Related
Huge time for us droid users on Verizon Wireless, some heavy hitting phones come out and i wanted to get some feedback from the developer community on the NEXUS side of things because initially this was the one device i really wanted.
Are you all still sold on the NEXUS even though its hardware specs are considerably less than what is offered by the:
HTC Rezound
(Dual 1.5 Ghz / True HD display, Pure Beats Audio SDcard/HDMI)
Motorolla RAZR
(Dual 1.2 Super AMOLED Advanced display and high quality materials in build/HDMI/SDCard -granted no removable battery )?
Do you think it would be better to go with the hardware and root/flash to Ice cream Sandwich later on?
I can confirm that Verizon is going to load this phone up with all sorts of preinstalled junk but obviously this is removable by anyone who roots their device, but how easy will it be to root something on 4.0 given that there isnt much out there for it?
I personally was dying for a Droid with Icecream Sandwich on it but im afraid to jump on board with Samsung again because of the known issues with the antennae in the phone (dropping service, poor 4G to 3G transition, all of which are confirmed issues with have haunted Verizon's 4G Samsung offerings)
-sigh- Yet another thread about comparing specs...
The GNexus has already been rooted. And it'll run pure Android over an unlock(ed/able) bootloader, so there would be little standing in the way of rooting it otherwise.
I've been waiting on the GN for about a year, ever since I started getting tired of my OG's sluggish performance.
_hyperdude said:
-sigh- Yet another thread about comparing specs...
The GNexus has already been rooted. And it'll run pure Android over an unlock(ed/able) bootloader, so there would be little standing in the way of rooting it otherwise.
I've been waiting on the GN for about a year, ever since I started getting tired of my OG's sluggish performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it kind of surprises me there isnt a clear winner among these devices on this site. Why one over the other when your going to root and rom it anyways so why look at anything but hardware? If this isnt the case then maybe i need to be educated.
Also didnt mean it as really a "specs" comparison. I know the other ones are better, I just wanted to hear if you all think 4.0 is that much better that its worth going for this device or if there was some magic bullet in the samsung that just made it a clear victor
Droid RAZR: MotoBlur
HTC Rezound: HTC Sense 3.5
Galaxy Nexus: Stock Android 4.0
Galaxy Nexus wins. Game over. Thread closed.
PsychoSimatic said:
Well it kind of surprises me there isnt a clear winner among these devices on this site. Why one over the other when your going to root and rom it anyways so why look at anything but hardware? If this isnt the case then maybe i need to be educated.
Also didnt mean it as really a "specs" comparison. I know the other ones are better, I just wanted to hear if you all think 4.0 is that much better that its worth going for this device or if there was some magic bullet in the samsung that just made it a clear victor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Listen. This phone was the phone Google used to DEVELOP ICS. Which means by nature its going to have the best time running ICS. That's why I'm getting it, and I'm sure why some others are attracted to the Nexus Line
I am my mom's "little elitest"
Deal with it!
PsychoSimatic said:
Well it kind of surprises me there isnt a clear winner among these devices on this site. Why one over the other when your going to root and rom it anyways so why look at anything but hardware? If this isnt the case then maybe i need to be educated.
Also didnt mean it as really a "specs" comparison. I know the other ones are better, I just wanted to hear if you all think 4.0 is that much better that its worth going for this device or if there was some magic bullet in the samsung that just made it a clear victor
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also have to consider bootloaders and xda development.... since you are posting here, you must be interested in enhancement of your phone.
When you add those to the overall specs, and that the nexus is a world phone... (added development on xda) its hard not to chose the GN, IMHO.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using xda premium
PsychoSimatic said:
HTC Rezound
(Dual 1.5 Ghz / True HD display, Pure Beats Audio SDcard/HDMI)
Motorolla RAZR
(Dual 1.2 Super AMOLED Advanced display and high quality materials in build/HDMI/SDCard -granted no removable battery )?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just some thoughts.
The Rezound's 1.5GHz qualcomm chip is probably slower than the 1.2GHz OMAP4460. The Nexus is also a 'true' 720p display (sub-pixel arrangement doesn't change that,) the Beats label was laughed out of the audiophile world and into smartphones - where it became an equalizer that accentuates bass. In addition, the Rezound uses MHL for video-out (HDMI,) just like the Nexus
The RAZR is much more comparable to the Nexus. The Nexus has a far superior screen, but you lose out on the microSD slot and the build materials (and ultra-thinness.) The dedicated HDMI port is a boon though, since MHL displays are nonexistant at this point. Funnily enough, my main con with the RAZR is the supercolossal side bezel.
For me it's between the Nexus and the RAZR. If there turns out to be no 32GB GSM Nexus, or if I can't get it here, I'll take a hard look at the RAZR. And probably end up waiting for a Tegra 3 phone instead.
You make it sound like there's a phone that doesn't have bad 3G to 4G transitions on Verizon. They all have issues as far as I know. Whether the nexus has decent reception or not we won't know until later...but no reason to assume any worse.
S
PsychoSimatic said:
Huge time for us droid users on Verizon Wireless, some heavy hitting phones come out and i wanted to get some feedback from the developer community on the NEXUS side of things because initially this was the one device i really wanted.
Are you all still sold on the NEXUS even though its hardware specs are considerably less than what is offered by the:
HTC Rezound
(Dual 1.5 Ghz / True HD display, Pure Beats Audio SDcard/HDMI)
Motorolla RAZR
(Dual 1.2 Super AMOLED Advanced display and high quality materials in build/HDMI/SDCard -granted no removable battery )?
Do you think it would be better to go with the hardware and root/flash to Ice cream Sandwich later on?
I can confirm that Verizon is going to load this phone up with all sorts of preinstalled junk but obviously this is removable by anyone who roots their device, but how easy will it be to root something on 4.0 given that there isnt much out there for it?
I personally was dying for a Droid with Icecream Sandwich on it but im afraid to jump on board with Samsung again because of the known issues with the antennae in the phone (dropping service, poor 4G to 3G transition, all of which are confirmed issues with have haunted Verizon's 4G Samsung offerings)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Nexus is far superior in EVERY aspect. Even in specs. Nexus has OMAP 4460 Razr has OMAP 4430 and Rezound has the same ol MSM8660. The Nexus is UNDERCLOCKED at 1.2 ghz and the 4460 usually runs at 1.5 ghz stock. Not to mention the software on the Nexus which is obviously 4.0 has been built around that specific hardware. So if Google optimized ICS for that specific hardware setup that shows you something. It will run better on that setup then any other around. Not to mention you can OEM unlock the Nexus and you'll have to wait for exploits on the Rezound and the Razr you'll get some awful bootstrap application that won't even save you in a soft brick situation. To me the superior device is so obvious. The Razr is clearly marketed towards the average everyday user who just wants to make calls/text browse the web and do dumb things like Facebook. The Rezound will most likely be able to do the same things that the Nexus will be able to do though as long as it gets s-off (which I'm pretty sure it will, but when will it is the question). The development community is going to be absolutely HUGE on the Nexus, I am willing to bet it's going to be the biggest development community on a VZW phone since the original Moto DROID. Once again the choice is a no brainer to me and the majority of the people I know in the community. Nobody wants that crappy Razr and HTC does have nice hardware but they really need to switch up their style of devices. They are sexy as hell but the same old style is getting old IMO. Time for a little change HTC!
---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 AM ----------
itsjusttim said:
Also have to consider bootloaders and xda development.... since you are posting here, you must be interested in enhancement of your phone.
When you add those to the overall specs, and that the nexus is a world phone... (added development on xda) its hard not to chose the GN, IMHO.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhhh, when did the Nexus become a world phone? The LTE version is NOT a world phone at all, and it's pretty clear that's the version he's talking about since he's comparing it to others on VZW.
Nice...
Honestly this was exactly the response i was hoping for, thank you
now im literally foaming at the mouth to get my nexus
martonikaj said:
Droid RAZR: MotoBlur
HTC Rezound: HTC Sense 3.5
Galaxy Nexus: Stock Android 4.0
Galaxy Nexus wins. Game over. Thread closed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THIS and everything about it.
The following is not my writing but it more or less sums up my feelings on the Android Universe.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/compan...-looking-at-android-all-wrong-user-submitted/
RVDigital said:
THIS and everything about it.
The following is not my writing but it more or less sums up my feelings on the Android Universe.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/compan...-looking-at-android-all-wrong-user-submitted/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to disagree with this post, and what that user said in his.
They are not different operating systems. As much as you think Sense, Blur, and TouchWiz are different OSes or whatever, its just a SKIN. A theme. That's it. Nexus devices are just pure Android with no Skinning.
So you can take an HTC, Motorola or Samsung device, root it, and install an AOSP Rom of your choice. CM7 for example, and look... you have a pure Android Device too. You can't however, take an iPhone and install a fully functional Android OS on it.
So I look at devices for their hardware, not themeing or skins that can be easily removed and replaced. I can't however take out the CPU and drop something newer or better in it... or change out a monitor/display like you can on a desktop.
Sent from my SCH-I400 using Tapatalk
Tornlogic said:
I have to disagree with this post, and what that user said in his.
They are not different operating systems. As much as you think Sense, Blur, and TouchWiz are different OSes or whatever, its just a SKIN. A theme. That's it. Nexus devices are just pure Android with no Skinning.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Never said that they are completely different OSes, but they're pretty darn close (looking at you, Sense). My point is that although it is just a skin, you can't remove it. You can't get rid of it, and you can't disable it out of the box.
So you can take an HTC, Motorola or Samsung device, root it, and install an AOSP Rom of your choice. CM7 for example, and look... you have a pure Android Device too. You can't however, take an iPhone and install a fully functional Android OS on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, who said anything about an iPhone? Going to disregard that part.
Yes, obviously you can root and custom ROM your phone. But why should I have to root my phone just to get the experience that I want? Is it too much to ask to just get the OS and setup I want right out of the box? Or at least have the option to turn off the OEM and carrier **** they put on it?
So I look at devices for their hardware, not themeing or skins that can be easily removed and replaced. I can't however take out the CPU and drop something newer or better in it... or change out a monitor/display like you can on a desktop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to respectfully disagree. The hardware specs are good to keep in mind, but they aren't everything. The difference of a couple hundred mhz processor, or slightly different memory config, or dimensions don't have to be the only thing you factor your buying decision on.
With a device like a Nexus, you can really consider the phone for its entire experience, and what it comes out of the box as. You've got to realize that sometimes that's important to people. I shouldn't have to buy a phone and root it the moment I get home just to have a usable experience. And I know its stupid, but I just can't keep supporting companies that completely destroy Android like that.
You can have fun buying your phone and waiting for a root method, then flashing a new ROM and watching as dev support drops off and you're left with an old ROM on your phone. I'm going Nexus this time around, and don't plan on doing anything else.
Tornlogic said:
I have to disagree with this post, and what that user said in his.
They are not different operating systems. As much as you think Sense, Blur, and TouchWiz are different OSes or whatever, its just a SKIN. A theme. That's it. Nexus devices are just pure Android with no Skinning.
So you can take an HTC, Motorola or Samsung device, root it, and install an AOSP Rom of your choice. CM7 for example, and look... you have a pure Android Device too. You can't however, take an iPhone and install a fully functional Android OS on it.
So I look at devices for their hardware, not themeing or skins that can be easily removed and replaced. I can't however take out the CPU and drop something newer or better in it... or change out a monitor/display like you can on a desktop.
Sent from my SCH-I400 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Consider the following...
Saying Sense, TouchWiz, and MotoBlur are simply "Skins" on top of stock AOSP is like saying Ubuntu, Mint Linux, and the various other Debian Bases are "Skins" of Debian. Yes, they all share the same BASE, but this is the only thing they have in common. HTC, Samsung, and Moto have deeply integrated their UIs into the Android platform and have basically made it their own.
As the poster above me stated, the skins cannot be simply removed. If that was the case, I would have AOSP on my EVO 3D by now. Since HTC has decided to deeply integrate their drivers into their Sense Android Operating system framework, "Vanilla Android" is not possible at this time.
RVDigital said:
Consider the following...
Saying Sense, TouchWiz, and MotoBlur are simply "Skins" on top of stock AOSP is like saying Ubuntu, Mint Linux, and the various other Debian Bases are "Skins" of Debian. Yes, they all share the same BASE, but this is the only thing they have in common. HTC, Samsung, and Moto have deeply integrated their UIs into the Android platform and have basically made it their own.
As the poster above me stated, the skins cannot be simply removed. If that was the case, I would have AOSP on my EVO 3D by now. Since HTC has decided to deeply integrate their drivers into their Sense Android Operating system framework, "Vanilla Android" is not possible at this time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Yes, Sense/Touchwiz/Blur are "skins" or themes over Android, but it goes deeper than that. It's not just a theme like you see themes for different ROMs coming out (where different colors and background images are used) - it goes down to the firmware level, with drivers to run the redesigned apps and add extra functionality (or take some away).
RVDigital said:
Consider the following...
Saying Sense, TouchWiz, and MotoBlur are simply "Skins" on top of stock AOSP is like saying Ubuntu, Mint Linux, and the various other Debian Bases are "Skins" of Debian. Yes, they all share the same BASE, but this is the only thing they have in common. HTC, Samsung, and Moto have deeply integrated their UIs into the Android platform and have basically made it their own.
As the poster above me stated, the skins cannot be simply removed. If that was the case, I would have AOSP on my EVO 3D by now. Since HTC has decided to deeply integrate their drivers into their Sense Android Operating system framework, "Vanilla Android" is not possible at this time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ubuntu, Mint, Debian are all just distros; Sense, TouchWiz, and MotoBlur are just skins. They are not operating systems. The operating systems are, in the first case, GNU/Linux; and in the second case, Android. The operating system provides a set of libraries and defines a set of standards for programs to run on the OS. Just like any program made for GNU/Linux on x86 will run on any x86 system running GNU/Linux, regardless of whether it's running Debian or Ubuntu or Mint, any program made for Android on ARMv7 will run on any ARMv7 system running Android, regardless of whether it's running TouchWiz or Sense or MotoBLUR. In the case of Ubuntu, Debian, Mint etc. we call them distros because they include a set of choices of components in addition to the GNu/Linux base system (package managers, window managers, desktop environments, etc.). In the case of TouchWiz, Sense, etc. we call them skins because they include a customized look & feel and a set of additional applications and widgets that run on top of the OS. You might argue that these might be called distros, but that's a bit of a stretch because the customizations provided by these don't extend far beyond the look & feel and some additional utilities that run on top of the Android base system, and possibly some native drivers for each manufacturer's hardware. It is not quite as extensive a customization as a distro, they are more like standard Android bundled with a custom skin and some additional apps and drivers. They are certainly not different OSes.
Chirality said:
Ubuntu, Mint, Debian are all just distros; Sense, TouchWiz, and MotoBlur are just skins. They are not operating systems. The operating systems are, in the first case, GNU/Linux; and in the second case, Android. The operating system provides a set of libraries and defines a set of standards for programs to run on the OS. Just like any program made for GNU/Linux on x86 will run on any x86 system running GNU/Linux, regardless of whether it's running Debian or Ubuntu or Mint, any program made for Android on ARMv7 will run on any ARMv7 system running Android, regardless of whether it's running TouchWiz or Sense or MotoBLUR. In the case of Ubuntu, Debian, Mint etc. we call them distros because they include a set of choices of components in addition to the GNu/Linux base system (package managers, window managers, desktop environments, etc.). In the case of TouchWiz, Sense, etc. we call them skins because they include a customized look & feel and a set of additional applications and widgets that run on top of the OS. You might argue that these might be called distros, but that's a bit of a stretch because the customizations provided by these don't extend far beyond the look & feel and some additional utilities that run on top of the Android base system, and possibly some native drivers for each manufacturer's hardware. It is not quite as extensive a customization as a distro, they are more like standard Android bundled with a custom skin and some additional apps and drivers. They are certainly not different OSes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I realize that the analogy I provided is not a 1:1 example. I will substitute "Branch" for my use of the word "Distro" in the previous example to better explain the point of view.
In reply to your post I ask, how do you explain the deep framework integration manufactures such as HTC utilize to a point where the removal of such framework from the base AOSP causes hardware to stop functioning? I cant simply accept that this is a "Skin" of the base, I see HTC Sense as a BRANCH of the Android base.
The point is, its not even close to Google's idea or implementation of Android. When you add things to the base experience, you're going to run into unique (positive/negative) consequences that one otherwise wouldn't with AOSP. Take for example, HTCs recent controversy over their "Spyware" that was integrated into the Sense branch.
RVDigital said:
I realize that the analogy I provided is not a 1:1 example. I will substitute "Branch" for my use of the word "Distro" in the previous example to better explain the point of view.
In reply to your post I ask, how do you explain the deep framework integration manufactures such as HTC utilize to a point where the removal of such framework from the base AOSP causes hardware to stop functioning? I cant simply accept that this is a "Skin" of the base, I see HTC Sense as a BRANCH of the Android base.
The point is, its not even close to Google's idea or implementation of Android. When you add things to the base experience, you're going to run into unique (positive/negative) consequences that one otherwise wouldn't with AOSP. Take for example, HTCs recent controversy over their "Spyware" that was integrated into the Sense branch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not framework integration that's preventing you from using AOSP on your HTC device, it's the availability of device drivers. If HTC made all their device drivers available in source form, then you can just build these for AOSP and use AOSP on HTC devices with full functionality. The skin and the drivers can be decoupled - the skin may contain certain utilities that depend on some drivers to function, but the drivers shouldn't depend on the skin or its included apps to function. Imagine if Asus designed some special hardware that runs on their x86-based computers and sold a version of Windows that includes these special drivers that are not available anywhere else, then you have to buy Asus' version of Windows to run on these Asus computers, but it's still just Windows, with some extra drivers, not a fork of Windows. Of course you can't do this with Windows since it's a proprietary system, but it's done with Linux and Android, for better or worse.
Quick question: Do you guys think that the distribution of developer support for these phones? After all, the reason that most of us are here are because of the community, and its the dev community is what makes phones today great, and I just want to pick a phone that will have a large developer following.
Chirality said:
It's not framework integration that's preventing you from using AOSP on your HTC device, it's the availability of device drivers. If HTC made all their device drivers available in source form, then you can just build these for AOSP and use AOSP on HTC devices with full functionality. The skin and the drivers can be decoupled - the skin may contain certain utilities that depend on some drivers to function, but the drivers shouldn't depend on the skin or its included apps to function. Imagine if Asus designed some special hardware that runs on their x86-based computers and sold a version of Windows that includes these special drivers that are not available anywhere else, then you have to buy Asus' version of Windows to run on these Asus computers, but it's still just Windows, with some extra drivers, not a fork of Windows. Of course you can't do this with Windows since it's a proprietary system, but it's done with Linux and Android, for better or worse.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is HTC does NOT provide the necessary driver source and thus it remains closed. They have taken an originally open source platform and effectively locked it down, short of closing it. I have a hard time understanding how this can simply be called a "Skin". Nothing about Sense is necessary for the Android experience, it's simply paint, wallpaper, and furniture.
It's like comparing Oranges and Grapefruit. Similar, even in the same family, but NOT the same.
This is what makes me crazy about Google and Android (and yes, companies like Samsung) - the uneven distribution of updates (I know, I know). In this case, some devices are already receiving 4.0.4 while many of us are still stuck waiting for the (empty?) promises to update to 4.0.
Just sayin'.
http://androidcommunity.com/android-4-0-4-ics-rolling-out-for-nexus-s-xoom-and-galaxy-nexus-20120328/
Google just develop the OS itself. Whether the device run the system depends on hardware vendor.
The current situation is like MS just released Windows 7 but your PC(part) manufacturer has not released new driver yet.
That is a good way to look at it and completely agree with it. The laptop I have hasn't seen a graphics driver update in 6 months now. Something that should be kept up to date on a monthly basis
If it really comes down to it hopefully Samsung will get their act together and release the full source code for our Tablet. Than at that point we can take matters into our own hands.
C'mon guys. The 4.0.3 had lots of bugs. I updated it on my GF'S Nexus S when just been released and battery was drained in few hours. Devs from all devices (for example Xoom - which I have) had to work out to fix issues that have been fixed by Google after months in 4.0.4
So I'm not so disappointed for having not received the 4.0.3 (even 'cuz we have too few devs). I trust in Samsung and believe there will be avaible on April Let's wait
N.b.
I have a Galaxy Note and the only ROMS for ICS avaibles are leaked from the Chinese version of my device. ICS has not been released yet (and we're talking about NOTE...)
Sent from my Galaxy Note with DarkyROM 3.3
i don't really care what bs version samsung is going to release for tab plus's ICS.
the only thing i care is the source code! the faster they release the source code, the faster someone could work on CM9 for tab7plus. THAT is what matter!
gingerboy92 said:
i don't really care what bs version samsung is going to release for tab plus's ICS.
the only thing i care is the source code! the faster they release the source code, the faster someone could work on CM9 for tab7plus. THAT is what matter!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ICS source from Samsung has no real effect on CM9. CyanogenMod is an AOSP ROM which means that it's not built from Samsung's sources, it's built straight from Google's upstream sources. That's how devices like the HP TouchPad, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet have CM9 builds now - none of these devices ever had ICS sources released.
Right now, the only thing that's really holding back CM9 development on the tab7plus is a lack of tab7plus owners contributing to a CM9 port.
yeah Im waiting for CM9, gave up on Samsung. If they release it great. Id rather CM9 anyday, even with no wifi!!
h2g2 said:
ICS source from Samsung has no real effect on CM9. CyanogenMod is an AOSP ROM which means that it's not built from Samsung's sources, it's built straight from Google's upstream sources. That's how devices like the HP TouchPad, Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet have CM9 builds now - none of these devices ever had ICS sources released.
Right now, the only thing that's really holding back CM9 development on the tab7plus is a lack of tab7plus owners contributing to a CM9 port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not the kernel source, and don't forget the wireless chip/adapter/card(?)'s source code.
but yeah, i do agree. we need more devs to work on our tab!
We're still lacking driver source (i.e. our Atheros wifi driver) so even if we got someone to port CM9 to our tabs, we'd have no wifi functionality. The only way to get drivers (with no proper source code released for them) is to reverse engineer the driver(s) themselves, which is a difficult task to say the least.
The reason why most of us say we're waiting for our tabs "ICS Source" is because we're hoping Samsung actually releases our wifi Driver Source code this time.
But...if I remember correctly...someone had pointed out that although Samsung had not released proper source code for our wifi driver, another Sony device that uses it had released code that we could "possibly" use. No one has really confirmed nor denied anything past that recently. Maybe Gary can comment on this issue soon, could clear up a lot of questions for me and everyone else
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
the real problem here is that samsung is "promising" ICS "soon". it would be easier if they say they are going to release it next year or even not going to release it at all.
gingerboy92 said:
not the kernel source, and don't forget the wireless chip/adapter/card(?)'s source code.
but yeah, i do agree. we need more devs to work on our tab!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kernel source doesn't mean driver sources. Remember that drivers don't need to be integrated into the kernel - if Samsung (or the manufacturer of the device) chooses to implement the driver as a binary-only lkm, there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release the source code for the driver.
This has been a problem with Linux drivers in general for a while. I could be wrong, but my sense is that if the needed driver isn't already available in source code from the manufacturer directly, it's unlikely that Samsung will include it in their kernel sources.
---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------
Ceelos09 said:
We're still lacking driver source (i.e. our Atheros wifi driver) so even if we got someone to port CM9 to our tabs, we'd have no wifi functionality. The only way to get drivers (with no proper source code released for them) is to reverse engineer the driver(s) themselves, which is a difficult task to say the least.
The reason why most of us say we're waiting for our tabs "ICS Source" is because we're hoping Samsung actually releases our wifi Driver Source code this time.
But...if I remember correctly...someone had pointed out that although Samsung had not released proper source code for our wifi driver, another Sony device that uses it had released code that we could "possibly" use. No one has really confirmed nor denied anything past that recently. Maybe Gary can comment on this issue soon, could clear up a lot of questions for me and everyone else
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess is that if Samsung has not released the needed sources previously, they probably won't do so with ICS. This is just pure speculation on my part, it's possible Samsung's failure to release wifi driver source was an oversight on Samsung's part but if that were the case, it seems like they would have fixed that already.
I don't know what chip the GT7P uses but some Googling suggests that it's an Atheros 6000 series. If that's the case, the Linux driver source is available: http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ar6k
ar6k isn't part of the mainline Linux kernel so there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release it as part of their kernel source release. Whether Samsung is obligated to release their ar6k driver source is probably dependent on their agreement with Atheros (ie, just because an open source Linux ar6k exists doesn't preclude the possibility that Samsung licensed a non-GPL version of the driver).
h2g2 said:
Right now, the only thing that's really holding back CM9 development on the tab7plus is a lack of tab7plus owners contributing to a CM9 port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is the best way for us Tab 7.0+ owners to contribute?
h2g2 said:
Kernel source doesn't mean driver sources. Remember that drivers don't need to be integrated into the kernel - if Samsung (or the manufacturer of the device) chooses to implement the driver as a binary-only lkm, there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release the source code for the driver.
This has been a problem with Linux drivers in general for a while. I could be wrong, but my sense is that if the needed driver isn't already available in source code from the manufacturer directly, it's unlikely that Samsung will include it in their kernel sources.
---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------
My guess is that if Samsung has not released the needed sources previously, they probably won't do so with ICS. This is just pure speculation on my part, it's possible Samsung's failure to release wifi driver source was an oversight on Samsung's part but if that were the case, it seems like they would have fixed that already.
I don't know what chip the GT7P uses but some Googling suggests that it's an Atheros 6000 series. If that's the case, the Linux driver source is available: http://linuxwireless.org/en/users/Drivers/ar6k
ar6k isn't part of the mainline Linux kernel so there's no obligation on Samsung's part to release it as part of their kernel source release. Whether Samsung is obligated to release their ar6k driver source is probably dependent on their agreement with Atheros (ie, just because an open source Linux ar6k exists doesn't preclude the possibility that Samsung licensed a non-GPL version of the driver).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for the clarification.
bittersound said:
What is the best way for us Tab 7.0+ owners to contribute?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In a general sense, there is no answer as it depends on what the problem is. If there are willing developers who don't have access to hardware, you can always donate hardware or chip in to help with that. If there aren't enough willing developers, well, you just have to learn to code or chip in for a bounty to get a developer interested. If, on the other hand, it's a lack of vital documentation or source code from Samsung, well, there's not much you can do except perhaps get some sort of letter writing or phone call campaign over to the appropriate corporate offices.
In a specific sense, best bet is to go over to the development sub-forum, find someone with a project you'd like to support and ask them what help they need.
Gary once mentioned he would help with porting CM9, but he did make it clear to us that it would be a while until he would jump in to help. Life must be keeping him busy atm.
For now, I'm working on learning some code, maybe I'll be of "some" help down the road.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
...of the year 2015.
moderators: I'm very sorry (not really) for the sarcastic spam, but I've grown more and more unhappy with Samsung in regards to them keeping their promises. At this point, other than my P6210 tablet, I've sold every single one of my android devices that are controlled by samsung.
I still have a galaxy nexus, but thankfully the source for that is controlled by google - not samsung.
Q1 has come and gone. No ICS. Hell, they STILL won't release the source for the damn wifi driver! The same source that qualcomm (who owns atheros) released under the GPL, but samsung says that they (samsung) get to choose between GPL and BSD and they are choosing BSD. Why? What good does it do Samsung to NOT release the source? If Apple.. er.. samsung wants to treat their customers this way, I can take my future business elsewhere.
If I wanted a closed platform, I'd buy an iphone or ipad.
Gary
I agree
And I feel that with the increasingly number of similar tablets that Samsung puts in the market, the hopes for further updates are extremely low. Maybe we will have a first revision of ICS, but better it is good, because I don't think they will fix whatever is wrong.
I will agree with Gary in terms of how closed Samsung is making their "open" device. Though that is coming from a developer. From a consumer perspective having or not having ICS makes no difference to them. Unfortunately as our world becomes more tech illiterate the more these devices will become more and more locked down and cause stagnation in innovation.
Sorry to hear you leaving though you were a great help here.
I'm not leaving the p6210... its the only samsung device I'm keeping. However, until and unless Samsung gives me something more than incomplete and outdated source, there's nothing else for me to do. I can't fix the wifi bugs, because Apple..er..Samsung won't release the source.
If they ever get around to pushing out ICS (big "if" there) AND they release the source, I'll play with that. I might even find the time to just port AOSP (or even better - AOKP) over.
After using a galaxy nexus for a few days, I don't miss touchwiz at all.
Well that's good to hear... It sounded as if you were leaving us there. Though supposedly someone is making headway with wifi with the cm9 ics build. You might want to check in there.
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
Even Huawei Springboard (my 2nd tablet) already received ICS, I also disappointed a bigger company like Samsung get update slower then Huawei
Sent from my GT-P6200 using XDA App
fewt said:
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GPL is not a driver, GPL is a open source licence.
Yes, I know the difference between GPL & BSD (both are OSS licenses.) I was asking if the GPL version would work if it was updated with the p6210 WIFI PCI ID.
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2
fewt said:
What's with the driver? Does the GPL driver not support our cards, is it just missing the pci id? I'm new to this slate, so I don't have much exposure to the current issues like this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For doing an AOSP type implementation where 100% of the source is available, yes - it might.
For trying to do a kernel that would work with the rest of the samsung firmware, no - it won't. There are 3 parts that have to work together here: the actual driver (ar6003.ko in samsung's firmware), wpa_supplicant (which, on stock p6210 implementations has a ar6003 specific interface compiled in) and the rest of the firmware (settings page, etc.)
The "rest of the firmware" calls wpa_supplicant to do the dirty work of the wifi driver, and wpa_supplicant makes calls directly into the driver.
I'm sure I typed all this before, in another thread months ago, and went into great detail. The short version is this:
I need the source for the ar6003 driver and the source for wpa_supplicant (for the ar6003 interface.) Both of these are released in "GPL/BSD" dual licenses by their authors, meaning that samsung can, in theory, choose which license model to use when they include that code. Samsung has told me that they are claiming BSD for both and therefore will refuse to release the source to any modifications that might be included.
I've tried pulling in the generic ar600x code from mainline linux, but it wasn't working for me with the rest of the samsung stuff... and I simply don't have the time to mess with that for endless hours just because samsung is trying to be apple-like and make android a closed platform.
garyd9 said:
For doing an AOSP type implementation where 100% of the source is available, yes - it might.
For trying to do a kernel that would work with the rest of the samsung firmware, no - it won't. There are 3 parts that have to work together here: the actual driver (ar6003.ko in samsung's firmware), wpa_supplicant (which, on stock p6210 implementations has a ar6003 specific interface compiled in) and the rest of the firmware (settings page, etc.)
The "rest of the firmware" calls wpa_supplicant to do the dirty work of the wifi driver, and wpa_supplicant makes calls directly into the driver.
I'm sure I typed all this before, in another thread months ago, and went into great detail. The short version is this:
I need the source for the ar6003 driver and the source for wpa_supplicant (for the ar6003 interface.) Both of these are released in "GPL/BSD" dual licenses by their authors, meaning that samsung can, in theory, choose which license model to use when they include that code. Samsung has told me that they are claiming BSD for both and therefore will refuse to release the source to any modifications that might be included.
I've tried pulling in the generic ar600x code from mainline linux, but it wasn't working for me with the rest of the samsung stuff... and I simply don't have the time to mess with that for endless hours just because samsung is trying to be apple-like and make android a closed platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wpa_supplicant is what's probably killing you if it has been forked, more so than the driver itself. Makes perfect sense why it is such a pain.
Do you know of a thread somewhere that describes how to get started building kernels for these things? I'll play around with it, I don't have much experience with Android outside of some hacking with adb but I know my way around Linux as well as most.
I'll start poking around more, but thanks for the short version it is appreciated.
Zadeis said:
I will agree with Gary in terms of how closed Samsung is making their "open" device. Though that is coming from a developer. From a consumer perspective having or not having ICS makes no difference to them. Unfortunately as our world becomes more tech illiterate the more these devices will become more and more locked down and cause stagnation in innovation.
Sorry to hear you leaving though you were a great help here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree that consumers don't care. Call me naive that I didn't scour the internet deep enough to find good, honest feedback, but the only reason I chose the more expensive Samsung 7.0 was its IR blaster and its advertised ability to control the home theater components with it. That feature is bolded and blaster all over Samsungs feature list and descriptions.
So I get me GT7+ 2 months ago and how does it work? It doesn't do what I want. Peel, the only IR app available for the tablet force closes every time, and updates have proven fruitless. I email the developers of Peel and what do they tell me? They won't fix (or can't fix) the problem until they get updated ICS drivers for the SG7+. So for now I am **** out of luck until Samsung updates. I try to get a hold of Samsung tech support and get nowhere. The best I got was from a "Live Chat" bot that said ICS will be available in the future. No more specifics could be given.
And to add insult to injury, the screen on my Tab is fritzing out and needs to be sent back for service already. On paper the SG7+ looks great but for me it's been nothing but a hassle.
I want ICS so I can have everything work as advertised. It probably never will so I'll chalk this one up to experience and sell the POS.
Just remember that samsung never actually promised ICS for this device. There were "leaks" (completely unofficial) and "targets", but never any legally binding promises.
Why should samsung spend the money developing ICS for people who own a device when that device is ALREADY 6 months old? At the rate samsung is coming out with new devices, they need that money developing for newer devices.
In a sick kind of way, this makes sense to me. (Samsung seems to be forgetting, however, that I buy a new tablet every 6-12 months and my next one will NOT be a samsung device due to the experience I'm having with them over this one.)
What doesn't make sense to me is the way that they are withholding source code. It just doesn't profit them or even save them money. There isn't even anything proprietary in the ar6003 drivers and wpa_supplicant code. No trade secrets. It's almost as if they are deliberately chasing AWAY technical people... but that just doesn't make sense when your primary OS is an open one that depends on geeks.
The only thing I can figure out is that they are, in fact, hiding something. Perhaps they are embarassed about the programming? Perhaps they cut corners and don't want it to become public knowledge? Maybe they just have a nasty streak and are deliberately trying to prevent any repeat customers. I'm just taking wild guesses here - I honestly don't know.
The flip side to that is that you are aware of the fact ICS will have an impact to functionality on a current situation. Most people won't, as you put it, scour the internet to find the solution or future solution, to a problem and actually understand that an OS update will have a great impact on their experience with their current product. I had a discussion with someone the other day on this mindset and how it has been driving me nuts. (This person also considers them self an average user and not like most of us on this forum) You know that android 3.2 is on your your Tablet. YOU know what android 4.0 ICS is and how it impacts you. Most don't. That is what I was trying to conveying.
Though I am surprised that you are having issues with it on account I have had no problems with it (even though I haven't used it much).
P.S. Sorry about the irritated tone I do not mean any harm it's just a sore subject with me :/
Zadeis said:
The flip side to that is that you are aware of the fact ICS will have an impact to functionality on a current situation. Most people won't, as you put it, scour the internet to find the solution or future solution, to a problem and actually understand that an OS update will have a great impact on their experience with their current product. I had a discussion with someone the other day on this mindset and how it has been driving me nuts. (This person also considers them self an average user and not like most of us on this forum) You know that android 3.2 is on your your Tablet. YOU know what android 4.0 ICS is and how it impacts you. Most don't. That is what I was trying to conveying.
Though I am surprised that you are having issues with it on account I have had no problems with it (even though I haven't used it much).
P.S. Sorry about the irritated tone I do not mean any harm it's just a sore subject with me :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The latest release od Peel finally has it working on such a basic level that's it is no more useful that the remoate that shipped with my television. It can tuen my TV on & off, it can change channels, and it can adjust the volume of the television. When I want to add another device such as a cable box or AV receiver? No go. It will power the device in setup but it will not save it to the application for future use. I blame buggy peel software. It can obviously fire the codes it needs but they're going to blame Samsung and say it's a driver issue. The only way I could believe that possible is if the radio frequencies vthe two devices used were too close together to be discerened by the GT7+. Regardless, it's a feature which does not work as it explicitly advertises and, as Gary points out multiple times, they refuse to release the source code so crafty & eager developers (which I am not) can make their own functional software.
Peel doesn't use RF... it fires the infrared emitter on the device. I actually played with the "peel" software once. For about 10 minutes. I found it a complete joke and froze the software. I never really cared much about that aspect of the tablet. To me, its for reading ebooks, playing games, and "tinkering." Okay, more for tinkering - but don't tell my wife that. She already yells at me about how expensive my toys are.
garyd9 said:
Peel doesn't use RF... it fires the infrared emitter on the device. I actually played with the "peel" software once. For about 10 minutes. I found it a complete joke and froze the software. I never really cared much about that aspect of the tablet. To me, its for reading ebooks, playing games, and "tinkering." Okay, more for tinkering - but don't tell my wife that. She already yells at me about how expensive my toys are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bought this Tab for the exact same reasons, I was actually going to get the Kindle Fire as all I really wanted was an e-reader, but the IR Blaster changed my mind. I set up Peel for my home theater and used it once than decided my universal remote for my dish actually works better and haven't used it since. I came in knowing from reading teh threads that Samsung wasn't the greatest at support or putting out updates but all I wanted really was the ability to root it to remove bloatware. IMO HTC devices are much better and easier to customize as HTC is more open about sharing the source code and also provide their own program to unlock their devices. But they at one time were as tight fisted as Samsung and getting updates out of them is still excruciatingly slow. Hopefully Verizon will be getting a One X device soon as I'm up for an upgrade in July and right now the best HTC device they have is the Rezound.
fcorona76 said:
The latest release od Peel finally has it working on such a basic level that's it is no more useful that the remoate that shipped with my television. It can tuen my TV on & off, it can change channels, and it can adjust the volume of the television. When I want to add another device such as a cable box or AV receiver? No go. It will power the device in setup but it will not save it to the application for future use. I blame buggy peel software. It can obviously fire the codes it needs but they're going to blame Samsung and say it's a driver issue. The only way I could believe that possible is if the radio frequencies vthe two devices used were too close together to be discerened by the GT7+. Regardless, it's a feature which does not work as it explicitly advertises and, as Gary points out multiple times, they refuse to release the source code so crafty & eager developers (which I am not) can make their own functional software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would Peel blame Samsung? From what you described, the hardware is working properly but the functionality to save multiple devices is missing in software.
I think this is what Zadeis is trying to get at with regards to expectations - Peel sounds like it's either broken or not designed to meet your expectations. Either way, it's not something that's going to be addressed by an ICS update.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that the GT7+ doesn't work as advertised. But the proper course of action here is to seek remedy with Samsung, not wait for a software update. When you get a bad meal at a restaurant, you send it back. You don't eat it, then hope dessert will be better.
Apologies if my tone comes off as harsh or unsympathetic, I do not intend to be either, but pinning too many hopes on to an OS update is just setting yourself up for more frustration down the road when it doesn't match your expectations.
---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------
garyd9 said:
What doesn't make sense to me is the way that they are withholding source code. It just doesn't profit them or even save them money. There isn't even anything proprietary in the ar6003 drivers and wpa_supplicant code. No trade secrets. It's almost as if they are deliberately chasing AWAY technical people... but that just doesn't make sense when your primary OS is an open one that depends on geeks.
The only thing I can figure out is that they are, in fact, hiding something. Perhaps they are embarassed about the programming? Perhaps they cut corners and don't want it to become public knowledge? Maybe they just have a nasty streak and are deliberately trying to prevent any repeat customers. I'm just taking wild guesses here - I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you already answered this question in what you meant as a joke earlier... Apple.
Samsung makes Apple's SoCs. GT7+ uses Samsung's own Exynos SoC. I think chances are good that Exynos and the A5 share IP and therefore, Samsung might be withholding the source code because the modifications they've made include IP that is covered by whatever NDA exists between Apple and Samsung.
so what is the latest news on ics update for the 6210 ? , guessing samsung said no ics love for us ? , or .... just wondering what latest news is ..
h2g2 said:
Samsung makes Apple's SoCs. GT7+ uses Samsung's own Exynos SoC. I think chances are good that Exynos and the A5 share IP and therefore, Samsung might be withholding the source code because the modifications they've made include IP that is covered by whatever NDA exists between Apple and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are a bit confused, I think. The exynos isn't the problem. While samsung hasn't exactly given us full technical documents on it, they added support for it in the mainline linux kernel - publishing enough source. They pretty much HAD to do that, as CPU support in linux can't be done as a module, and therefore must be opensourced in order to run linux at all.
The issue, at least in the case of the 7+, is the wifi chip/driver. It's an atheros 6003 chip. Qualcomm (who owns atheros) released the driver for that under the GPL. Samsung has claimed to me that they (samsung) are licensing it from Atheros under terms that allow them to choose to re-release the driver under either GPL or BSD terms and that they (samsung) are choosing the BSD model (which doesn't require the release of source.) In theory, Qualcomm could FORCE samsung to release the source, but I doubt qualcomm really cares too much. In fact, the module itself as released in binary form in the 7+ firmware (at least up to LA1) actually claims GPL licensing. (Can be verified by using modinfo on ar6000.ko) However, only the copyright holder can enforce the licensing.
A nearly identical situation exists with wpa_supplicant and the intergration between ar6003 and wpa_supplicant. In that case, I know for a fact that the author allows either GPL or BSD terms so wouldn't force the issue.
Those are the only two things I, personally, care about right now. If I had the source for those two parts, I'd be able to not only FIX the wifi issues on the p6210, but also enchance the functionality. I'm also unable to make certain unrelated changes to the kernel, as doing so without being able to recompile the ar6003 driver will render the existing ar6003 non-functional.
I bought my first android, a galaxy 3, about a year and a half ago... I was so excited I had a "mobile Linux" in my hand... Being a Linux user for some time I thought that I would have (almost) the same capabilities with my mobile....
After a one week I came down to earth. The only thing in common with Linux in android, is the Linux kernel. Let me explain:
In my pc, I can compile any Linux distro, or kernel, from the source, install it on my hardware, reboot, and have it working just as I want, with all the features I enabled/disabled during the build. When I started thinking of buying an adroid phone, I thought I could do exactly the same. Well, I was mistaken.
It's ok with me now. I discovered how android and Google works. But still something is not right.
The biggest "advantages" android has to offer were, and still are, that it is free (as in free speech, not free beer - thank you Mr. Stallman) and open.
Well IS it?
Google is giving away the source code, thus making it available for anyone to build it. Ok. The real problem is what you can do with the resulting build. In theory, if you flash a generic build to a phone, it should boot up and make calls. And that's it. Forget about GPS, wifi, Bluetooth. If you want to use them, you have to build a kernel with the source code provided by the OEMs and the best part is that the source has to be for the same version you are building. Thus it is almost impossible for an average user to build android for their device, if the OEM won't provide an official update to the version they want to build.
You'll say that the drivers are proprietary and OEMs don't give them. I can understand that, but what I really can't understand is why proprietary blobs for 2.3 won't work with android 4. I mean drivers are the same, aren't they? Yes, the kernels are different BUT hardware remains the same...
You'll say "get a Nexus". Yes, you as right it seems to be the best solution, but nexus one has the same fate as other phones.
A new android build only works in an emulator. I just wish it could work the same on every model. The OEMs don't have to open source drivers, just give us blobs that work with every android version. One other problem with some OEMs is the locked bootloader. I build android for a device, but due to locked bootloader I can't flash it....wait what? It is MY phone you piece of ****!!
So imo android is neither "free", nor "open". Where is freedom and openess when I can't flash any given device with any given android version? Sorry, but customisability and theming are just not enough.
Google also claims that android comes free of charge. Well, the source is, but the source alone, without being able to use it on a device, is useless. So, in order to have the latest android I have to pay roughly €500-€600 each year... (maybe once in two years if I choose nexus). Only I see a rip-off here? Google should work with OEMs and make generic builds to run on every device, just like Linux. Android is capable of this for sure.
I still like android, and continue to use it. It can't be compared to wp or ios. But I strongly believe that since we paid our devices we should be able to do whatever we want with it.
Thanks for reading guys and girls. These thoughts wee in my head for some time and I wanted to let them out...
Sent from my amazing 10.1 galaxy tab
You got point there, but nothing in this world is for free. Everybody needs to make money somehow. And that is the way of Google. I am glad with what is Android capable of and the extras we got from them. Compared to the other OS we can say that we are free
Well its pretty much the most "versatile" CELL OS outthere
Sent from my R800i using Tapatalk 2
Although OP is right, I consider Andorid much more 'Open' then iOS. Just the sheer number of people developing ROMs, kernels, etc. shows how much easier it is to develop for Android then iOS. How many custom ROMs are there for iOS? The answer is none. So while the separation of versions, different vendors, and different providers may be holding the platform back, nothing is perfect, and from a development perspective, we have to realize that Android id much more 'Free" then iOS.
Jeteroll said:
Although OP is right, I consider Andorid much more 'Open' then iOS. Just the sheer number of people developing ROMs, kernels, etc. shows how much easier it is to develop for Android then iOS. How many custom ROMs are there for iOS? The answer is none. So while the separation of versions, different vendors, and different providers may be holding the platform back, nothing is perfect, and from a development perspective, we have to realize that Android id much more 'Free" then iOS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes! That's absolutely right. I just wanted to point out that it would be best if we could treat android just like our Linux distros. Oh well, I'd like to believe that the time when we will have a trully open source phone is close...
Sent from my amazing 10.1 galaxy tab
Panos_dm said:
Yes! That's absolutely right. I just wanted to point out that it would be best if we could treat android just like our Linux distros. Oh well, I'd like to believe that the time when we will have a trully open source phone is close...
Sent from my amazing 10.1 galaxy tab
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But what about Android users who never used desktop Linux before?
OptimusLove said:
But what about Android users who never used desktop Linux before?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said anything about changing the ui or the interaction with the phone. Just expanding its capabilities.
Sent from my amazing 10.1 galaxy tab
Android is definitely freeer than say iOS. However that comes at a price. The sheer amount of android devices and versions makes it harder for developers to work with it compared to iOS which is limited to a couple of devices.
It just depends on what you are happy to put up with as a user. Wiht Android you are not restricted to what you can do with the phone, whereas on iOS you are serverely restricted.
OptimusLove said:
But what about Android users who never used desktop Linux before?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like its time to put on your learning cap.
Sent for a corner cell in Arkham
Quite simply, from what I'm reading about S6, and Exynos, the main reason for lack of major AOSP ROMS (CM13 has been finally ported), is the idea that Exynos is not documented so coding for it is difficult.
Knowing now that Snapdragon 820 is a Qualcom chip, which apparently is the most common SoC used for phones, should we expect to see a lot of AOSP based ROMs?
I am very used to Vanilla Android, and I don't think I could deal with TouchWiz, I like CM Theme Engine, and RRO Layers, so the big reason for my question is based on the hope that the probability of non-TouchWiz ROMs is high.
Also, I had a moto x 2014 and I've come to fall in love with AMOLED, and would like to stick to a small form factor 5 to 5.1 inches, combined with healthy ROM community, I'm kind of hoping S7 with SD820 might be the phone for me.
Please don't say "If you like Stock don't buy a Samsung", I get it, but it looks like maybe that stigma might not hold up soon if the ROM cookers are supportive.
Thanks!
I'm not sure on the international versions, but I know most carrier versions of the Note 4, S6, Note 5, etc. never got unlocked bootloaders in the first place, let alone custom ROMs. Knox is killer.
geoff5093 said:
I'm not sure on the international versions, but I know most carrier versions of the Note 4, S6, Note 5, etc. never got unlocked bootloaders in the first place, let alone custom ROMs. Knox is killer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tmobile variants of all the phones you listed are bootloader unlocked. Knox has never stopped anything.
@Shemploo yes more than likely AOSP roms will be available for the snapdragons. I'm betting even exynos variants will get it although probably a little later.
I don't do carrier contracts so I'd most likely look/hope for a developer/pure edition of the S7.
The Edge does not really interest me, unless they figured out some cool things to do with the curved screen that are actually useful.
I'd much rather have a fingerprint reader, and front sensors like the Moto's, I love waving my hand in front of the display to have it wake up and tell me the time.
People go... you are a Jedi!?
Airtioteclint said:
Tmobile variants of all the phones you listed are bootloader unlocked. Knox has never stopped anything.
@Shemploo yes more than likely AOSP roms will be available for the snapdragons. I'm betting even exynos variants will get it although probably a little later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know AT&T and Verizon are different stories, good to know it works for T-Mobile though.
Most if not all Sprint phones have unlocked bootloaders too. At least last time I checked!
Yes. However you got something wrong there. The reason why Qualcomm has all the fancy AOSP based ROMs (I say fancy because most people consider non aosp roms boring) is because of this. This is where QCOM releases their soruce code for the platforms. This makes fixing easier because you actually have the code. However exynos and all the other ones don't give a crap about the small percentage of their users that actually flash roms etc. Infact, they only want money. And guess what? ROMs = Longer device lifespan. That's why they don't release it. Thankfully enough there are some geniuses here on XDA that still are able to do the job for exynos! However, QCOM has allot better optimization with CM in terms of performance than with any other chipset. I live in the EU, which means Exynos. After already owning 2 exynos devices, I'm tired of the work that has to be done for them. I was lucky enough that both of them had Exynos chipsets that already had allot of devs mainly from other devices which made building possible for me.
@CTXz I suppose the closest thing to AOSP on Samsung devices QCom, or Exynos, is going to be Cyanogen right?
Would I be right to assume Cyanogen would be the first (possibly only) AOSP to build for Samsung?
In other words, would/could anyone build true AOSP based on Google's source code?
I understand both are considered AOSP, I'm asking cause from general experience with ROMs, when ROM is built on CM, they usually just build in the CM Theme Manager, and only the ROMs based on Google's code do things like RRO Layer support.
Shemploo said:
@CTXz I suppose the closest thing to AOSP on Samsung devices QCom, or Exynos, is going to be Cyanogen right?
Would I be right to assume Cyanogen would be the first (possibly only) AOSP to build for Samsung?
In other words, would/could anyone build true AOSP based on Google's source code?
I understand both are considered AOSP, I'm asking cause from general experience with ROMs, when ROM is built on CM, they usually just build in the CM Theme Manager, and only the ROMs based on Google's code do things like RRO Layer support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ofcourse, infact that is up to the devs, however CyanogenMod is usually recommended over pure AOSP due it's great documentation, common updates, it's optimizations and tweaks above stock AOSP. It's also the simplest to get the hands on.
EDIT: It's also important to know that CM isn't just AOSP with a few apps. While CM is based on AOSP, it still has it's own community and is still a different ROM than AOSP mainly when it comes to the internal changes.
..
CTXz said:
Ofcourse, infact that is up to the devs, however CyanogenMod is usually recommended over pure AOSP due it's great documentation, common updates, it's optimizations and tweaks above stock AOSP. It's also the simplest to get the hands on.
EDIT: It's also important to know that CM isn't just AOSP with a few apps. While CM is based on AOSP, it still has it's own community and is still a different ROM than AOSP mainly when it comes to the internal changes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After Cm started trying to push that you make an acct with them I will never use CM again. I know that people say Inc has no relation to... whatever non-Inc calls themselves, but I no longer trust any of them and would rather buy a Windows phone or iPhone before I run them on any phone of mine again.
knitler said:
After Cm started trying to push that you make an acct with them I will never use CM again. I know that people say Inc has no relation to... whatever non-Inc calls themselves, but I no longer trust any of them and would rather buy a Windows phone or iPhone before I run them on any phone of mine again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um... CM =/= Cyanogen Inc
CM is a completely separate group that is not affected in any way. It's like XDA and GOogle. XDA is for developing and still both work on android. I know some people in the official CM group, all of them very friendly and none of it is affected by Cyanogen Inc. You're making yourself lies that aren't true. It's like blaming the entire CyanogenMod team because one dev for a specific device didn't fix the issue yet.
If CM is the main like, why not just get a Nexus and get it over with? You'll get CM right away.
Sent from my VIVO XL using Tapatalk
barondebxl said:
If CM is the main like, why not just get a Nexus and get it over with? You'll get CM right away.
Sent from my VIVO XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because some people don't want a nexus
CTXz said:
Because some people don't want a nexus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But if CM is what you look for, isn't a Nexus your best bet? Unless you want the S7 hardware.
Sent from my VIVO XL using Tapatalk
barondebxl said:
But if CM is what you look for, isn't a Nexus your best bet? Unless you want the S7 hardware.
Sent from my VIVO XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And cripple it with bad, forever-beta, with half the functionally misssing software.
Sure hope we get aosp!
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
I thought it was primarily due to the 64 bit architecture that was the hold up with aosp on the s6. Buy I could be wrong. Been a while since I went looking.
barondebxl said:
But if CM is what you look for, isn't a Nexus your best bet? Unless you want the S7 hardware.
Sent from my VIVO XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a good argument, however many people DO actually go for the look/hardware and with that said. Afterall xda wouldn't be this big if you could use the word nexus for all excuses, right ?
CTXz said:
That is a good argument, however many people DO actually go for the look/hardware and with that said. Afterall xda wouldn't be this big if you could use the word nexus for all excuses, right ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Might want to get used to it as sooner or later it will only be nexus devices that are worked on.
Also what's the point of getting the device fore the hardware when aosp doesn't take advantage of the hardware? Aosp drivers don't compare to the stock ones.