starters...

    9. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't pay Nestle. Google it.

    10. Re: Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second question is:

      What single-digit percentage of existing android devices will ever get a whiff of this new version of the software?

    11. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would there be a lawsuit? What law prevents Google from using the made up name Oreo for their software product?

    12. Re:Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why Nabisco? The only trademark holder of relevance is LG, but their trademark is only registered for Korea.

    13. Re: Did they license the name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Captain Obvious, Colonel Clueless would have never shut up if not for you!

    14. Re:Did they license the name? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Oreo is getting free advertizing by this move: people who like oreos & see the ad will likely grab a few

  3. Hoped against hope by puddingebola · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hoped they'd go with Orangutan feces, but that's just me.

    1. Re:Hoped against hope by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      I think that was the code name of Windows Me or Vista. Can't remember which one though.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    2. Re:Hoped against hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they would have gotten lawsuits from Apple as Orangutan Feces is the code name for iOS 12.3.

    3. Re: Hoped against hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, definitely. If you think Vista was that bad, you definitely don't remember what Me was like.

  4. waiting for it.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

    thats racist!!!!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:waiting for it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man

    2. Re:waiting for it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Señor Chang: Which is actually quite offensive to people familiar with Mexican Halloween as a sexual position.

    3. Re:waiting for it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it's *white* on the inside.

  5. Android Oreo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vegan-by-accident cookie operating system.

  6. God i hate android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    From the privacy violations, and unpatchable security holes, to the advertisements for junk food, it is truly is something out of a dystopian comedy novel.

    1. Re:God i hate android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go back to your protesting about taking down inanimate objects known as statues... Don't forget your riot gear...

      Personally, I LIKE Android.... And the only reason why you know about the security holes is somebody can go look them up in the source code... Apple and Microsoft don't let you browse their source....

      Finally, if you don't like snack food, fine, more for me!

    2. Re:God i hate android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And once you look it up, what do you do? I bought Nexus 5 when it was brand new. Here are the list of bugs I found and hence got rid of it in favor of iPhone 5S. Tell me what can you do to fix them.

      Nexus 5 buttons are too soft. Just picking up phone will accidentally press those buttons. Many a times, my volume button will get pressed and phone will go to mute. Add to Android's bug, the vibrate will be removed too when you press low volume button once more after it is mute. So now you can not notification of incoming call. Android fixed this in the next release of OS, so it was a bug.

      I imported my older contacts via csv file. Many numbers got added 1.653 * 10^9 type. Additionally, some numbers got added twice with only the last digit difference. I had to manually go through 700+ contacts to fix the issue.

      In iPhone, I have fine grained security control. I can withdraw location sharing from an app anytime. Android didn't support this until 6.0 (Nexus 5 was released with 4.4).

      If you can fix these bugs yourself, you deserve Nobel prize. For ordinary folks like us, switching to iPhone was good enough.

    3. Re:God i hate android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But who wants to use a iphone? Yuk.

    4. Re: God i hate android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can fix some of these bugs!!

      1. Don't press buttons unless you intend to use them. FIX'D!

      2. Software bug already fixed in Android. FIX'D

      Where's my Nobel prize?

    5. Re: God i hate android... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You 'solved' your problems by buying an inferior phone that is a pain to use? Good for you!

  7. I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with Android today is that there aren't any good phones to run it on. By 'good' I mean phones having a balance between price, form and capability. The Nexus 5 was the last phone like that. The subsequent Nexus phones were too physically large. The Pixel phones are far too expensive. Phones from other vendors are often too locked down, or don't get frequent enough updates. Unfortunately, Android 7, and I assume also Android 8, don't support the Nexus 5. So in my view it's like newer versions of Android exist, but there are no suitable devices to actually run it on! Google should fix this ASAP by releasing a reasonably powerful phone with a reasonable physical size at a reasonable price so that we can actually use these new versions of Android.

    1. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Fix your definition of suitable. Anything smaller than a Pixel XL is too small to be usable.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment reminds me of those graphics designers who demand that their enployer buys them a 27" iMac, but these graphics designers then have to use a lower resolution that's effectively like using a 17" screen just to be able to see what's on the screen. They cry and moan about how a 21.5" iMac's screen is 'too small', yet it actually gives them a better experience! They're just too smug to realize this.

    3. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by ctilsie242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I want is an Android phone that has as at least as many years as an iPhone. For example, iOS supports back to the iPhone 5s. That is four, soon five generations, back to 2013.

      Are there any Android phones still getting updates from that vintage? Unless it is supported by LineageOS, the phone isn't getting updates at any Android OS level, much less the latest.

      Of course, an unlockable bootloader is a must as well, so if there is a community willing to build a ROM for it, they can.

      These are not world-shattering features here. People actually use their phone past the release date of the next model. Four to five years is not unreasonable, especially for a device that is used that often and can be a pain to upgrade.

    4. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying the only way to adjust the size of things on the screen in Mac OS X is to change the resolution?
      Sounds broken to me.
      Maybe Apple should have used more of KDE's code than just Konqueror.

    5. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Konqueror? If they had copied Konqueror then maybe people wouldn't have to deal with the UI abomination that is Finder.
      I guess what you actually meant is KHTML, which is what WebKit / Safari was based on.

    6. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem with Android is how users aren't using the new releases.

      Only 13.5% of Android users are currently using Android 7.x.

      32.3% are still on Android 6.x.

      29.2% are still on Android 5.x.

      Even 16% are still on Android 4.4!

      Maybe it has to do with a lack of decent Android phones.

      Maybe it has to do with users hating the new versions.

      Maybe it has to do with it being too difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to upgrade to a newer version.

      I really can't say for sure what the reasons are.

      What I can say, however, is that this poses a huge problem for us app developers.

      We're stuck targeting Android 4.4, despite there being Android 5.x, Android 6.x, Android 7.x and now Android 8.x that came after it!

      Something is seriously fucked up when there are more users on an ancient release like Android 4.x than there are using Android 7.x, which has itself already been out for almost a year.

      This should be a good indication to Google that something is really wrong.

      They need to release a phone that people will want to buy, and that people will be able to buy, in order to get more users using a more recent version of Android.

    7. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I'd like to agree, the current upgrade cycle fiddled with the economics of that.

      If I can get upgrades for 2 years, and I get a new phone free of charge every 2 years, who cares if I get updates for more than 2 years?

      Hell, who cares if I get updates for less than 2 years? I'm never that far from an upgrade anyway.

      Fact is also that the concept of flagship phones are on their way out. I bought a mid-tier phone last time (Huawei p10 lite), and honestly it's just fine. Still waiting for this killer feature I just have to pay 4x for. That's new -- in previous generations I'd give up something I care about to not go top-end. If I want to, I can have a new phone on an annual cycle for substantially less money than getting a flagship every 2.

      Perhaps you'll bring up the security bugbear, but I'd argue that's mostly a paper tiger. I've seen lots of legitimately hacked or virus-laden windows PCs, but never one hacked or virus-laden phone. Worst virus I've gotten is Android M.

      So with minimum risk, and with power users mostly upgrading their phones instead of their phone OSes, this just seems to be something that's easy to point to rather than an actual problem.

    8. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Also, the OP author is obviously an iPhone user, because that's not how Android OS upgrades work. You upgrade your Android OS by waiting 6-12 months until it's preinstalled by the vendor in the phone you want, then throw away your current phone and buy the new phone with the new OS version on it.

    9. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real problem with Android is how users aren't using the new releases

      That would be better phrased as "user's can't get the new releases". It's not the users' fault, it's the vendors' fault that the phone the user buys is a legacy product the minute their payment clears. What's fucked up is the ecosystem, not the users.

    10. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by joh · · Score: 1

      He's talking BS. You adjust scaling, not resolution in macOS.

    11. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phones do not suddenly stop working when they stop receiving updates.

    12. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be how things tend to work in the Apple universe, but on Android phones you can simply install a software update. Even when the vendor of the phone stops providing them, you can still install new versions of Android, if you want with customisations and additional features.

    13. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it has to do with it being too difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to upgrade to a newer version.

      I only just upgraded from 5.1.1. I bought a Moto G because, at the time, Motorola was owned by Google and I expected good long-term support. It shipped with 4.3, got a quick upgrade to 4.4, eventually got an update to 5, and hasn't had security updates for well over a year. I reflashed it with LineageOS to get a new version (7.1), but that's well beyond the abilities of most users. The hardware is still completely adequate for all of the apps that I want to run, so I have no desire to replace it. I suspect a lot of users are in a similar situation. My old cheap phone has vastly more CPU and GPU power and about as much RAM as the computer that I did all of my work on as an undergrad - it's perfectly adequate for now.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      But eventually they do. These devices are sold because they connect to the internet, and internet services move on, and end up requiring newer versions of applications, which are not normally back-ported to older versions of the OS.

      So after a period of time, you end up with a very expensive telephone.

    15. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Here's a better solution: Don't buy stupidly expensive phones.

      Instead of spending $700 on an iPhone, spend $300 on a high end, well made and more powerful Android phone from someone like OnePlus, Motorola, Xaomi or even LG. Then replace it after 2-3 years when the software updates stop coming.

      OnePlus do two years of OS updates, for example, and then you just get security patches from Google. Then get a nice new phone, new battery, upgraded features, more storage etc. And give the old one to your kid to use as a toy, or keep it as a spare in case you drop your primary one in the toilet. Or install LineageOS and carry on using it.

      No need to carry on with 4 year old hardware just to get your money's worth.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I wish I could upgrade my Verizon Ellipsis 10 from Lollipop to anything - Marshmallow, Nutela or Oreo. I have a 128GB SD card on it, while the internal flash drive is just 16GB & almost full. If I could do this, I could assign the SD card as primary storage, the internal flash as secondary, and just let everything be on the SD card.

    17. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      This depends on what you're using the phone for.

      I use my phone to access the internet, but I don't think I'm using any services that "move on" to the extent that I need to update software or they stop working.

      Email, web, VPN, etc... all of these things have remained constant enough that apps that could handle them 10 years ago still can.

      If you're talking Facebook, etc., that may be a different matter -- but that stuff is a far cry from being all that is useful on the internet.

    18. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The real problem with Android is how users aren't using the new releases.

      Why is that a problem?

      It's a problem if users want new OS versions and can't get them, yes. But there are a lot of users (I would even say most of them) who don't really care if they're using the latest version or not, as long as the one they are using is still doing the job.

      Oreo, for instance, does not provide anything that I consider compelling enough to make me want to update to it, so I'm very likely not going to.

    19. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you give an example of one current application that actually matters that doesn't work with an Android version a few years old? I've never come across any.

      Moreover, even for phones that do not receive official updates from their vendors anymore, there are usually free, third-party updates for many years.

    20. Re:I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has zero to do with what users want. This is all about carriers, at least in the U.S. The carriers control when your phone gets an update. The carriers refuse to update phones past their buy/contract periods, typically 24 months. Why should they? It is to their benefit to force you to buy a new phone, since unless you cough up $500-1000 up front they've got you for that 24 month period.
      So folks who don't upgrade their phone every 24 months end up with a phone that is versions behind the latest Android version. There is typically no mechanism for them to upgrade (other than side loading, which is not always possible if their phone in locked). So they continue to use Android version 7.x, 6.x or even 4.4.

    21. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Of course. But the fact is that Facebook, Instagram, What's App, etcetera etcetera is what most people use their smartphones for.

      And the web of ten years ago doesn't bear much resemblance to the web of today, for better or for worse, it's a "platform" now, not just a bunch of HTML pages.

      Naturally, you know all of that, and are about to protest that the above mentioned items are of no value. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that those things are the things that people want their phones for.

    22. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      and are about to protest that the above mentioned items are of no value. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that those things are the things that people want their phones for.

      Indeed. I was not going to make any such protest -- if fact, I implicitly acknowledged what you said when I said "It depends on what you're using it for".

    23. Re: I wish there was a good phone to run it on! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      That's a relief. It's always so annoying when slashdotters fail to acknowledge the extent to which their particular use-cases tend to be outliers.

  8. Great... by Thelasko · · Score: 2

    Now I'm going to have Weird Al stuck in my head all day.

    Oh oh oh oh oh
    Oh Oreo
    The white stuff

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  9. Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at Debian. I still haven't found a good source to find what stretch, jessie, wheezy, potato, slink, etc. mean. Give us a very so we know, for example, 10 is newer than 9.

    1. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're released in alphabetical order. 1) Look at the first letter 2) If the first letter falls later in the alphabet, the release came later. I suppose it's slightly harder than looking at a number, but it shouldn't really be that confusing.

    2. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Call it 4.4 KitKat, and I'm fine, call it "KitKat" and I don't know WTF version you are talking about, or if it's newer or order than Marshmallow or Lollipop. Android 8 Oreo. OK. Ubuntu and Debian can kiss my ass, too.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You can see which codenames are stable, testing or unstable. The third paragraph starts "The current "stable" distribution of Debian is version 9, codenamed stretch", and you can scroll down further for the index of releases. So now you know the number too, but most Debian users will say they run "stable" or which release they are on if they are not stable (like jessie or stretch).

      Is your complaint that most of the Debian community use codenames instead of numbers? Or that it is too hard to find the information that I have linked you. The secret is very few people care about anything except tracking stable and unstable.

      Ubuntu's numbering scheme is nice because the version number is also the year and month. But you have to be a disciplined team to have your release date baked into every part of your distro well in advanced.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Android 8.0

      Is that clear enough for you?

      But really, what's so awful about naming something? Do you similarly object to the names they give to major storms, or the names they give to any newly discovered celestial objects?

    5. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.debian.org/releases/

      has a good list of versions and opaque names. For many years though, this page didn't have that list. I was very frustrated for years trying to figure-out which "cute" name corresponded to which version.

    6. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Storms are fine. Until they go for marketing opportunities. "Biggest storm on record. The massive storm Reeses is almost as big as a king size Reeses Peanut Butter Cup! Now that really puts peanut butter in my chocolate. Landfall for Reeses is estimated to be near Houston and Galveston has already been evacuated. One king size Reeses for every Galveston resident!".

      You do remember Android Kit Kat, right? Where you could buy Kit Kat bars and try to win the Android game? Argh! You got advertising in my phone!

    7. Re: Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Until recently I don't think they even had a web page that matched version numbers to their cutesy name.

    8. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, if you don't know what version they are talking about, it probably doesn't affect you and you don't need to worry about it.. Do you also expect people to call eachother by social security number or drivers license id number? Probably not... we each have a name, after all. Sure, you can use the number where it matters, but if you don't recognize the name, then generally it's not something you should be concerned about.

    9. Re: Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that link. Last time I tried to unwind the Debian version names, Google didn't return that page so it's pretty new.

    10. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're joking right? google has gone alphabetically. lollipop came before marshmallow and both are before oreo.

    11. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argh! You got advertising in my phone!

      You got phones in my advertising!

      Hmm...

    12. Re: Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhhhh, some variant of that page has existed since 1999, and possibly even before then!

      The "Release Info" link on the Debian home page links to it. In 1999 it was in the left side bar. Today it's in the horizontal bar of links under the header.

      I don't know how you couldn't have found it. It really couldn't be much simpler to find.

    13. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think GP was talking about Android version naming--you know, ON TOPIC.

    14. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've looked for that list for years! Seriously, thank you and whoever at Debian decided to finally document that cute names to versions.

    15. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I agree. This trend of using code names is a serious pain in the ass. Debian is a huge offender here.

      But I have a solution for you -- I google for (err, excuse me, search for) "what version is debian codename" and one of the first hits that comes up is the cheat sheet from the debian.org site.

      But it always pisses me off that it's necessary to do that. Just go with version numbers, people!

    16. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Of course it does - especially when it comes to Ubuntu versions, but android apps will say something like "requires Android Marshmallow or better." It lost it's kitsch a long time ago.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    17. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Call it 4.4 KitKat, and I'm fine, call it "KitKat" and I don't know WTF version you are talking about, or if it's newer or order than Marshmallow or Lollipop.

      Android releases are named in alphabetical order, so you ought to be able to answer some of your questions yourself.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    18. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But it always pisses me off that it's necessary to do that. Just go with version numbers, people!

      Google Android engineer here: In most cases I don't actually know what the numbers are without looking them up. I kind of get the complaint in Debian's case, since the choice of Toy Story character is arbitrary, but both Ubuntu and Android have been going in alphabetical order (though Ubuntu has to wrap, or something, in October), so it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered. Internally, we pretty much only use the code names (or letters, before the names are announced).

      Actually, Android does have a number sequence that I track closely: API level. The OS version number doesn't mean that much to me.

      I do know 8.0, though. I added a feature to Nougat that binds Keystore keys to OS version and security patch level as another layer of defense against rollback attacks (where the attacker pushes a legitimate but old OS that has known vulnerabilities). Keystore is used for disk encryption keys, among other things, so when Keystore keys break, the device doesn't boot. Due to an error in the version number management on internal testing devices (which are used by large numbers of employees as their everyday phones), we had to roll back the version number. I found a workaround, but for a while it looked like we might have to wipe everyone's phones.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re: Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really are a 'Google Android engineer', can you please tell your higher-ups to quit dicking around with impractically-large Nexus phones and overly-expensive Pixel phones? Really, all we as customers want is a quality mid-range phone that isn't locked down, and that will run the latest version of Android for at least 5 to 7 years. Offer a high-end phone if necessary, but please don't keep screwing around us normal customers. Give us something like the Nexus 4 and Nexus 5. If Google doesn't get us some sort of an affordable, practical phone soon, we'll have to seriously start considering iPhones, perhaps even older ones, instead of Android phones. I imagine that would reduce the amount of info Google can collect about us at least a little bit, and that can't be beneficial for Google.

    20. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android releases are named in alphabetical order
      So Android 4.4 is actually D.D?
      Rather than KitKat it should have been Android Pamela Anderson...

    21. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ... both Ubuntu and Android have been going in alphabetical order (though Ubuntu has to wrap, or something, in October), ...

      That's the thing, though - it is so US centric (and I know, there will now be a stream of comment along the lines 'But America invented reality and everything'). Don't get me wrong, I don't hate America - there are things about you guys I love, like your absence (sorry, only joking, couldn't resist) - but when it comes to finding cool names, you are just so juvenile.
      And Ubuntu's naming strategy is toe-curling, IMO; what will it be when it rolls over? "Anal Abcess"?

    22. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But it always pisses me off that it's necessary to do that. Just go with version numbers, people!

      Google Android engineer here: In most cases I don't actually know what the numbers are without looking them up. I kind of get the complaint in Debian's case, since the choice of Toy Story character is arbitrary, but both Ubuntu and Android have been going in alphabetical order (though Ubuntu has to wrap, or something, in October), so it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered. Internally, we pretty much only use the code names (or letters, before the names are announced).

      This, average people don't talk in version numbers. Numbers are computationally convenient but very user unfriendly. The names give users an easy point of reference for people not intimately familiar with the product. Besides, many products with numbers in the title aren't always in order, Windows 7 is newer than Windows 95.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    23. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by swillden · · Score: 1

      That's the thing, though - it is so US centric

      How so? Because it's based on the Latin alphabet? That's more Western-centric than US-centric.

      when it comes to finding cool names, you are just so juvenile.

      Playful, not juvenile :-)

      And Ubuntu's naming strategy is toe-curling

      Well, you can't pin that one on the US. Not that I think Ubuntu's names are bad.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered.

      Yes, if that's all you want to know. If, however, you want to know which version a release is in more absolute terms, then you have to count letters. This is less of an issue with Android than other OSes (and applications), but it's still an annoyance.

      If I'm looking at software that specifies am OS version, or if I'm reading documentation or instructions specific to an OS version, I don't just want to know which releases the version is between, I want to know its place in the entire run. Alphabetical names do let me do that, but it requires me to translate from letters to numbers to accomplish it. It's a pain.

    25. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      The names give users an easy point of reference for people not intimately familiar with the product.

      This is actually my complaint -- they don't do this. They obscure the product's place. I understand the desire to be playful, but in this case it comes with a cost that I am annoyed that I have to pay.

      Besides, many products with numbers in the title aren't always in order, Windows 7 is newer than Windows 95.

      Yes, and I actually blame Microsoft for starting this fad.

    26. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 1

      Truly a new standard for retardation.

      Android and Ubuntu both use the exact same alphabetical naming scheme.

    27. Re: Stupid product names confuse users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself Miles Standish. I have no interest in an underpowered "midrange" phone that has a screen that's too small for the things I use a phone for, doesn't have the horsepower I need to run my apps and lacks sufficient battery size. I'm way more interested in a phone that has a removable battery and can use an SD card to augment memory, if I'm concerned with any Pixel deficiencies.
      I wouldn't consider buying an iphone to give to my worst enemy.
      So don't speak for me as an Android customer.

    28. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yes, if that's all you want to know. If, however, you want to know which version a release is in more absolute terms, then you have to count letters.

      Interesting. I have a good feel for where letters lie in the alphabet, and in relation to one another. I can't necessarily subtract them to know that, e.g. M - F = 7, but I have a good rough feel for how far apart they are. I also don't know that I've ever needed to know that Froyo was seven releases before Marshmallow.

      I don't just want to know which releases the version is between, I want to know its place in the entire run.

      Why? I can't think of a time that has ever been useful information. The closest is that sometimes I'm interested in knowing when a release came out, in order to place it in the larger context of what was happening in the world and in technology at the time. The Ubuntu year numbers are outstanding for that purpose, but neither letters nor ordinary version numbers are helpful.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      When I'm reading docs or explanations that talk about a specific version of something, I find it very helpful to know exactly what version is being referenced. Often, this lets me adapt what the documentation is saying so that it fits the version I have. Knowing precisely where the version sits in the lineage is very helpful for that.

      You're correct -- strictly speaking, I could get by without that. However, lacking that reduces my confidence and increases the amount of time and energy required to be sure that I have the correct understanding.

    30. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No, not really... Ubuntu might be doing that now, but they haven't always. And what are they going to do after Z to keep it alphabetical? The whole concept is kitschy, but moronic.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    31. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by swillden · · Score: 1

      When I'm reading docs or explanations that talk about a specific version of something, I find it very helpful to know exactly what version is being referenced. Often, this lets me adapt what the documentation is saying so that it fits the version I have. Knowing precisely where the version sits in the lineage is very helpful for that.

      Sure. For me at least, letters do that exactly as well as numbers do. There is no difference. The only exception is library numbering where the specific meanings of major, minor and sub-minor versions would be difficult to replicate with letters -- well, actually, letters would do fine but no one does major, minor and sub-minor letters. But with system releases that's really not an issue and no one does it with numbers either.

      In the case of Android, the library API is numbered -- Oreo is API level 26, for example.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    32. Re:Stupid product names confuse users by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 1

      yeah, only since their 3rd major release. my apologies.

      wrap around back to A, like they have said? you experience two 8 o clocks in a 24 hour period, yet have little issue inferring which people are talking about. two letter B's in the past 12 years though, man.

      not to mention the default is to either refer to them by number, or by both name and number.

  10. "universally" *koff koff* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not being from the 4% of the world's population that regards the USA as uiniversal' I used a well-known search engine. Oreo is a biscuit of some sort, possibly synthetic in composition.

    For those worrying about unique vs generic ID and the name being lost among other search results, those factors matter much less on other parts of the planet.

    1. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oreo's not a biscuit; it's a cookie. Despite the origin of its name, Nabisco doesn't actually make any biscuits.
      "Synthetic in composition"? No cookie or biscuit occurs naturally; they're manufactured by humans.
      It's always weird when you furriners start complaining about the use of American English and US references on this American web site.
      It's fine if you want to eavesdrop on a conversation among Americans, but it doesn't make any sense to complain that we're speaking American to each other.

    2. Re: "universally" *koff koff* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cookie is a uk biscuit but not a us biscuit. A us biscuit would be most like a savory scone

    3. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Oreo is a biscuit of some sort, possibly synthetic in composition.

      Yes, and a mildly unpleasant one at that. Unless you do as I do: eat the creme filling and throw away the rest.

    4. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Yes, and a mildly unpleasant one at that. Unless you do as I do: eat the creme filling and throw away the rest.

      Or even better: throw away the whole thing; I tasted it once. Only once, never again.

    5. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      I came here to say the same thing. You can now buy Oreos in the UK, but only one flavour, and few people eat them as they're inferior to (and more expensive than) custard creams.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re: "universally" *koff koff* by jandersen · · Score: 2

      A cookie is a uk biscuit but not a us biscuit. A us biscuit would be most like a savory scone

      I've wondered about this terminology. So, savoury biscuits are the salty ones, right? But then, surely the sweet ones are unsavoury? I mean, it stands to reason, doesn't it?

    7. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by jandersen · · Score: 1

      It's always weird when you furriners start complaining about the use of American English and US references on this American web site.
      It's fine if you want to eavesdrop on a conversation among Americans, but it doesn't make any sense to complain that we're speaking American to each other.

      Oh, it's only for Americans? Could you keep it inside your own borders, then? Alternatively, get your head around the fact that the internet is international, and that there are a lot fewer Americans than un-Americans in the world, so stop trying to pull rank or whatever it is you imagine you are doing - we aren't impressed.

    8. Re: "universally" *koff koff* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, the ongoing debate is about whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit. Don't even throw "cookie" into the mix.

    9. Re: "universally" *koff koff* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cookie is a uk biscuit but not a us biscuit. A us biscuit would be most like a savory scone

      I've wondered about this terminology. So, savoury biscuits are the salty ones, right? But then, surely the sweet ones are unsavoury? I mean, it stands to reason, doesn't it?

      Hrrm. Interesting. I don't have enough old British cookbooks to really answer that. I have found out that "cookies" are relatively new term. Get over a hundred years ago and what we know as cookies are listed in cookbooks as fine or small cakes. I would bet that us bisquits and scones would be mentioned in the bread or baking section sections.

    10. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by ghotihed · · Score: 1

      I was in a small, regional Tesco (UK market chain) just the other day, and there were plenty of flavours of Oreos there. Perhaps not quite so many as I might find in the US, but certainly more than just plain vanilla.

      On the other hand, I don't much like the other flavours, so plain is just fine with me.

      --
      I'm not an actor, but I play one on television.
    11. Re:"universally" *koff koff* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you get from "American web site" to "only for Americans"?
      Maybe a hypothetical comparison will make this clear: there's nothing stopping me from frequenting some Brazilian forum, but wouldn't it be silly for me to complain about their use of Brazilian Portuguese and Brazilian references?

  11. Racist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racist.

  12. Lots of emojis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Including the smiling turd!

    1. Re: Lots of emojis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the emoji that means "an Indian just took a dump on my lawn"?

    2. Re:Lots of emojis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and smiling terrorist!

  13. The only bragging rights my Nexus 5X will have by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Let's be honest, the Nexus 5X was a bad, unreliable, sloppily designed smartphone. One of the biggest disappointments in the history of all of Google Nexus brand. Even ignoring the bootloop issue which was supposed to show up only on 15percent of those phones, they had plenty of other flaws. Only 2GB of RAM (the only smartphone using SD808 SoC with so little RAM) making 5X effectively a single-tasking phone, poor audio quality because of poor shielding from other phone components, the useless included USB-C to USB-C cable which you could not connect to anything besides the charger, yellowing screens, and charging system that can't charge your phone with the screen on.

    But despite all those problems, these phones do get swift security and OS updates, which makes them still somewhat interesting at this point.

  14. "there aren't a ton of good "O" dessert foods out" by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Orange Sherbet.
    Orange Velvet Cake.
    Oatmeal Cookie.

    Do they not have anyone that can coo- oh wait...

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. I could not agree more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why Android to me is a toy for cheap devices, because I will never put in $800 to $1,000 on something that won't be supported for more than 24 months, if that.

    1. Re: I could not agree more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would never pay such insane amounts for any phone. Which is why the iPhone is an expensive toy for people who like paying good money to be locked up in a walled garden.

  16. Why Orange Sherbet wasn't used by tepples · · Score: 1

    Orange Sherbet would look too much like 2.2 "FroYo". That's why 4.0 "Ice Cream" was changed to "Ice Cream Sandwich" before release.

  17. Oreo's are not a dessert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would have to be one of the most disgusting biscuits I've ever tasted.

    Must be an American thing.

  18. Name your poison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I read Oreo, I read high fructose corn syrup, or "poison".

    1. Re:Name your poison. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Delicious poison.

      And they're great when you dunk 'em in hormone-laced milk until they're soggy.

  19. pretty much as universally beloved ... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

    "Oreos are pretty much as universally beloved as a cookie can be" no some people think they taste foul ...

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    1. Re:pretty much as universally beloved ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I've never had one.
      "universally beloved", indeed.

    2. Re:pretty much as universally beloved ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's why they said "as a cookie can be". Some people think every cookie tastes foul.

    3. Re:pretty much as universally beloved ... by swillden · · Score: 1

      "Oreos are pretty much as universally beloved as a cookie can be" no some people think they taste foul ...

      You should try the Cinnamon Bun Oreos.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  20. Racist epithet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do these jokers not realize that "Oreo" is a slang used in the African American community to describe brothers that sold out to the whitey: uncle toms and "house ni**ers?"

    He's an Oreo: black on the outside, white on the inside.

    Do you think there is an internal mole that wants to set up Google for one giant lawsuit for discrimination?

    1. Re:Racist epithet by samwichse · · Score: 1

      This may be the dumbest thing I've read today.

  21. A new release many devices won't ever get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oreo is probably like a expensive exotic car that most people will never own or drive. Its great to look at but you will never drive one. Google has yet to solve a clear path to a sensible upgrade path for devices. Sure a handful of its own devices will get Oreo for sure. The rest? Not so much.
    Of course this leads to a muted enthusiasm for something that will never be for many.

  22. Royalties by midifarm · · Score: 1

    What's Nabisco's cut?

  23. Difficulty in upgrading Android by unixisc · · Score: 1

    The real problem with Android is how users aren't using the new releases.

    Only 13.5% of Android users are currently using Android 7.x.

    32.3% are still on Android 6.x.

    29.2% are still on Android 5.x.

    Even 16% are still on Android 4.4!

    Maybe it has to do with a lack of decent Android phones.

    Maybe it has to do with users hating the new versions.

    Maybe it has to do with it being too difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to upgrade to a newer version.

    I really can't say for sure what the reasons are.

    What I can say, however, is that this poses a huge problem for us app developers.

    We're stuck targeting Android 4.4, despite there being Android 5.x, Android 6.x, Android 7.x and now Android 8.x that came after it!

    Something is seriously fucked up when there are more users on an ancient release like Android 4.x than there are using Android 7.x, which has itself already been out for almost a year.

    This should be a good indication to Google that something is really wrong.

    They need to release a phone that people will want to buy, and that people will be able to buy, in order to get more users using a more recent version of Android.

    It has more to do w/ the difficulty in upgrading. Before 5.x - Lollipop, it was impossible to upgrade b/w major Android versions. From Lollipop onwards, they ostensibly made it so that one could upgrade from 5 to 6 to 7 to 8, but my Verizon Ellipsis 10 is still stuck on 5.1. I'd love to upgrade to 6 or above, so that I can make my 128GB SD card the primary storage. So far, can't do it!

  24. LineageOS by DrYak · · Score: 1

    phone from someone like OnePlus, Motorola, Xaomi or even LG.

    Small note: if you go for some relatively known brand (some that are established on the market instead of some fly-by-night noname asian), that releases relatively few different hardware variants (i.e.: keeps the same device for some time - and all the model XyZ have the same internal, maybe except modem due to regional restrictions - instead of selling whatever comes from the workshop at that precise moment - and you end up with 4 completely different chipsets for the same official model),
    then you chances of finding a well tested and stable LineageOS custom ROM for it are higher.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  25. 4 years back support: SailfishOS by DrYak · · Score: 1

    For example, iOS supports back to the iPhone 5s. That is four, soon five generations, back to 2013.

    As a side note :
    - Jolla released their smartphone back in year 2013 (November)
    - as of 2017, it's still receiving updates of SailfishOS (once it exists beta, the next 2.1.1 will also be available for it).
    (though as a counter point : the Android compatibility layer used to run Android Apps is still stuck at the un-suported 4.1 Jellybean)

    And if you look into it, the reasons are the same :

    - Apple has a very small number of hardware platforms ("five generations ago" = means that there are litteraly only five models since then)
    (and Jolla has very few platforms that they officially support : Jolla1 smartphone, Jolla/Aigo/Youyota tablet, Jolla C/Intex Aquafish smartphone and the upcoming Sony Xperia-based smartphone).
    - Apple is directly in charge of the software that runs on these few platforms they write their update and deploy them to the end users.

    Compare the situation with android:

    - there are a fuckton of different hardware platforms on the market. Thousands of different Android smartphone.
    - Google isn't in charge of developing Android directly for all of them. Google only develops directly for a few of their demonstration platform (the various Google Nexus devices). For the rest, they just develop the base android system and make it available for licensing (or pure opensource usage).

    - Very often, specially the small asian no-name, manufacturers aren't even themselves directly in charge of the software running on the phone. Often, they use more or less available component (chipsets and re-usable PCBs) for the chip manufacturer (who generally just forks the kernel used by the current android version and slaps binary-only drivers on it), that the manufacturer only adapts to their final device (i.e.: they pay an intern to quickly recompile the current android du jour on the provided kernel by the chip manufacturer). There's nearly no follow up.
    If a newer version of android comes - the manufacturer doesn't necessarily have a newer kernel for that specific chipset (that part of the reason why some platforms can't be upgraded beyond kit-kat even with lineageos. the only available kernel and binary drivers are extremely old and only support up to a certain API level, newer android require newer APIs that simply aren't available on the only drivers).
    And the intern isn't working there anymore to do a complete port/recompile of this newer version.
    And the manufacturer, if by random chance they still exist after all this time, are busy allocating all their available resources to producing a yet another newer model, based on a completely different chipset (whatever they managed to get cheap in the required quantities).

    - And that's without factoring all the asinine weirdness of "carrier-exclusive" that happens in some stupid countries like the US.
    There often the carrier themselves act as yet another filter deciding what software is available on the phone. Often they "customize the end-user experience" (=install a boat-load of bloatware to get some extra money) and would need to recustomise any eventual updates.

    In other words :
    - Apple has an easy job. Just release for the latest 5 models.
    - Android on the other hand is a giant clusterfuck where nobody is really in charge and everybody tries to duck responsibility and it's always someone else's fault.
    - LineageOS (formely CyanoGen mod) is the closest to an actual player trying to bring a little bit order in this madness. They release regular updates, and there's a community out there further porting to even more devices.

    On the other hand, the post-Android era is still a little bit better than what was before.
    Nowadays, nearly every mobile chipset manufacturer (Qualcomm, Mediatek, etc.) do release at least a few android-compatible linux kernels.
    The base Android it self is opensource.
    That enables efforts like LineageOS to make easily custom

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  26. Re:"there aren't a ton of good "O" dessert foods o by samwichse · · Score: 1

    Oh Henry!?