Jelly Bean

In one of the more obvious claims since the Greco-Roman calendar decided to start days of the month with 1, Digitimes (you remember them?) has a source claiming that Android 5.0 Jelly Bean may be released in the third quarter. Stunning revelations, folks. Consider:

  • There's a better than average chance Google will say something about the next version of Android at the Google IO developer conference, scheduled for June 27-29. That's at the tail end of Q2.
  • Q3 starts the next week.
  • Obvious claim is obvious.

We'd still be pretty shocked to see the next version of Android actually available on mass consumer devices immediately after any announcement (and that's what a lot of folks will think is happening if and when JB is "released," but we're also happy to be surprised. More likely, we'll see code drop first, you know, just like just about every other major update.

Digitimes also is reporting that more Ice Cream Sandwich phones will be released in Q2 2012, the start of which is a little more than a week away. We can safely say that claim is correct. Le sigh.

More: Digitimes

 

Reader comments

Another obvious story about when we might see the next version of Android

28 Comments

I love Phil's overly-sarcastic posts.

You should have a separate Android site that just reports the same stories, but very sarcastic lol.

I disagree, I wish Phil would take the Josh Topolsky (editor-in-chief of theverge.com) approach to journalism. Be professional when it comes to posts, but outgoing and sarcastic on the podcasts. Don't get me wrong, I love this site, but the sarcasm and condescending tone is getting old.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Whenever it comes out, I guarantee it will be 4.1 or 4.2, not 5.0. Google's history has been pretty consistent with incrementing (Honeycomb is the only exception, but only because the 3.X was tablet-only). 1.5, 1.6, 2.0(1), 2.2, 2.3,...

Right, because Ice Cream Sandwich is Android 3.3.

And because Honeycomb was 3.0, then 3.0.1, then 3.0.2. /sarcasm

Unfortunately, there doesn't really seem to be a consistent pattern with Google's numbering scheme for OS's. 2.1 was eclair, 2.2 was froyo, and 2.3 was Gingerbread, but 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 were all Honeycomb. Android went from 1.6 to 2.1 without a huge generational gap, i.e. it was all still smartphones. It made sense to go to 3.0 with Honeycomb because it was essentially a new generation of OS, and it made sense to go to 4.0 with ICS because it was AGAIN a new generation, basically bringing 2.X and 3.x OS's into one (phone and tablet running the same OS).

There are trends, but none of them long-standing enough to really predict what the numerical designation of the next OS will be.

As someone who's been in the game since the G1 I can say that there was a HUGE difference between 1.6 and 2.0 (Yes, there was a 2.0, although 2.0.1 was seen more and then 2.1 completely overshadowed them both very quickly). Just a cursory look at 1.6 will look like a completely different animal that what we've become used to with 2.x. There was a radical change to the stock launcher, live wallpapers became available, Accounts became recognized by the system and allowed for a combined inbox, the lock screen completely changed (remember "press menu to unlock"?), and probably the most immediately visible change: the app drawer was no longer a slide-out drawer. These changes were all a part of Eclair (Mostly 2.0, but some in 2.1 as well). It's very easy to tell a 1.x screenshot from a 2.x screenshot, and the two OSes behave very differently.

As far as the versioning roadmap goes, it's very simple when you consider that 3.x was a detour. Each x.1 reflects major API changes whereas the naming system is changed to reflect long-term releases. Often times these will sync up, but not always. 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 were all part of the same functional release, but there were a lot of API changes during this time. A similar thing happened with 2.0 and 2.1 (both were Eclair). Because of the time crunch involved with 3.x, more changes were done post-release than they normally would have, which means more version numbers were put out.

They can't be stupid enough to announce 5.0. That would be a terrible idea.

Also, they might want to work towards making sure the Nexus devices get it before the end times.

I think these "articles" that address this "news" about the SGS III and 5.0 coming out next week are getting just a little ridiculous. If the rumors are BS then just stop cluttering up your site with them three times daily. Simple. Oh and trolls, don't tell me to not read them and go somewhere else. It's like telling me to cancel VZW cause 4G is a battery drain. Difference is, this problem is easily remedied by not releasing anymore "this is a dumb, obvious rumor and I'm writing an article about it, god knows why".

Ah, I see. You think we don't know why we did this story.

I can think, off the top of my head, of at least a half-dozen reasons to tell people why stories like this are BS. But if you want folks to go on posting this stuff like it's fact, you know where to find 'em.

First three words of the article "Another" "obvious" "story". You know we love you Phil, but your average reader is a dedicated Android nerd who can tell when someone releases a badly photoshopped render of an Infuse as the SGS 3. Sometimes excessive articles about how "these are just vaporware" can start to become clutter. Just sayin :)

I think JtothaR is the one who doesn't know why you posted this story. Neither do I, really. It seems to me you just wanted to bash Digitimes for a bit of speculation and saying something obvious, neither of which are a big deal like you make them out to be.

To be clear, which part was BS? The part you agreed with, or the part you agreed with?

I think you are using the guise of trying to point out that this story is BS, just so you can cling on to your so called journalistic integrity all the while still publishing this "BS" story. All you are doing is perpetuating these rumors by spreading them even further. Which is exactly what you are demonizing the other site for. So what is it that makes you and your site any better?

If you want your site to have a certain amount of dignity by not printing lame rumors, here's a hint, don't print the rumor. All you are doing is proving how much of a hypocrite you and your site are by publishing so called rumors under the guise of calling other sites out. Making the only difference between your post and theirs the negativity you are spewing trying to make other sites look bad.

Basically, if you and your site were actually "better" than these other sites you want to put down, we would not be seeing these trashy stories on here would we?

First off: knowledge is knowledge. Any type of knowledge cannot hurt you; it is how you apply the knowledge that can lead to danger. Second, though the rumor is lame, I feel it just for one to shine the spotlight on something exceedingly "exotic." What does this mean? Well, if something is so far fetched, and idiotic, insulting actually, since they have some sort of notion that we would believe them, with no valid proof, I believe it is fair game to scrutinize, ridicule, bash, and satirize them. By posting this story, Phil gives one the chance to see how idiotic and stupid these people think we are. Now, if you want to be pretentious by acting all high and mighty about journalistic integrity and dignity, I suggest you subscribe to The New York Times, or some other newspaper with "proper" journalistic values. If you are tight on money, go to Yahoo, they would love your pretentious, educated, insightful comments. I mean, your comment is just so trivial when you know the context of this article.

You are correct. It is very apparent that Phil and AC have no journalistic integrity or dignity. Other than this you have missed my point entirely. By publishing the very same story that is so offending to Phil, all he is doing is perpetuating the rumor. Which doesn't make any sense until you take into account that this so called "offensive rumor" will obviously get the site more hits and views. So apparently it is not so offensive to Phil that it should not be printed again, just that it needs to be made fun of for the sake of AC's and Phil's integrity. So somehow it is okay for Phil and AC to tear down another site for doing the very thing AC is doing? At least the original post didn't try to hide their reasoning for the article as Phil has with this post.

To me this is more enlightening as to what AC thinks of it's readers than anything the original article inferred.

For a site that loves to continuously comment on how stupid other sites are for publishing these rumors, somehow they don't mind publishing every single one of them.

Please show me an example of any tech journalism that is based on "solid proof", LOL. But that's beside the point.

I put it to you that, It isn't knowledge when you're just repeating what everyone already knows(with digs at the (alleged) source). I find it hard to believe that even 1% of the readership here truly believes the daily rumors about both of the topics covered here. 75% probably just upgraded and don't care either, but that's speculation.

My point was, we don't need daily reminders of how rumors are rumors. It gets repetitive (comma) annoying.

lmao. I'll be here all week, folks. And the week after that. And the week after that. For a non-story, everybody sure is worked up over it.

Bro, people are getting worked up about this because you're coming off like a jerk. Not very professional in my opinion.

Any talk of Jellybean while phones are STILL coming out with GB is just disgusting, the h/w manufacturers are stupid slow at switching to new versions of AOS...They should have to pay a fee to put an older version of an OS on their phones, that would fix things, but will never happen of course....I like the article, especially the sarcasm....let me know for sure what was bs... :)