Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Free map and GPS routing apps that nobody seems to know about (why?)

23 views
Skip to first unread message

James Grady

unread,
Feb 4, 2014, 7:45:47 PM2/4/14
to
I was reading these forums for free map apps and map software for gps
and nobody seems to know about this one.

Open http://here.com/ in your mobile phone browser.

It seems that Nokia allows you to take any state(s) or multiple
country maps with you.

All for offline consumption, with map apps that are there.
They seem more accurate than osm maps.

So why doesn't anyone here suggest these?
Just curious???

(does it not work?)
(I haven't tried it myself)

Kerry Liles

unread,
Feb 5, 2014, 11:12:35 AM2/5/14
to
I just tried it on my Android (Galaxy S3) and it seems very fast and ok. It doesn't
seem like it is an application - 'just' a web site? It also doesn't seem to
understand my current location quite correctly - it is off by a couple of streets...
thanks for the link; looks promising.

When I asked for directions to my daughter's place, it highlighted the route and said
5days... then I realized it defaulted to 'walking' not 'by car'. Given the current
heavy snow, perhaps it was right anyway!! lol

Juan Wei

unread,
Feb 5, 2014, 1:09:03 PM2/5/14
to
Kerry Liles has written on 2/5/2014 11:12 AM:
> I just tried it on my Android (Galaxy S3) and it seems very fast and ok. It doesn't
> seem like it is an application - 'just' a web site?

Looks like an alternative to maps.google.com

> It also doesn't seem to
> understand my current location quite correctly - it is off by a couple of streets...

OK here.

Danny D'Amico

unread,
Feb 6, 2014, 1:32:54 AM2/6/14
to
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:09:03 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:

> Looks like an alternative to maps.google.com

I tried it from my PC and it worked fine.
http://here.com/

The web page went to "m.here.com" & the map looked as
good as a google map (much better than OSM maps!).

Then, I tried saving the map, for use offline, and it saved
rather easily (although I haven't tested it offline yet).

But, when I tried to download the Android app from
http://here.com/download
it wouldn't download the offline map application.

I wonder if my browser is the problem?
Or do I need to enable non-google-play downloads first?

Anssi Saari

unread,
Feb 6, 2014, 9:13:46 AM2/6/14
to
Danny D'Amico <da...@is.invalid> writes:

> But, when I tried to download the Android app from
> http://here.com/download
> it wouldn't download the offline map application.

What did you try to download? I see no Android app there. Just stuff for
various Nokia phones and for Android and iOS it says to use a browser
and go to here.com? I seem to remember Nokia pulled their app from the
Apple store since it sucked and nobody wanted it...

Plus the webpage at least pretends to have downloading for offline
mode. There was no indication it was actually downloading stuff though.

I did find an Android app in Nokia's Beta labs but it's from 2011.

Danny D'Amico

unread,
Feb 6, 2014, 9:38:20 AM2/6/14
to
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:13:46 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:

> the webpage at least pretends to have downloading for offline mode.
> There was no indication it was actually downloading stuff though.

Here is the screenshot of the reputed download in progress:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7357/12344495564_595c4e774a_o.png

I don't disagree with you (yet!) :) about the web page *pretending*
to download the maps, because I haven't actually *seen* the maps
offline ... but I only heard of this here.com web page from this
thread, so, I can't conclude anything yet.

Danny D'Amico

unread,
Feb 6, 2014, 9:44:18 AM2/6/14
to
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:13:46 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:

> What did you try to download? I see no Android app there. Just stuff for
> various Nokia phones and for Android and iOS it says to use a browser

Here is the "link" that I tried to download the Android App:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/12344046545_76dc1f3bc9_o.png

As you noted, clicking on that link merely takes you to m.here.com, which
seems to be an exact free online Google Maps clone.

What I'm always looking for is (a) free, (b) offline, GPS mapping app,
so, I was "hoping" this link would bring me to the reputed Android app.

As you said, it just brought me to a web page; so if I want free offline
mapping, I need to download the maps and get that to work offline once
I have the map tiles.

Normally I'd give up with freeware this obscure, but, the maps are
FANTASTICALLY ACCURATE! from what I can see! That's worth a LOT!

Up until now, the only *free* *offline* maps were:
a) Google Maps (but Google deletes offline maps every 30 days!) :(
b) CoPilot crippleware (but, for free, you're limited to a single state)
And now, potentially:
c) Here.com Nokia offline free maps (if we can get it to work)

If anyone can get the here.com offline free maps to work, please let
me know because there are only two known solutions otherwise for such
non-OSM accurate maps!

p-0''0-h the cat (ES)

unread,
Feb 6, 2014, 9:49:01 AM2/6/14
to
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:44:18 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<da...@is.invalid> wrote:

>If anyone can get the here.com offline free maps to work, please let
>me know because there are only two known solutions otherwise for such
>non-OSM accurate maps!

Here works on a Nokia Lumina Windows 8 phone.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, and scouringerer.

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

Nigel Wade

unread,
Feb 6, 2014, 10:41:21 AM2/6/14
to
On 06/02/14 14:44, Danny D'Amico wrote:
>> What did you try to download? I see no Android app there. Just stuff for
>> >various Nokia phones and for Android and iOS it says to use a browser
> Here is the "link" that I tried to download the Android App:
> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5506/12344046545_76dc1f3bc9_o.png
>
> As you noted, clicking on that link merely takes you to m.here.com, which
> seems to be an exact free online Google Maps clone.


I just entered "here.com" into the Firefox browser on my Nexus 7 and Xperia Z and it took me [eventually] to here.com.
Do you have your browser set to request the desktop site?

The mobile site display provides a kind of toolbar at the top of the page, and on the right is a "grid" icon. Click on
this grid and it opens a menu, one item of which is "Save a map area" and another is "view your saved map". It appears
that it only has the ability to save one map area, when you try to save another it says "Keep in mind that saving a new
map area always replaces the last one you saved". I don't know if the Collections options allows you more flexibility,
it requires opening a Nokia account.


Anssi Saari

unread,
Feb 11, 2014, 3:12:48 PM2/11/14
to
Danny D'Amico <da...@is.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:13:46 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
>
>> the webpage at least pretends to have downloading for offline mode.
>> There was no indication it was actually downloading stuff though.
>
> Here is the screenshot of the reputed download in progress:
> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7357/12344495564_595c4e774a_o.png

OK, looks like Chrome just doesn't like the here.com webpage. Stock
browser downloaded something for me. I hit "view your saved map" and
turned off mobile data and wifi. I could still pan around in the saved
map but no search or directions. And of course it's still a browser
showing a webpage so if it closes I'd still need connectivity to get it
back...

Well, maybe if the rumors are true and Nokia is coming out with an
Android phone and a Here maps app, then at least pilfered versions of
that app will certainly be available.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 3, 2014, 11:35:50 PM3/3/14
to


"Anssi Saari" <a...@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:vg37g91...@coffee.modeemi.fi...
> Danny D'Amico <da...@is.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:13:46 +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
>>
>>> the webpage at least pretends to have downloading for offline mode.
>>> There was no indication it was actually downloading stuff though.
>>
>> Here is the screenshot of the reputed download in progress:
>> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7357/12344495564_595c4e774a_o.png
>
> OK, looks like Chrome just doesn't like the here.com webpage. Stock
> browser downloaded something for me. I hit "view your saved map" and
> turned off mobile data and wifi. I could still pan around in the saved
> map but no search or directions. And of course it's still a browser
> showing a webpage so if it closes I'd still need connectivity to get it
> back...
>
> Well, maybe if the rumors are true and Nokia is coming out with an
> Android phone

That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
Nokia would not have an Android phone.

Hans-Georg Michna

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 3:04:16 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

>That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
>side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
>Nokia would not have an Android phone.

I wouldn't be sure. Perhaps Microsoft wants to adopt Android to
have Android app compatibility.

Note that they do not use the Google Services, so Nokia will
never be able to use them, but they are apparently working on a
competing set of functions. They already have navigation.

Hans

Bob Martin

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 3:16:50 AM3/4/14
to

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 4:05:01 AM3/4/14
to
Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgN...@michna.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote

>>> Well, maybe if the rumors are true and
>>> Nokia is coming out with an Android phone

>> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the
>> phone side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that,
>> to ensure that Nokia would not have an Android phone.

> I wouldn't be sure.

I am. The only reason they spent BILLIONS to buy the
phone part of Nokia was BECAUSE Nokia was considering
dumping Microsoft's phone OS and using android instead.

> Perhaps Microsoft wants to adopt Android
> to have Android app compatibility.

There would have been no point in spending
BILLIONS on buying the phone part of Nokia
if that is what they were planning to do.

> Note that they do not use the Google Services, so Nokia will
> never be able to use them, but they are apparently working on
> a competing set of functions. They already have navigation.

That is a separate matter entirely to having an android phone.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 4:09:42 AM3/4/14
to


"Bob Martin" <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:bnlgfi...@mid.individual.net...
That isnt an android phone and no one
will be stupid enough to buy it, you watch.

Hans-Georg Michna

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 9:30:36 AM3/4/14
to
It runs on Android without the Google Services.

Whether it will be a commercial success will be interesting to
watch. Certainly not an instant winner.

Hans-Georg

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:44:32 PM3/4/14
to
Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgN...@michna.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Bob Martin <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
>>>> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
>>>> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

>>> Ahem! It already has -
>>> http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/nokia-x-normandy-1219003

>> That isnt an android phone and no one
>> will be stupid enough to buy it, you watch.

> It runs on Android without the Google Services.

The real story is more complicated than that.

> Whether it will be a commercial success will be interesting to watch.

Bet its just the last gasp of a dying operation that
eventually even Microsoft will just pull the plug on
when even they notice that no one is interested in
their steaming turd of a mobile phone OS.

> Certainly not an instant winner.

Bet its just another example of what Nokia has
always done, some really weird phones that fly
like lead balloons in the market.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:09:25 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

Nokia does have Android phones, Models X, X+ and XL,
released under Microsoft,
presented on the world mobile Congress in Barcelona.

Even if it is very tweaked Android, Google applications
and Google store are said not to be present by default.

--
poutnik
There is good reason why writers nor film directors
do not repeat all the previous pages nor episodes
at beginning of the current one.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:10:47 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:12:14 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:16:32 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:23:28 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:32:48 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:42:57 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:51:05 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 2:15:52 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 3:14:45 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 3:35:32 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 4:13:38 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 5:41:39 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 7:14:30 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 12:49:34 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 7:45:10 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 1:03:33 AM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:35:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 3:51:02 PM3/4/14
to
I am sorry,I had connection problem
with eternal-September server.

I had no idea it will send it so many times.

Daniel James

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 6:58:00 PM3/4/14
to
In article <bnl3i3...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Well, maybe if the rumors are true and Nokia is coming out with an
>> Android phone
>
> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

Actually, it *HAS* happened ... in a way. Nokia have released a phone
based on Android, but running a different app environment from
Google's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26320552

http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/no
kia-x-normandy-1219003

"This isn't an Android that comes with the Google Play store.
This is an Android that has been moulded and contorted into
an operating system that runs and looks a lot like Windows Phone."

Cheers,
Daniel.


Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 9:09:05 PM3/4/14
to
Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Well, maybe if the rumors are true and
>>> Nokia is coming out with an Android phone

>> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the phone
>> side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that, to ensure that
>> Nokia would not have an Android phone.

> Actually, it *HAS* happened ... in a way.

Its not an android phone.

> Nokia have released a phone based on Android, but
> running a different app environment from Google's.

So its not an android phone.
No news.

> "This isn't an Android that comes with the Google Play store.

So its not an android phone.

> This is an Android that has been moulded and contorted into
> an operating system that runs and looks a lot like Windows Phone."

So its not an android phone.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 9:12:23 PM3/4/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> That wont happen now that Microsoft has bought the
>> phone side of Nokia. That is the reason they did that,
>> to ensure that Nokia would not have an Android phone.

> Nokia does have Android phones,

Nope.

> Models X, X+ and XL,

Those arent android phones.

> released under Microsoft, presented on
> the world mobile Congress in Barcelona.

Those arent android phones.

> Even if it is very tweaked Android,

So it isnt an android phone.

> Google applications and Google store
> are said not to be present by default.

And can't be added either. And even if they could
be, that doesn't make it an android phone.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 10:36:04 PM3/4/14
to
Android phones are Linux phones evenif theydo not have
KDE, Gnome nor other usual GUI, as they have Linux kernel.

So they are Android phones,
even do not have
usual Android apps nor even GUI ( I did not see them) .

Nokia is not first vendor who tailor Android GUI.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 10:39:29 PM3/4/14
to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:12:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And can't be added either. And even if they could
> be, that doesn't make it an android phone.

One then could say the only Android phones
are Samsung phones.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 10:58:24 PM3/4/14
to
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:58:00 -0000, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
wrote:
> "This isn't an Android that comes with the Google Play store.
> This is an Android that has been moulded and contorted into
> an operating system that runs and looks a lot like Windows Phone.

There are no Android phones, but Linux phones only :-)

Once I run a shell GUI on Windows 3.1 called Calmyra,
that was on the first look and some functions
indistinguishable from Windows 95. In some details
even better,
as I could drag files on taskbar directly.

But this did not make it W95, it stayed Windows 3.1.

OS is given by kernel, not GUI.
Do they have Linux kernel and Android VM and libraries?
If yes, than they are Android phones.
Same as Linux is Linux no matter what GUI.

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 11:52:58 PM3/4/14
to

Rod Speed posted Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:09:05 +1100


>
>
> > "This isn't an Android that comes with the Google Play store.
>
> So its not an android phone.
>
> > This is an Android that has been moulded and contorted into
> > an operating system that runs and looks a lot like Windows Phone."
>
> So its not an android phone.

What is Android phone ?

--
Poutnik

There is a good reason, why writers/directors do not repeat
all previous pages/episodes at the start of current one.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 11:54:06 PM3/4/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote

> Android phones are Linux phones evenif theydo not have
> KDE, Gnome nor other usual GUI, as they have Linux kernel.

Everything with a unix kernal isnt an android phone.

> So they are Android phones,

No.

> even do not have usual Android apps nor even GUI

They don't.

> ( I did not see them) .

> Nokia is not first vendor who tailor Android GUI.

No one said they were.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 11:55:03 PM3/4/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> And can't be added either. And even if they could
>> be, that doesn't make it an android phone.

> One then could say the only Android phones
> are Samsung phones.

Wrong, most obviously with google's own phones.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 4, 2014, 11:57:49 PM3/4/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
> Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid> wrote

>> "This isn't an Android that comes with the Google Play store.
>> This is an Android that has been moulded and contorted into
>> an operating system that runs and looks a lot like Windows Phone.

> There are no Android phones, but Linux phones only :-)

Using that silly line, Apple sells android phones.

No they don't.

> Once I run a shell GUI on Windows 3.1 called Calmyra,
> that was on the first look and some functions
> indistinguishable from Windows 95. In some details
> even better, as I could drag files on taskbar directly.

> But this did not make it W95, it stayed Windows 3.1.

Irrelevant to what makes something an android phone.

> OS is given by kernel, not GUI.

Wrong. The Win OS is not the same OS as DOS.

> Do they have Linux kernel and Android VM and libraries?
> If yes, than they are Android phones.

Wrong.

> Same as Linux is Linux no matter what GUI.

Different matter entirely.

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 12:38:07 AM3/5/14
to

Rod Speed posted Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:54:06 +1100


>
> poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
>
> > Android phones are Linux phones evenif theydo not have
> > KDE, Gnome nor other usual GUI, as they have Linux kernel.
>
> Everything with a unix kernal isnt an android phone.

You must have ever heard about supersets and subsets.

Every Android phone is Linux phone,
but not every Linux phone is Android phone.

Android is given by Linux kernel
and Android VM and libraries.

Linux with GUI perfectly imitating Window
is still Linux.

In GUI based OS, the shell and application set can vary widely.
Even if not supported by OS vendor.

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 12:38:47 AM3/5/14
to

Rod Speed posted Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:55:03 +1100
Or that.

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 12:42:18 AM3/5/14
to

Rod Speed posted Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:57:49 +1100

> poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote

>
> > There are no Android phones, but Linux phones only :-)
>
> Using that silly line, Apple sells android phones.
> No they don't.

That silly line says there are no Android phone. :-)
>
> > Once I run a shell GUI on Windows 3.1 called Calmyra,
> > that was on the first look and some functions
> > indistinguishable from Windows 95. In some details
> > even better, as I could drag files on taskbar directly.
>
> > But this did not make it W95, it stayed Windows 3.1.
>
> Irrelevant to what makes something an android phone.

Relevant, illustrating GUI/shell/application framework matter.
>
> > OS is given by kernel, not GUI.
>
> Wrong. The Win OS is not the same OS as DOS.

Sure. But DOS is not kernel of Windows.
Many people confuse DOS and CMD console.

>
> > Do they have Linux kernel and Android VM and libraries?
> > If yes, than they are Android phones.
>
> Wrong.

What is right ?
>
> > Same as Linux is Linux no matter what GUI.
>
> Different matter entirely.

For those who cannot see similarities.

What defines Android phone ?

nospam

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 12:54:45 AM3/5/14
to
In article <MPG.2d80d7a...@news.eternal-september.org>, Poutnik
<pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> What defines Android phone ?

dalvik/art and the android ecosystem (google play, maps, etc.)

there are android forks, such as kindle, that have their own ecosystem.

the fact that the core is linux (and stripped down) does not matter.
users never see that.

android apps are written to android apis and they run in the vm. the
linux core could change and users would be none the wiser.

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 1:21:05 AM3/5/14
to

nospam posted Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:54:45 -0500


>
> In article <MPG.2d80d7a...@news.eternal-september.org>, Poutnik
> <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > What defines Android phone ?
>
> dalvik/art and the android ecosystem (google play, maps, etc.)

Dalvik VM yes. All above is just application framework and application
set.

Various Linux distros with various Linux GUIs ( KDE and Gnome as most
known but not the only) are still all Linuxes.

In *some sense*, as there is Red Hat Linux, Mandriva, Ubuntu, CentOS,
Gentoo and other distros,

there is also Samsung Android, Sony Android, LG Android, and among others
now also Nokia Android.
>
> there are android forks, such as kindle, that have their own ecosystem.

Would you call different Linux distros with their ecosystems
Linux forks ?

Perhaps the only Genuine Android phones
could be those made by Google and maybe Samsung reference phones.
>
> the fact that the core is linux (and stripped down) does not matter.
> users never see that.

What users do not see matters the most.
OS is not given how it looks, but what is inside.

>
> android apps are written to android apis and they run in the vm. the
> linux core could change and users would be none the wiser.

So, If Linux used GUI that mimicks Explorer.exe, and emulated Windows API
to run Windows executables, would it be Windows now ? :-)

If phone can natively install and run apk applications,
using Android Linux kernel and Dalvik VM, that it is Android phone.

The ecosystems can change.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 2:34:25 AM3/5/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> "This isn't an Android that comes with the Google Play store.

>> So its not an android phone.

>>> This is an Android that has been moulded and contorted into
>>> an operating system that runs and looks a lot like Windows Phone."

>> So its not an android phone.

> What is Android phone ?

One that uses Google's system.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 2:37:09 AM3/5/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote

>>> Android phones are Linux phones evenif theydo not have
>>> KDE, Gnome nor other usual GUI, as they have Linux kernel.

>> Everything with a unix kernal isnt an android phone.

> You must have ever heard about supersets and subsets.

You're wrong. And can use groups.google
to prove that you are wrong on that.

> Every Android phone is Linux phone,
> but not every Linux phone is Android phone.

So what Nokia has just announced is not an android phone.

> Android is given by Linux kernel
> and Android VM and libraries.

It is more complicated than that.

> Linux with GUI perfectly imitating Window is still Linux.

But is not android any longer.

> In GUI based OS, the shell and application set can vary widely.
> Even if not supported by OS vendor.

It isnt just the GUI that is different with what Nokia has just announced.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 2:39:52 AM3/5/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> And can't be added either. And even if they could
>>>> be, that doesn't make it an android phone.

>>> One then could say the only Android phones
>>> are Samsung phones.

>> Wrong, most obviously with google's own phones.

> Or that.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 2:43:56 AM3/5/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed posted Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:57:49 +1100
>> poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote

>>> There are no Android phones, but Linux phones only :-)

>> Using that silly line, Apple sells android phones.
>> No they don't.

> That silly line says there are no Android phone. :-)

Nope.

>>> Once I run a shell GUI on Windows 3.1 called Calmyra,
>>> that was on the first look and some functions
>>> indistinguishable from Windows 95. In some details
>>> even better, as I could drag files on taskbar directly.

>>> But this did not make it W95, it stayed Windows 3.1.

>> Irrelevant to what makes something an android phone.

> Relevant, illustrating GUI/shell/application framework matter.

No it did not.

>>> OS is given by kernel, not GUI.

>> Wrong. The Win OS is not the same OS as DOS.

> Sure. But DOS is not kernel of Windows.

It was initially.

> Many people confuse DOS and CMD console.

And you confuse what is the OS with the early Wins.

>> > Do they have Linux kernel and Android VM and libraries?
>> > If yes, than they are Android phones.

>> Wrong.

> What is right ?

That there is more required for it to be an android phone.

>>> Same as Linux is Linux no matter what GUI.

>> Different matter entirely.

> For those who cannot see similarities.

There are no relevant similaritys.

> What defines Android phone ?

All of the OS, the java machine, the gui
and a hell of a lot more than just that.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 2:45:58 AM3/5/14
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote

>> What defines Android phone ?

> dalvik/art and the android ecosystem (google play, maps, etc.)

> there are android forks, such as kindle, that have their own ecosystem.

> the fact that the core is linux (and stripped down) does not matter.
> users never see that.

> android apps are written to android apis and they run in the vm.
> the linux core could change and users would be none the wiser.

And even if the user is none the wiser, that doesn't make it an android
phone.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 2:58:15 AM3/5/14
to
Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote
> nospam wrote
>> Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote

>>> What defines Android phone ?

>> dalvik/art and the android ecosystem (google play, maps, etc.)

> Dalvik VM yes. All above is just application framework and application
> set.

Still isnt an android phone if it wont even run android apps.

> Various Linux distros with various Linux GUIs ( KDE and
> Gnome as most known but not the only) are still all Linuxes.

But there is more involved with what is an android phone.

> In *some sense*, as there is Red Hat Linux, Mandriva,
> Ubuntu, CentOS, Gentoo and other distros,

That's just the gui.

> there is also Samsung Android, Sony Android, LG Android, and among others

Yes.

> now also Nokia Android.

Nope.

>> there are android forks, such as kindle, that have their own ecosystem.

> Would you call different Linux distros with their ecosystems
> Linux forks ?

No, because they arent forks, just different distros.

> Perhaps the only Genuine Android phones could be those
> made by Google and maybe Samsung reference phones.

No.

>> the fact that the core is linux (and stripped
>> down) does not matter. users never see that.

> What users do not see matters the most.

Not to whether its an android phone or not,
most obviously with a clone that looks like
an android phone but which doesn't even
have linux as the OS.

> OS is not given how it looks, but what is inside.

And what constitutes an android phone involves more than just the OS,

>> android apps are written to android apis and they run in the vm. the
>> linux core could change and users would be none the wiser.

> So, If Linux used GUI that mimicks Explorer.exe, and emulated Windows
> API to run Windows executables, would it be Windows now ? :-)

No, he is wrong there.

> If phone can natively install and run apk applications, using
> Android Linux kernel and Dalvik VM, that it is Android phone.

No, its more complicated than that, most
obviously when the ui is completely different.

> The ecosystems can change.

Separate matter entirely. What Nokia has just announced
is not an ecosystem change, they don't get to change the
android ecosystem. The most they ever get to do is do
something that has its origins in android which isnt an
android phone and that is what they have done with
what they have just announced.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 4:55:54 AM3/5/14
to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:34:25 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So its not an android phone.




> > What is Android phone ?




> One that uses Google's system.

And the Google's system is....

poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 4:58:41 AM3/5/14
to
Then there is not many android phones..

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 5:02:10 AM3/5/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> So its not an android phone.

>>> What is Android phone ?

>> One that uses Google's system.

> And the Google's system is....

You know what the google android system is.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 5:02:42 AM3/5/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote

> Then there is not many android phones..

Wrong.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 5:03:48 AM3/5/14
to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:58:15 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If phone can natively install and run apk applications, using
> > Android Linux kernel and Dalvik VM, that it is Android phone.




> No, its more complicated than that, most
> obviously when the ui is completely different.

it is just look.

poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 5:07:15 AM3/5/14
to
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:37:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You must have ever heard about supersets and subsets.




> You're wrong. And can use groups.google
> to prove that you are wrong on that.

Than I revoke my claim.
You have never heard about supersets and subsets.


> > Every Android phone is Linux phone,
> > but not every Linux phone is Android phone.

> So what Nokia has just announced is not an android phone.

Is not consequence of the above,
Follow logical rules...

nospam

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 10:51:39 AM3/5/14
to
In article <almarsoft.4360...@news.eternal-september.org>,
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote:

> Then there is not many android phones..

only about 10,000 different models.

not too many, really.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 11:20:10 AM3/5/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> If phone can natively install and run apk applications, using
>>> Android Linux kernel and Dalvik VM, that it is Android phone.

>> No, its more complicated than that, most
>> obviously when the ui is completely different.

> it is just look.

No. If it was, you could easily make windows look
like the android system and it would not be an
android phone.

Rod Speed

unread,
Mar 5, 2014, 11:23:37 AM3/5/14
to
poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> poutnik <fa...@fakeemail.com> wrote

>>> You must have ever heard about supersets and subsets.

>> You're wrong. And can use groups.google
>> to prove that you are wrong on that.

> Than I revoke my claim.
> You have never heard about supersets and subsets.

You're wrong. And can use groups.google
to prove that you are wrong on that.

>>> Every Android phone is Linux phone,
>>> but not every Linux phone is Android phone.

>> So what Nokia has just announced is not an android phone.

> Is not consequence of the above,

No one ever said it was.

> Follow logical rules...

They are irrelevant to that particular question
because what Nokia has just announced is not
a simple superset of an android phone.
0 new messages