Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #22240 > unrolled thread

Handling phone loss

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Handling phone loss Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-09-03 10:32 +0100
    Re: Handling phone loss Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-03 10:49 +0100
      Re: Handling phone loss "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-09-03 20:25 +0200
    Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-03 09:58 +0000
      Re: Handling phone loss Someone Somewhere <nntpac@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:27 +0100
      Re: Handling phone loss Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-09-03 11:48 +0100
        Re: Handling phone loss Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2015-09-03 13:49 +0000
          Re: Handling phone loss chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 15:31 +0100
            Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-03 17:44 +0000
              Re: Handling phone loss chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 09:04 +0100
                Re: Handling phone loss Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-09-04 12:52 +0100
                  Re: Handling phone loss "Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2015-09-04 15:29 +0100
                    Re: Handling phone loss andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2015-09-05 18:31 +0000
                      Re: Handling phone loss Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-09-06 17:02 +0200
                        Re: Handling phone loss "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:24 -0700
                          Re: Handling phone loss chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:47 +0100
                            Re: Handling phone loss The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:05 -0700
                  Re: Handling phone loss chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:20 +0100
                  Re: Handling phone loss Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 23:12 +0100
              Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-04 19:34 +0000
                Re: Handling phone loss Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-04 20:44 +0100
                  Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-05 16:02 +0000
                Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-04 20:22 +0000
                  Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-05 16:04 +0000
                    Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-05 18:53 +0000
                      Re: Handling phone loss BugHunter <bughunter@com.invalid> - 2015-09-05 20:57 +0200
                      Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-06 12:27 +0000
                        Re: Handling phone loss Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-06 14:00 +0100
                          Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-06 15:26 +0000
                            Re: Handling phone loss Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-06 16:46 +0100
                        Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-06 13:25 +0000
                          Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-06 14:36 +0000
                            Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-06 15:21 +0000
                              Re: Handling phone loss David Taylor <davidt-news11@yadt.co.uk> - 2015-09-08 09:00 +0000
                                Re: Handling phone loss Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-09-08 10:00 +0000
                                Re: Handling phone loss Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2015-09-08 20:41 +0100
                        Re: Handling phone loss The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:44 -0700
                          Re: Handling phone loss Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-09-06 20:25 +0000
                            Re: Handling phone loss The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 22:41 -0700
            Re: Handling phone loss "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-09-03 20:29 +0200
          Re: Handling phone loss "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-09-03 20:27 +0200
      Re: Handling phone loss F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 09:47 +1000
        Re: Handling phone loss Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-09-07 08:37 +0100
        Re: Handling phone loss Albert Hirsch <doc@treadstone.net> - 2015-09-07 10:17 -0400
        Re: Handling phone loss "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-09-07 22:24 +0200
    Re: Handling phone loss chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 15:37 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#22263

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>    IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>
>    Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> Android version.

The Nexus devices run the /de facto/ vanilla (or pure, stock, standard, 
call it what you will) versions of Android ... I don't think many people 
disagree with that, though I don't mind if you do ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22268

Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> >    IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> >
> >    Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> > Android version.
> 
> The Nexus devices run the /de facto/ vanilla (or pure, stock, standard, 
> call it what you will) versions of Android ... I don't think many people 
> disagree with that, though I don't mind if you do ;-)

  Nexus devices run the *Google* stock version of Android. It's no more
or less 'vanilla' than the stock versions of any other brand. The Google
Nexus devices are just another brand. That Google also *owns* 'Android'
(whatever that may mean exactly) is quite another matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22264

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> [...]
>> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and it
>> has that facility.
> 
>   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> 
>   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
> disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross brands.
> 
>   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"

While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed around' 
than any other one is likely to be?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22269

Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and it
> >> has that facility.
> > 
> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> > 
> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross brands.
> > 
> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
> 
> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed around' 
> than any other one is likely to be?

  I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22272

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> 
>> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and
>> >> it has that facility.
>> > 
>> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
>> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>> > 
>> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
>> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
>> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
>> > brands.
>> > 
>> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
>> 
>> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
>> around'
>> than any other one is likely to be?
> 
>   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?

Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22273

Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> schreef op Za 5 Sep 2015 om 18:53:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and
> >> >> it has that facility.
> >> > 
> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> >> > 
> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
> >> > brands.
> >> > 
> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
> >> 
> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
> >> around'
> >> than any other one is likely to be?
> > 
> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
> 
> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.


What about Google panties?

-- 
____________________________________________
                             Bye, BugHunter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22277

Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and
> >> >> it has that facility.
> >> > 
> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> >> > 
> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
> >> > brands.
> >> > 
> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
> >> 
> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
> > 
> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
> 
> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.

  No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
on other brands.

  The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play Store
app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
useless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22278

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android
>>>>>
>>>>>    IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
>>>>> there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>>>>>
>>>>>    Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
>>>>> Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
>>>>> disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
>>>>> brands.
>>>>>
>>>>>    "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
>>>>
>>>> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
>>>> around' than any other one is likely to be?
>>>
>>>    I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?

Wait ... before you were telling us Nexus *aren't* vanilla, now you're 
asking us if Nexus *are* vanilla?  Having owned N1, N4, N5 and N7, I'd 
say the N4/5/7 are completely vanilla.

I never purchased the the N6 or Galaxy Nexus but I think they were just 
a bit out on a carrier-specific limb either hardware- or software-wise, 
the Nexus "S", I don't know about.

>> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
>
> No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
> on other brands. The ones you mention are available on all other brands.

There was a time when Nexus phones came with apps that you couldn't get 
through the Play store, e.g. the N1 had some apps that you had to 
re-obtain "unofficially" if you flashed it with a 3rd party firmware, I 
suppose you could have extracted the .APKs before flashing and restore 
them, most (if not all) of those are now available in the store.

> The Play Store app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is
> basically useless.

Well *a* store app is required, but not necessarily *the* Play store 
app, some manufacturers substitute their own, I would avoid one that did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22283

Andy Burns <usenet.feb2014@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:

[Most stuff already settled with Bob.]

> > The Play Store app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is
> > basically useless.
> 
> Well *a* store app is required, but not necessarily *the* Play store 
> app, some manufacturers substitute their own, I would avoid one that did.

  Are you sure they are *substituting* the (Google) Play Store app, not
just providing an *additional* app for *their* (the manufacturer's)
'store'?

  For example Samsung is doing the latter, i.e. an *additional* app for
the *Samsung* store.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22284

Frank Slootweg wrote:

>    Are you sure they are *substituting* the (Google) Play Store app, not
> just providing an *additional* app for *their* (the manufacturer's)
> 'store'?

Yes, I've had to find ways to get the proper Play store installed for 
people, e.g.

<http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-get-the-google-play-store-on-the-kindle-fire-hd>

<http://forum.archosfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=69945>

I think the trend is away from walled gardens, thankfully

>    For example Samsung is doing the latter, i.e. an *additional* app for
> the *Samsung* store.

Not played with any Samsung android devices

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22279

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 12:27:52 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> 
>> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android,
>> >> >> and it has that facility.
>> >> > 
>> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and
>> >> >   fora),
>> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>> >> > 
>> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not
>> >> >   'vanilla')
>> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
>> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
>> >> > brands.
>> >> > 
>> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
>> >> 
>> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
>> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
>> > 
>> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
>> 
>> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
> 
>   No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
> on other brands.
> 
>   The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play Store
> app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
> useless.

In that case, nothing. Which was my point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22280

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:25:40 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 12:27:52 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 
>> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> >> > [...]
>>> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android,
>>> >> >> and it has that facility.
>>> >> > 
>>> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and
>>> >> >   fora),
>>> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>>> >> > 
>>> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not
>>> >> >   'vanilla')
>>> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest
>>> >> > -
>>> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
>>> >> > brands.
>>> >> > 
>>> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
>>> >> 
>>> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
>>> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
>>> > 
>>> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
>>> 
>>> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
>> 
>>   No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
>> on other brands.
>> 
>>   The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play
>>   Store
>> app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
>> useless.
> 
> In that case, nothing. Which was my point.

Or, to put it more clearly for you. it has no specific Google apps.

It is vanilla Android.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22282

Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:25:40 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 12:27:52 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > 
> >> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >>> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >>> >> > [...]
> >>> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android,
> >>> >> >> and it has that facility.
> >>> >> > 
> >>> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and
> >>> >> >   fora),
> >>> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> >>> >> > 
> >>> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not
> >>> >> >   'vanilla')
> >>> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest
> >>> >> > -
> >>> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
> >>> >> > brands.
> >>> >> > 
> >>> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
> >>> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
> >>> > 
> >>> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
> >>> 
> >>> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
> >> 
> >>   No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
> >> on other brands.
> >> 
> >>   The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play
> >>   Store
> >> app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
> >> useless.
> > 
> > In that case, nothing. Which was my point.
> 
> Or, to put it more clearly for you. it has no specific Google apps.
> 
> It is vanilla Android.

  I find that hard to believe, because that would make Google phones
less 'feature'-rich than (m)any other phone(s), especially Samsung's.

  But since I don't have access to - nor data about [1] - a Google
phone, so I can't prove this one way or the other. So for the moment, I
- have to - accept your info.

[1] I can probably Google :-) for this data, but ATM I can't be
bothered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22297

On 2015-09-06, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> It is vanilla Android.
>
>   I find that hard to believe, because that would make Google phones
> less 'feature'-rich than (m)any other phone(s), especially Samsung's.

Nonetheless, it is the case.

Some would argue that the "value added" crap supplied by other
manufacturers is bloated, buggy and unecessary.

Pretty much anything you want to do can be installed (if desired!)
from the app store anyway.

-- 
David Taylor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22298

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 09:00:34 +0000, David Taylor wrote:

> On 2015-09-06, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is vanilla Android.
>>
>>   I find that hard to believe, because that would make Google phones
>> less 'feature'-rich than (m)any other phone(s), especially Samsung's.
> 
> Nonetheless, it is the case.
> 
> Some would argue that the "value added" crap supplied by other
> manufacturers is bloated, buggy and unecessary.
> 
> Pretty much anything you want to do can be installed (if desired!)
> from the app store anyway.

Exactly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22300

David Taylor wrote:

> Pretty much anything you want to do can be installed (if desired!)
> from the app store anyway.

I think one of the few Nexus specific apps, that is unavailable in the 
store, is the Dialler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22285

On 09/06/2015 05:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and
>> >> >> it has that facility.
>> >> >
>> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
>> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>> >> >
>> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
>> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
>> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
>> >> > brands.
>> >> >
>> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
>> >>
>> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
>> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
>> >
>> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
>>
>> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
>
>    No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
> on other brands.
>
>    The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play Store
> app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
> useless.

What about 1MobileMarket?  You can sideload it and get pretty much 
whatever you want.  Is that just some sort of front end to the play 
store?  Does it matter?


-- 
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
                                                  -- Hunter S. Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22286

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2015 05:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and
> >> >> >> it has that facility.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
> >> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
> >> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
> >> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
> >> >> > brands.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
> >> >>
> >> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
> >> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
> >> >
> >> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
> >>
> >> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
> >
> >    No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
> > on other brands.
> >
> >    The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play Store
> > app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
> > useless.
> 
> What about 1MobileMarket?  You can sideload it and get pretty much 
> whatever you want.  Is that just some sort of front end to the play 
> store?  Does it matter?

  That's hardly an option for Joe/Joanna User. They have to know they
need it, where to get it, how to sideload it and then it's still
limited to free apps only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22291

On 09/06/2015 01:25 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2015 05:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:04:44 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:34:27 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> >> >> > [...]
>> >> >> >> It's not. I have a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 with vanilla Android, and
>> >> >> >> it has that facility.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >   IME and AFAICT from the posts in this and other groups (and fora),
>> >> >> > there is no such thing as "vanilla Android".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >   Each manufacturer/supplier has their *own* *stock* (not 'vanilla')
>> >> >> > Android version. That is one of the biggest - if not the biggest -
>> >> >> > disadvantage of Android, the lack of any standardization accross
>> >> >> > brands.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >   "Android, broken-by-(non-)design!"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> While I agree in principle, surely a Google phone is less 'messed
>> >> >> around' than any other one is likely to be?
>> >> >
>> >> >   I don't know. Don't Google phones have any Google-phone-only apps?
>> >>
>> >> Google. Google Play store. Google Drive. That's about it.
>> >
>> >    No, I meant apps (or other 'enhancements') which are *not* available
>> > on other brands.
>> >
>> >    The ones you mention are available on all other brands. The Play Store
>> > app is even a *required* app. Without it, the phone is basically
>> > useless.
>>
>> What about 1MobileMarket?  You can sideload it and get pretty much
>> whatever you want.  Is that just some sort of front end to the play
>> store?  Does it matter?
>
>    That's hardly an option for Joe/Joanna User. They have to know they
> need it, where to get it, how to sideload it and then it's still
> limited to free apps only.

I've spent under $10 on apps in 3 years.  Ski Tracks, the A.I. keyboard, 
and a google-earth-like thing for the human body, which is incredibly 
cool.  I could get along without those things, but I got $25 worth of 
free downloads (maybe 2x, not sure) along with some Samsung tablets, so 
I felt a little less constrained about blowing big bucks on trivia.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
==============================================================
"Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
  Olympics:  even if you win, you're still retarded."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22254

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:31:15 +0100, chris wrote:

> That's unique to Samsung, sadly. But there are apps that can do 
> something similar.

Just yesterday I saw it on a Sony. My nephew has the Huawei P8 Lite and
this is missing the ICE option. However, I found a couple of apps that
may be of use.

ICE Data Provider
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.icedataprovider.blacksmith_software>

ICE Card
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sdeba.icecardapp>

Haven't tested them though...

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web