Hello !
SUMMARY: How to run pocketsphinx_continuous on mobile phone with Android, and how to do it with simulator of mobile phone with Android. PocketSphinx can be downloaded for free here, for both Linux and Windows: http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/html/download.php .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHORT EXPLANATION
I'd like to create application for mobile phone and server such that:
1. User runs application on mobile phone with Android, this application uses PocketSphinx. It is Automatic Speech Recognition software for devices like mobile phones, written in C. Somebody told me that "Pocketsphinx is used successfully on Symbian with minimal effort". (However I think Android may be better choice). My knowledge about Android is limited but I know something about CMU Sphinx. Can you help me, please, to run this PocketSphinx on Android? I also need to find simulator of mobile phone with Android. I have already found Wireless Toolkit and I tried to use this emulator, however I think it doesn't allow to run simulation of mobile phones with Android. (By the way I am limited in my project to mobile phone of the price up to about 160 euro; which Android version would be best for my application?).
2. This application communicates with the user. The users speaks digits and some other words (dictionary is about fifteen words, I can create language and acoustic models, as well as formal grammar in CMU Sphinx, with the use of SphinxTrain). The application recognizes those digits.
3. Based on this talk, mobile phone sends information about results of recognition to the server. I can do it in Java for CLDC/MIDP with httpconnection, POST method on the mobile phone side and with Tomcat on server. I think this httpconnection must be possible not only in Java ME, but also in Android C. But this is thing which will bother me later, now I'd like to run pocketsphinx_continuous on Android and try to modify it according to my needs.
Summing up, what I'd like to know is how to run demo pocketsphinx_continuous on mobile phone with Android, and how to do it with simulator of mobile phone with Android. (I've got Wireless Toolkit but I think it is not capable of running Android). PocketSphinx can be downloaded for free here, for both Linux and Windows: http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/html/download.php . There are two ways of installing it in Ubuntu. First is to unpack it (it is tar.gz), enter its directory and type "./configure", "make", "sudo make install". The other, different, is written in README file, i.e. run autogen.sh, "./configure", "make clean all", "make test", "make install". The result should be, among many other files, javadoc in doc directory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONG EXPLANATION
What is required to give me some advices is written above. So if you don't want / don't have time to read the whole text, just above explanation is enough. But let me say about other possible approaches which I try to do. Those are worse than what I explained above, but I also tried them.
CMU Sphinx contains SphinxTrain to create acoustic model. It has got some different recognizers (also called decoders), those are PocketSphinx, Sphinx4 and some other. PocketSphinx is written in C and is for devices like mobile phones. Sphinx4 is Java application for PCs because it requires better hardware. There is good tutorial about using SphinxTrain with Sphinx4. It is here: http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/sphinx/tutorial.html . There is no similar tutorial for PocketSphinx. However with some knowledge about Android and C it is possible to run it on Android. The other approach than PocketSphinx, is using this Sphinx4. However it requires connection between mobile phone and server, sending audio data from cellular phone to server. It can be done with Skype, but there is still problem on server side with redirecting sound from Skype to Sphinx4. So you see there are two different approaches. One is to run speech recognition on mobile phone with PocketSphinx and Android. The other is speech recognition on server with Sphinx4. There are some ways to follow this second option. One is Skype on both server and mobile phone. (But there is problem with redirecting speech from Skype to Sphinx4). The other is too expensive Digium card. The third one is IVR, but I still look for good open-source IVR software. All of those three ways of second option involve Sphinx4. It was much easier to create application with Sphinx4. It is for PCs, not embedded devices, because it requires better device, extensive floating point math and some other things. But it has much better documentation than PocketSphinx. But I want to use PocketSphinx because I don't need to pay to anybody for access to mobile internet in order to send data through internet for application like Skype. The access to internet is required only for short time to send little text data with httpconnection, POST method. This is why I'd like you to help me, please, with running pocketsphinx_continuous on simulator of PocketSphinx on mobile phone with Android. (By the way, I see I've got installed S60 Developer Tools -> 3rd Edition FP1 SDK -> MIDP -> Emulator).
Summing up in a list, those are in CMU Sphinx:
I. SphinxTrain, which I can use to create files needed for speech recognition
II. decoders which use speech input and some files which I create with SphinxTrain, to follow speech recognition (input speech + files from SphinxTrain = are used by decoder)
II-1. PocketSphinx, written in C, for devices like mobile phones
II-2. Sphinx3, written in C, for PCs, actually the best developed
II-3. Sphinx4, written in Java, for PCs, with the best documentation
II-4. Some other, older versions
Those are possible approaches of solving my task:
I. Speech recognition on mobile phone with PocketSphinx. This is much better way than [II].
Problems: 1. running PocketSphinx on mobile phone with Android. 2. simulating mobile phone with Android on PC. I also thought that maybe I should consider Meamo, what do you think about it? Or use things different than CMU Sphinx, e.g. Simon, HTK, Julius. I looked at those other ASR engines and I think PocketSphinx may be best choice.
II. Speech recognition on server with Sphinx4. There are some different ways of establishing voice connection between mobile phone and server.
II-1. ordinary call from mobile phone to server; server has got Digium card. Disadvantage: Digium card is expensive.
II-2. to use Skype on both mobile phone and server. Problem: redirecting of sound from Skype to Sphinx4 and vice versa.
II-3. can you think about any other ways? I found that Asterisk may be useful.
Greetings !
Summing up, what I'd like to know is how to run demo pocketsphinx_continuous on mobile phone with Android
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First step would be to setup a toolchain and compile the prog for android
or statically linked with uClibc.
Then push it onto your device and test if it works as expected.
You can also push it onto the android emulator that comes with the sdk.
Just my 2 cents...
Thank you very much!
Can you give me any links to tutorials which can be useful for me?
By the way I know how to create my own application in Sphinx4 and I know how to run demo in PocketSphinx, but I've got some difficulties with creating my own application for PocketSphinx. So if you can have a look at PocketSphinx http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/html/download.php and tell me which files I need to have to create new project for PocketSphinx, I would be greatful. I mean that for Sphinx4 the only what I need to do is to enter S:\tutorial\sphinx4-1.0beta3-src\src\apps\edu\cmu\sphinx\demo\helloworld and create my own ...\demo\my_application, and inside it analogically to what is here ...\demo\helloworld. In the case of PocketSphinx, to run the application, I need to enter S:\tutorial\pocketsphinx\doc and run pocketsphinx_continuous. So I check what I've got in this file and I cannot see what files and where I need to have in order to create new project. I uploaded directory doc with pocketsphinx_continuous here: http://www.speedyshare.com/files/19429494/doc.7z
Greetings and thanks once more !
Rough outline: You'll need the Android SDK and NDK, both of which are available from http://developer.android.com/. The NDK will allow you to compile C code. You'll need to wrap the C core in a Java layer to make it accessible to the rest of the Android system. The SDK also includes an emulator, which I believe you've asked for if I understand you right.
I haven't actually attempted this, so that's about all the help I can be, but there is sample code included with the NDK that should get you started.
Thanks for your answer !
I check the google and see that NDK is term of Android, because I knew only SDK abbreviation. I assume NDK is especially for porting (like porting PocketSphinx for Android). So am I right that with this NDK I don't need to change code of PocketSphinx? I think it would be too easy .
There also other question which I've got. It is not strictly connected with Symbian but there wouldn't be any need for porting if I won't solve this problem. I've got my application in Sphinx4. There are also examplary appications for Sphinx4 and PocketSphinx. I can run demos from PocketSphinx (as explained in first post), as well as demos from Sphinx4. I can change source code of demos from Sphinx4 to perform my task. I'd like to do similar thing with PocketSphinx, but even if it should be easy task, I cannot do it. In Sphinx4 it is much simpler because all source files are in one directory. In PocketSphinx it is done in somehow different way. (http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/html/download.php). Without ability to move my application from Sphinx4 there is no need for me to port this PocketSphinx to Symbian.
Greetings !
johnyjj2 said:
I assume NDK is especially for porting (like porting PocketSphinx for Android). So am I right that with this NDK I don't need to change code of PocketSphinx? I think it would be too easy .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NDK is used to write software for Android devices that are compiled natively to the platform -- for now, this usually means ARM. Java as you probably realize is a bytecode intermediate language that the java virtual machine converts to native calls at runtime. This means that Java is generally platform independent whereas your C code is not.
JNI as used with the NDK is the Java Native Interface (or something to that effect). It allows you to call code that has been compiled for a specific processor from Java. This means that you could put heavily optimized super fast calculations in a native library and call them from your Java app.
It could also mean, that you've more or less written your entire application in some native code, and then you have written a java shim that has enough code to initiate and start your native software. Beware, there be dragons here.
The fact that you CAN do this, doesn't mean you SHOULD. There are a lot of benefits to using the android platform and specifically using the android way of writing applications. Concepts like views, activities, intents, etc., greatly simplify how an Android device interacts with other Android devices and provides a consistent and powerful framework.
For something like SCUMMVM, it is a game (platform) that is very linear in design; you are either actively playing it, or it is on pause. How other applications are running while using SCUMMVM is inconsequential. It sounds like you have very different requirements.
Thanks for answer!
Isn't that link (http://cmusphinx.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cmusphinx?view=rev&revision=9470) simply trying to copy engine library to Symbian, without effect? Only enginge won't help, there is also need to write from zero code which will use this library. So it looks like there is still long way to have it working. Do I understand it properly?
Greetings!
Hello everybody,
I am currently using an android phone and consider to switch to WP8 after it has been release due to better hardware concepts etc.
I already read that WP7 apps are executed in a sandbox and therefore the whole process aint to be more "secure". Anyhow, Iam not concerned about a virus or malware.
My biggest aim is to keep my data private and to secure my privacy.
Regarding WP7 I could not find any hint about that topic. I cannot imagine that nobody cares about this topic around this OS !?
What I want is the following:
Set for each app what it is able to access (e.g. Access to contacts, location etc.)
Control internet access for each app
Maybe it already exists and therefore nobody talks about it, maybe it is technically not possible.... Just want to know
Thank you in advance for your help.
Regards.
WP7 (and presumably WP8) apps use a "Declared Capabilities" model for controlling access to resources like you mention. That is, if an app wants to access the network, it must declare ID_CAP_NETWORKING in its manifest. If it wants to access your contacts, it must declare ID_CAP_CONTACTS... etc. When you view an app in the Marketplace, you can see what capabilities it includes.
However, there's not really any fine-grained control over such things. For example, if you install an app that wants access to your contacts and your appointments, you can't tell it "OK on Appointments, but no Contacts access" short of modifying the app prior to installing (and if you did that, there's a good chance the app would crash when you ran it). Similarly, there's no user-controllable firewall on the phone; an app that specifies ID_CAP_NETWORKING can access anything that is available on the network.
I believe this is similar to the behavior of stock Android ROMs. The advantage that WP7 (and presumably also WP8, but it's too early to tell) has over Android in this regard is that apps go through a much more extensive review process. If an app needs to access your contacts, for example, it better have a good reason for this access and and it will (well, should) be rejected if it sends them off to some advertising company or something.
GoodDayToDie said:
WP7 (and presumably WP8) apps use a "Declared Capabilities" model for controlling access to resources like you mention. That is, if an app wants to access the network, it must declare ID_CAP_NETWORKING in its manifest. If it wants to access your contacts, it must declare ID_CAP_CONTACTS... etc. When you view an app in the Marketplace, you can see what capabilities it includes.
However, there's not really any fine-grained control over such things. For example, if you install an app that wants access to your contacts and your appointments, you can't tell it "OK on Appointments, but no Contacts access" short of modifying the app prior to installing (and if you did that, there's a good chance the app would crash when you ran it). Similarly, there's no user-controllable firewall on the phone; an app that specifies ID_CAP_NETWORKING can access anything that is available on the network.
I believe this is similar to the behavior of stock Android ROMs. The advantage that WP7 (and presumably also WP8, but it's too early to tell) has over Android in this regard is that apps go through a much more extensive review process. If an app needs to access your contacts, for example, it better have a good reason for this access and and it will (well, should) be rejected if it sends them off to some advertising company or something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see. So basically this means, that I could edit the manifest file of any application myself and set the level of access I want it to have, but the application will probably not work anymore.
For instance, I have an navigation app that wants access to my contacts to offer me a direct navigation option to my friends place as well as internet access for current traffic information. Do I need to trust microsoft, that they reviewed this app so well that it does not send my contact list to the software company ?!
Moreover, this way I cannot prevent microsoft for example to collect whatever they want from my phone, right ?
It is correct, that stock Android does not offer this function, too. However there is the possibility to root it and have apps installed that control all traffic, even those of the OS itself.
ntech3333 said:
I see. So basically this means, that I could edit the manifest file of any application myself and set the level of access I want it to have, but the application will probably not work anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Applications are expecting to see all CAPs they request, as this is an all-or-nothing thing in WP. If you'd edit their manifest, the application could behave arbitrarily, and it would likely crash because an essential assumption it made - that being either it has the CAPs it requires or isn't installed - isn't applicable anymore.
Moreover, this would require at least a developer unlock, for some applications (for instance Skype) an interop unlock and for some applications (all XBL ones at least I think) a custom ROM.
ntech3333 said:
For instance, I have an navigation app that wants access to my contacts to offer me a direct navigation option to my friends place as well as internet access for current traffic information. Do I need to trust microsoft, that they reviewed this app so well that it does not send my contact list to the software company ?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. There is no way to partially grant permissions.
ntech3333 said:
Moreover, this way I cannot prevent microsoft for example to collect whatever they want from my phone, right ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft makes the system. If they wanted to hide something in kernel mode, and wanted to hide it from all user accessible APIs, this would be easily done. Simply spoken, if you question Microsoft's commitment to their EULA, WP is the wrong OS for you.
ntech3333 said:
It is correct, that stock Android does not offer this function, too. However there is the possibility to root it and have apps installed that control all traffic, even those of the OS itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without a kernel built from trusted sources, hiding data streams from all APIs is always possible for an OS maker.
ZetaZynK said:
Yes. Applications are expecting to see all CAPs they request, as this is an all-or-nothing thing in WP. If you'd edit their manifest, the application could behave arbitrarily, and it would likely crash because an essential assumption it made - that being either it has the CAPs it requires or isn't installed - isn't applicable anymore.
Moreover, this would require at least a developer unlock, for some applications (for instance Skype) an interop unlock and for some applications (all XBL ones at least I think) a custom ROM.
Yes. There is no way to partially grant permissions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A custom rom, unlocking etc. is not an obstacle as long as it is possible and serves the purpose
In general I would assume, that any application should be able to run without an internet connection, since it could be possible that you are just not connected to the internet for some reason ?? Therefore, removing the CAP for internet access by editing the manifest file should not lead to any unwanted behavior. Or is it more like that, that all apps check their CAPs they requested on startup and not only when they want to access some ressource ?
This way it would be possible to remove internet access for any application I do not want to send data somewhere without blocking others and without the necessity to remove other CAPs.
Microsoft makes the system. If they wanted to hide something in kernel mode, and wanted to hide it from all user accessible APIs, this would be easily done. Simply spoken, if you question Microsoft's commitment to their EULA, WP is the wrong OS for you.
Without a kernel built from trusted sources, hiding data streams from all APIs is always possible for an OS maker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Generally spoken, I trust nones commitment to any EULA or something. Microsoft, Apple, Google, they all have such documents and every few weeks something comes out that they are tracking you, (anonymously ) etc. Everytime the answer is something like "oh, what a mistake, of course it was not intended to be..."
Of course I do want have the comfort of a smartphone, a tablet pc or a computer, but I want to perserve and control my privacy to such an extend that I am satisfyed with it.
Even on a Windows computer I have got the possibility to control network traffic, to limit access for certain software etc., even to limit access for the OS. So why the heck nobody is interested to have that on a smartphone, why an smartphone must be an free bazar of private information everybody can have and do what they want with it ?
What I want and hope is, that with WP8 (since it will be the same kernel than the PC version) something like that will be possible. Just like on a Andriod phone, too where you can grant internet access for everything, even for system components individually.
Removing ID_CAP_NETWORKING will result in an exception (access denied, essentially) when the app tries to call a networking API. Since the app is probably not expecting that particular exception, it will probably crash. Some apps may have very broad exception handling on their network code and simply assume that they don't have access, though.
You don't really have any control like you describe on a Windows computer. You can set the firewall, sure, but then you're trusting Microsoft to not have some leak or backdoor in the firewall. You can write your own drivers to hook it at the kernel level, but then you're trusting Microsoft not to have a direct access to the HAL that bypasses the network driver stack. You can re-write the HAL (OK, not practically, but let's say "you could install another OS" instead) but even then you're still trusting the manufacturers of your motherboard, your CPU, your network interface hardware, your router, your modem...
At some point, you have to trust somebody. A big, publicly-held corporation with many users, a clear privacy statement, and a lot to lose if they screw up fits the bill is your best bet in most cases. Microsoft fits that bill just fine.
GoodDayToDie said:
You don't really have any control like you describe on a Windows computer. You can set the firewall, sure, but then you're trusting Microsoft to not have some leak or backdoor in the firewall. You can write your own drivers to hook it at the kernel level, but then you're trusting Microsoft not to have a direct access to the HAL that bypasses the network driver stack. You can re-write the HAL (OK, not practically, but let's say "you could install another OS" instead) but even then you're still trusting the manufacturers of your motherboard, your CPU, your network interface hardware, your router, your modem...
At some point, you have to trust somebody. A big, publicly-held corporation with many users, a clear privacy statement, and a lot to lose if they screw up fits the bill is your best bet in most cases. Microsoft fits that bill just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, what should I answer ? If you use arguments like that you can extend it to what ever you want.
At some point you need to be realistic when looking at security and privacy. There always can be/is a way to bypass systems on a low level basis to do what you intend to. So what ? You cannot pervent this in any OS.
But when using a third party software firewall that comes with its own drivers, you can be sure to certain extend that you have your networktraffic under control.
This is actually not the point I wanted to make about WP7 and probably WP8.
I understand, that for example an navigation app wants to have access to your contacts to offer you the option to navigate to your friends place. I also see, that this app wants to access the internet to get traffic information. But I do not want this app to have neither access to my contacts nor to the internet since I cannot know what data will be transmitted to the software developer. I even to not want them to do some statistics with me gps positioning. NO. as simple as that. What I do with my information is what I decide.
So what I especially do not like is, that most people in the world do not care about such facts at all. They are running behind apple like lemmings, willingly giveing them all information they have and being happy that everything works so fine on their device !? What the... ?
Anyway, it does not matter, my questions got answered, I will have a closer look at WP8 when it is out and see if it possible to keep my stuff under my control or not.
First of all, EULAs are a binding contract for the first parties, which means that if such a thing were to come out, and it is not a very obvious (actual) bug in the software (Apple's local geolocation data retention bug and Microsoft's bug in WP7 that may have determined the location before you pressed "OK" in the dialog are definitely such - they give nothing of advantage to the two companies), they have a problem named "breach of contract": There will be legal action by activist in such a case.
Then, your argument is valid, a firewall would be effective if you trusted the hardware and software environment. However, I wouldn't hold my breath for it: Firewalls or capability removers are just not fitting in the image of a smartphone. On Android, you also require root for this (important point here: a 3rd party device unlock, it does not come built-in - and apps could also stop working if you withdraw rights from them, since the code might not be prepared for such a scenario either), on an iDevice and Windows Phone it's not possible. It's very much the contrary of how smartphone makers would like to market their devices, a scenario where you might possibly not trust your apps - this could even scare users away from smartphones.
Therefore it is unlikely that WP8 will come with such a capability built-in. Even though WP8 will be sharing the kernel with WinRT, it should be noted that both, WP8 and WinRT will require mandatory UEFI Secure Boot from OEMs. It's likely that this cannot be broken at all unless every a very significant hole can be found that permits to breach the chain of trust or the devices' firmware can be attacked. Hence, it isn't even said whether WP8 can be rooted. If WinRT does not come with Windows Filtering Platform (WFP), it would be the same situation as is on WP7.
You are right, of course the EULA is the first thing to mention But about what legal consequences are you talking ? They will be fined to pay some million dollar ?! Ok, nice, but they still have my data. In this case they bought the information, that's all.
Anyway, I do not want to be paranoid and of course also here at some point you need to stop
To have root access on a device that you own is natural for me. I bought it, it belongs to me, that's why I should be the master on my device. For sure, this does not fit in the global tendency of "not to care about your device, just make it run", too.
On a windows computer I can have administrator privilidges as well. Why they do not want to give me this on my smartphone that claims to be a computer somehow, too?
By the way, WFP is quite a useless piece of invention. I once experimented with WFP for some software project on a windows computer and found out, that the same way I can change every rule someone created for the firewall, everyone else can do. Means: I created a rule to pervent skype to access the internet. Guess what ? Right, Skype detected that and 2min later it deleted my rule and created an own one to grant access again. What use does such a system have ?
There's a rather simple reason, "root" is a badword for most mobile manufacturers: piracy. On Android, that's a different story because you typically can install side-loaded applications, but on the iPhone or Windows Phone you require unlocks to pirate. Typically, piracy is not a practical option on them until you have a root unlock. (If you take a look at WP7, you either require an interop unlock or a custom ROM to have more than 10 unsigned apps - if you wanted to pirate, that would impose a very tight limit on the extend you can do such. Students are even limited to 3 unsigned apps). Root is something that circumvents the control systems of the manufacturer - something that neither Microsoft nor Apple have interest in.
WP and iOS have - compared to Android - very low piracy rates, so this is paying off. (For that matter, WP is probably more locked down than iOS: It took 8 months to public availability of an unlock for my HTC Titan; iOS is usually broken much faster)
I think you're confusing Windows Firewall with WFP. The latter is just a programming interface in the network stack, which allows applications to inspect, filter and modify packets in the network stack. It does not have any rules you could set therefore. Windows Firewall comes with rules, and Skype will - if it has proper privileges to do so - attempt to automatically permit itself in the Firewall.
About the EULA, no. In literally any modern country, data found to have been obtained illegally will result in a sentence to delete the data, to pay a fine and likely to pay the victims damages.
You see, that is the point. The possibility to decide upon your own device is taken away from you due to fears and prejugdes of the manufacturer. Why it always must be connected with piracy ? It means that everybody who wants to have root access on his device is potentially criminal and therefore it is better not to ask for it. Nice.
If you buy a modern house with automatic controlled sun blinds, heating etc. Would you accept, that there is a control room in your cellar, where only the company that built your house has access to? You are only allowed to switch on and off the light in your house. Even the sun blinds open and close whenever they want and tell you when you are allowed to look out of the window and when not. Just because you have no "root" access to change that and you need to accept it.
Fur sure, it is nice to have such system where the user has not rights since most users are not experts and causing mostly only problems where in the other way the system runs smooth and stable...
About WFP, yes I just saw that with Win Vista and Win 7 they introduced such way of filtering platform. I really mixed it up with the windows firewall manager that is accessable via API.
I never saw in any case where data has been found somewhere that users got paid damages. Did Apple do when they tracked their users ? I think no. Did they delete the data ? No they did not, they excused and said something like "oh, what a pitty, we will change that in our next update" Quite safe, isn't it ?
What you fail to see is that android is riddled with issues due to its openness, it is suffering in exactly the same way WM did, you may laugh of WM but android owes its roots to WM. Apple and MS saw the issues, and did something about it.
Yes that restricts you, but you and those like you, are a tiny minority, simply put they have bigger things to worry about, and that is average jo an jane blogs. they do not need that level off access and giving it to them is one of the reasons 10,000s of computers out there are nothing but bots used for DDOS attacks
Remember, WM was slated for being buggy and slow, the reality was far from that, but the networks and OEMs had so much control over the OS they literally screwed it sideways and the magic effect was that they didn't even get the blame, MS did! (ring any bells with android!)
Why didn't WP take off as well as it could have? easy, because firstly it didn't have cool roots to an ipod, secondly because MS tightened up on the OS so much it pissed off the networks, im sorry to say, its little to do with apps and side loading, that's just the first thing people think of when they are talking about something they know nothing about.
Networks like to do things their way and I think you will see their influence in WP8 a lot more, and because of that more than anything else, the networks will like it more, if they like it they will sell it, then you will see a larger uptake in it and thus more apps
anyhow, that's off topic, fact is this, security will only get tighter and rightly so, as much a that is a pain in the arse for you an I, that is the reality, you may have perfectly legit reasons for full access, but I can promise that most who want it probably will use it for something dodgy, MS and Apple can not afford to have a time bomb on their hands in the shape of android.
I fully agree with you !
Just for the protocol: I liked WM very much and I never considered it as buggy and slow, but ok that's another topic.
The reason why Iam using android at the moment is quite simple. There was no satisfying hardware available for any other system. Iphones are useless, for WM almost nothing was there that could be used as a smartphone and WP was likely to be replaced by something else. I was waiting for years that some manufacturer releases a smartphone that has a 2.3" display like a normal mobile. I hate those laptops people try to use like phones with 4" display and what ever.
Since Iam quit unsatisfyed with the quality of my sony ericsson mobile, Iam looking forward to get a Nokia phone again. Moreover, Iam really no fan of open source software since compatiblity is quite bad and the functionality is mostly not really reliable. Iam a heavy MS Exchange user and I do appreciate nothing more than be completely synchronized with my phone laptop and everything. Only WP8 can provide that... So, Iam dealing with it.
Dear Members,
Imagine: An Android Black Box without any screen but only USB Power+Data and Wi-Fi ports to be connected with a Lap- /Desk- top computer and the combo used as a Superphone
I have been planning for a long time to use internet — like the thread I had posted in Unix StackExchange in
unix.stackexchange.com/questions/86380/reading-sim-data-via-file-managers-using-usb-datamodem, around September 2013.
There I had posted the links of an idea: If Mobile-> Internet access Modem, why not datacard->mobile, posted in both Knoppix and Debian forums, around March 2013.
A killer of an idea came to me while I began using web.whatsapp.com
I have been doing research on the alternatives of the Android OS available on the web. These two links are sufficient for what I am going to present:
beebom.com/android-alternative/
itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/
Won't it be easier if, rather than to build free and Open-source alternatives to Android, Android itself is enhanced for its use with a computer, keyboard and mouse, using an app like the Whatsapp Digital Optical Code scanner, to have the display and button- and touchscreen- controls transferred to our lap- / desk- top computers, like we can in Whatsapp via web.whatsapp.com?
In Linux there already are ways to remotely control a desktop via appropriate permissions with a GUI interface.
This way, Google remains happy, while we too remain free from restrictive policies.
There are many emulators already available on the Open Source Linux systems, like QEMU, VirtualBox, and so on, not to mention the proprietary VMWare.
The app needs to have two parts:
(1) A rudimentary functionality of a Transceiver/Emulator, to slip right between the Hardware and the Android OS, creating a "What You Ask Is What You Get" one to one virtual communicator, and side by side, relaying the signals to the main app.
(2) A virtualisation of the user input signals and transceiving the same with the Android OS.
The main application having all the remaining functionalities to connect the Android OS with the Lap- / Desk- top via Wi-Fi, internet and its in-built optical scanner.
Of course, the App needs to have a cloud application to store all the data of the users on the cloud securely via SSL security like Whatsapp.
The App could earn its profits from the revenue structure Google has erected to have the app paid via advertisements. Interested users like us would also be more than willing to pay for the app, I believe.
In the end, again, a device could as well be developed to combine an Android SmartPhone Black-Box (without screen) Hot-plugged with a standard lap- / desk- top and forming a seamless combination of the two into one super-unit via Free and Open Source Software.
To conclude, I seek this opportunity to inform that I am a very empowering closet-entrepreneur, but I have my own limitations because of my inability to accept certain existing structures. So rather than forming an entrepreneurship venture, I like freely to share information. FOSI instead of FOSS, I for Ideas.