Post Reply

Are we EOL?

30th March 2012, 06:50 PM   |  #31  
Senior Member
San Fernando Valley
Thanks Meter: 51
 
501 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by imnuts

LOL, thanks for the laugh. They are doing better, but I wouldn't say they are good about releasing it. The reason that HTC does better with getting AOSP going is because of Qualcomm and Code Aurora, not HTC. HTC was (almost) taken to court over releasing kernel source code in the past, and for many of their devices, people have had issues getting source released.

Lol NP...Im just sayin..you and I both know they be getting AOSP a hell of alot quicker than the rest...minus the nexus of course
31st March 2012, 12:27 AM   |  #32  
KarateExplosion6's Avatar
OP Senior Member
Flag New Jersey
Thanks Meter: 51
 
542 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jun 2010
More
Android 4.0 report card: Which manufacturers are failing?
31st March 2012, 01:20 AM   |  #33  
imnuts's Avatar
Recognized Developer
Flag West Chester
Thanks Meter: 2,980
 
3,425 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2007
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by jager420

Lol NP...Im just sayin..you and I both know they be getting AOSP a hell of alot quicker than the rest...minus the nexus of course

What does HTC phones getting AOSP have to do with HTC releasing source code? The only thing ANY manufacturer is obligated to release is the kernel source as it is covered by the GPL. Everything else comes from people reverse engineering, hacking to use the stock binaries, or help from outside. Qualcomm setup Code Aurora which helped several devices get AOSP AFAIK. It also helps that nearly every HTC device is identical (more or less), so the hacks are easy to port from one device to another. Either way, your original statement about source code has nothing to do with getting AOSP.
The Following User Says Thank You to imnuts For This Useful Post: [ View ]
31st March 2012, 02:41 AM   |  #34  
BleedsOrangeandBlue's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Charleston, SC
Thanks Meter: 50
 
186 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by buhohitr

** You have to be on the other side to make a judgement, what happen if Samsung doesn't think they suck like you said. They may think they did a pretty good job??
The moral of the story is if you think you better, do it yourself, if you have need their code so we can make a copy then...case end here.[COLOR="Silver"]

how do you propose that Samsung has tricked themselves into believing that they've done a good job releasing ICS for the Charge when they haven't released ICS for the Charge?

We're not discussing something subjective here.
31st March 2012, 03:02 AM   |  #35  
buhohitr's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 1,528
 
5,200 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedsOrangeandBlue

how do you propose that Samsung has tricked themselves into believing that they've done a good job releasing ICS for the Charge when they haven't released ICS for the Charge?

We're not discussing something subjective here.

Pure simple, possible marketing/Management decision? or possible hardware limitation? But they did ICS for their other devices already! they know their hardware better than anyone here.
31st March 2012, 04:17 PM   |  #36  
BleedsOrangeandBlue's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Charleston, SC
Thanks Meter: 50
 
186 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2011
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by buhohitr

Pure simple, possible marketing/Management decision? or possible hardware limitation? But they did ICS for their other devices already! they know their hardware better than anyone here.

Samsung was one of the manufacturers who agreed to the alliance/coalition to keep their devices updated for 18 months after release, which is a far cry from your idea of their "marketing decisions". If what you suggest is true, then they pulled quite the "switch-a-roo" on us as consumers, and we have every right to be mad. That would mean we've gone from Samsung making decisions that we don't agree with to downright being lied to.

That said, the alliance was probably a pipedream, and I've come to terms with that. However, the fact that they would not release code that would allow our kickass enthusiast developers to port it themselves is kind of insulting if they're not going to go through the trouble of developing it themselves.

If you're ok with writing it off as a hardware limitation, then fine. I appreciate your unabashed, unapologetic sympathizing with Samsung. However, the notion that "daddy knows best" is why most of us aren't Apple consumers. If it is a hardware limitation that they think will make it a negative experience (and for the record, I believe that you're wrong and its more of a resource issue on their end), they still have nothing to lose by releasing to us what is needed to do it ourselves. Again, I ask, "why not??'

I don't want my manufacturer to have totalitarian control, and when I made the switch from iOS, I thought that was what I was getting with Android. Guess I was mistaken.
31st March 2012, 05:36 PM   |  #37  
luis86dr's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Jersey
Thanks Meter: 1,591
 
2,220 posts
Join Date:Joined: May 2009
More
It surely isn't a hardware limitation. Thats facts. Jt's Ics build runs smooth as butter. So that theory is out the window. Samsung is already knee deep in it as their not following up on their agreement with Google. To be honest as I said before its their product and they can do as they please. But I'm sure this will leave a bad taste for consumers on future purchases. Myself being one of them.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using XDA
1st April 2012, 12:23 AM   |  #38  
Senior Member
San Fernando Valley
Thanks Meter: 51
 
501 posts
Join Date:Joined: Aug 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by imnuts

What does HTC phones getting AOSP have to do with HTC releasing source code? The only thing ANY manufacturer is obligated to release is the kernel source as it is covered by the GPL. Everything else comes from people reverse engineering, hacking to use the stock binaries, or help from outside. Qualcomm setup Code Aurora which helped several devices get AOSP AFAIK. It also helps that nearly every HTC device is identical (more or less), so the hacks are easy to port from one device to another. Either way, your original statement about source code has nothing to do with getting AOSP.

Oh brother

Sent from my SCH-I510 using XDA
2nd April 2012, 02:07 PM   |  #39  
Member
Flag Philadelphia
Thanks Meter: 7
 
38 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by luis86dr

Gb update I'd believe, but ICS I don't see that happening anytime soon. If it even happens. Rumors are rumors, not facts. Until a official statement from Verizon or Samsung is released, it will still be a rumor.

Edit: On a side note that doesn't mean we wont get it seeing as JT is progressing with ICS on charge. (Beta 2 is released) It just wont come from Verizon imo.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using XDA

For all of us drooling over the prospect of ICS, maybe JT would be able to work faster if we sent him some beer money

Just sayin...
2nd April 2012, 02:56 PM   |  #40  
buhohitr's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 1,528
 
5,200 posts
Join Date:Joined: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by luis86dr

It surely isn't a hardware limitation. Thats facts. Jt's Ics build runs smooth as butter. So that theory is out the window. Samsung is already knee deep in it as their not following up on their agreement with Google. To be honest as I said before its their product and they can do as they please. But I'm sure this will leave a bad taste for consumers on future purchases. Myself being one of them.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using XDA

A Quote from Imnuts (a well know and creator of PBJ kernel):
"The problem isn't the amount of RAM, it is the amount of space allocated for /system on the device. If they would include TouchWiz, it likely would not have enough space left for everything. " They also have to compliance with Verizon bloatware.
We all, speculating here, maybe they will release ICS?? who knows!

Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools
Display Modes