Android 4.0.x Ice Cream Sandwich on Samsung Galaxy Nexus and Google Nexus S

Over the past week or so Google announced the OTA update for the Google Nexus S of Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich, or ICS to be short. The specific version being deployed by Google is 4.0.3, the latest version as of today, 18th December 2011 and containing the latest bugfixes.

This short review is to compare the flagship implementation of ICS with the first official OTA update to ICS of an Android smartphone, the Google Nexus S.

Having already had possession of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus my expectations for ICS have been well established. It is a fast and capable OS bringing Android up to the bar set by Apple's iOS across the piece. Now I realise that statement may be inflammatory to the Android loyal, but my own personal experience, having run the two OS side by side for the past 2-1/2 to 3 years is that Android had yet to meet the functional and usability bar established by iOS. Even if there were particular things Android did "better" than iOS there were elements left wanting that held that OS back. No more. Android ICS is at the very least head and shoulders to iOS, if not more advanced in places. This is a very good thing to happen.

[B]The UI[/B]
This is what it is all about, in user terms. With ICS, Android has matured its UI to the point of fluid consistency. Google's apps have also had an independent workout and look and feel the same throughout, even though this has drawn some criticism.

The only small irritation I feel with ICS [in its fullscreen incarnation on the Galaxy Nexus] is the menu button appearing at different screen locations dependent upon which app you're using or where within the app you are at a given moment. I requires the user to hunt around the screen to find it.

With the Google Nexus S implementation of ICS this is not an issue. The Nexus S has committed buttons on the screen, separate from the main display screen. The ICS designers have retained the use of these buttons and the on-screen soft buttons of the Galaxy Nexus are suppressed in lieu of these.

I hope this is the case with ICS on all of the other "legacy" smartphones. Some screenshots I have seen of independent ROM developers have not done this, and so there is duplication of hard button with soft button, wasting useful screen real estate.

The picture, below, shows the Samsung Galaxy Nexus (top) and Google Nexus S (bottom) sporting ICS 4.0.1 and 4.0.3 respectively:
[ATTACH]1181[/ATTACH]

There is far more to ICS than I can do justice in this short article. Hundreds of fixes and enhancements are contained in the new OS that will satisfy private individual as well as SOHO and Enterprise organisations.

There has never been a better time to buy an Android smartphone and 2012 promises quad core and even more capable hardware to accompany ICS.

Well it wont need to worry about the other OS's hitting on it, it looks like someone stole its clothes and it had to borrow some from Symbian UIQ. :D

Also I think Google need to stop with the silly names, its a total buzzkill. I haven't heard a single person outside the internet mention Ice Cream Sandwich, unless they were in an ice cream parlour. I've heard talk about Mango, I've heard plenty talk about iOS 5 and I even heard one oddball talking about QNX, but not a peep about ICS. Its simply too difficult to have any sort of serious discussion about an OS called Ice Cream Sandwich, Google needs to ditch the wet blanket naming scheme and find something catchy. :)

[QUOTE=The Mullet of G;45000]
Also I think Google need to stop with the silly names, its a total buzzkill. I haven't heard a single person outside the internet mention Ice Cream Sandwich, unless they were in an ice cream parlour. I've heard talk about Mango, I've heard plenty talk about iOS 5 and I even heard one oddball talking about QNX, but not a peep about ICS. Its simply too difficult to have any sort of serious discussion about an OS called Ice Cream Sandwich, Google needs to ditch the wet blanket naming scheme and find something catchy. :)[/QUOTE]

The Official name is Android 4.0 But Microsoft are as bad, I always thought Mango was a silly name.

[QUOTE=DaveC;45002]The Official name is Android 4.0 But Microsoft are as bad, I always thought Mango was a silly name.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, Mango is definitely a silly name, but it is slightly easier to mention in a sentence than Ice Cream Sandwich. The Linux mob have the same issue, they keep trying to give Ubuntu edgey sounding animal names, but they always sound totally lame. Anyways I'm holding out for Android 7.0 Pomegranate Chutney. :)

[QUOTE=The Mullet of G;45003]Android 7.0 Pomegranate Chutney. :)[/QUOTE]
Which would be wholly acceptable in this world of Apples, Oranges, and Blackberrys. :D

Well I've got bets on Jellybean for the next release - not sure what they are going to do when they get to X though

I reckon if they were starting afresh Apple Crumble would be a good cheeky one to go with ;)

LOL , I still think the latest incarnation of Symbian (is it Belle ,or Anna ? ) should have been called Symbian Piper Alpha, .... Seriously though the name thing for incrementations has got stupid , only a geek knows where they stand and everyone else gets confused. I like numbers myself !

Numbers rule. I used to love the old school Nokia model names. Apple spoil us a bit... we get the names on OS X, ok, but also really consistent versioning, and on iOS they did away with names altogether!

We do get numbers with Android, it is, very simply, Android 4.0 (currently 4.0.3) and there would be absolutely nothing wrong with saying just that. The "pet" name ICS or whatever is more commonly used around the web. But who cares, it is a superb update to the OS that has a more than average chance of unifying smartphone and tablet experience. Precisely what it set out to be.

ICS is currently obliterating the battery on my Nexus S. 'Android OS' is keeping the device awake according to battery stats. A common issue if the xda-dev forums are anything to go by.

Hopefully this isn't by design or I might have to go back to GB.

I've also found that the messaging app doesn't deal with contacts whose number isn't prefixed with +44 very well. I've had to go through all of my contacts and add +44 to those that don't have it otherwise the messaging app doesn't recognise the number. I've not seen anybody say anything about this on xda-dev though so maybe something just went wrong with my contacts database.

Are you running any "servers" or daemons on your Nexus S? These would consume power. I found, for example, Viber left a little daemon running on mine that was a major consumer of the battery. Removed it and the thing runs fine again ... Its that kind of stuff, I reckon, that causes some of the huge variation in experience.

I don't believe so, certainly not anything that wasn't on GB.

It's probably just that I am coming from a custom GB ROM to a stock ICS ROM. It's not a huge problem as I can just about get a day out of it, but I used to still have about 50% of battery left at the end of the night with CM 7.1 and franciscofrancos kernel.

I've hardly used mine today, it has been on battery for 12h 42m and has 70% charge remaining. I do know that when I use it a fair bit the battery life drops quite a bit. But I've yet to actually need to top up, although I do typically "opportunity charge" when I am using it a lot.

I've stayed clear of this thread because I wanted to reserve judgement until I was able to get Android 4.0 running on my Samsung Galaxy SII and I'm pleased to say that I've been running this [URL="http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1410400"]CyanogenMod 9 experimental Build[/URL] curtesy of codeworkx.

I've been running [URL="http://www.cyanogenmod.com/devices/samsung-galaxy-s2"]CM7.1[/URL] since it was released and my phone has been running very smoothly. The battery life has been great (easily 24 hours between charges and could last 48 hours at a push with normal (ish) usage!), apps all behave as normal, widgets are great and the camera has also performed as you'd expect a cameraphone to do so. The only issue I have had is that the headset volume is a bit too loud for me.

So given that I was very happy with that setup, how would I adjust to CM9 otherwise known as Android 4.0.3?

Having used honeycomb on the Advent Vega I was used to the new UI. With Android 4.0.X Google has introduced a completely new UI - one that it is very different to gingerbread (Android 2.3.X) but not in a distracting form or one that takes long to learn. It's almost disappointing.
I was bored with CM7.1 and was itching to use Android 4.0 but (in my opinion) most of the changes are under the hood and will ultimately be used by apps and therefore not necessarily seen by the end user. What this does of course is make a more robust operating system.

OK, so upgrading from CM7 required a complete wipe and a clean install - this is the scary part, but you can always do a nandroid and /or a titanium backup to ensure that you can always go back to a previous state. I never do this! I've done this so many times, that I know I will be able to get back from a bricked state with just a little tinkering (and much googling!). Of course, should you not be confident or not sure if you want an experimental build as your daily phone, then you should ABSOLUTELY backup your data!

Most of my data is stored in the cloud or on the SD Card, so a complete wipe causes me no great concern (You can restore SMS messages as well).
So anyway...
Once installed (seems a quicker install than CM7) you boot up (which also seems quicker) and you get the usual Android log in type screen. Skipping on a bit...I just downloaded all of my apps as fresh installs from the Android Market. I prefer this method as opposed to a titanium backup and restore. Seems just as quick and it helps you de-clutter (do I really need angry birds?).

And then boom...not literally but no 3G. As some of you may know I have recently moved to T-mobile which has activated the roaming arrangement with Orange and for me to get 3G I have to manually select the Orange network.
But I could not manually select the network operator, each time I tried in always returned an error.
Bummer!

So after a couple of days using this build I decided that I needed 3G data and decided to go back to CM7. I then remembered something I had read - any problems just update to CM9 from CM7 without the data wipe. So, I loaded CM7 (I wiped, installed CM7 a couple of times), manually selected the Orange network and once I knew I had a 3G signal I booted into recovery, wiped the cache and the Dalvik cache (not sure I needed to) and loaded CM9.

Finally, I have the phone running on the experimental CM9 build linked above and I have 3G with 954kbps down and 373kbps up - acceptable for me.

I can report that over the last few days I have seen some rapid battery drain which was fixed by a wipe and re-install and now the battery is behaving as it did i.e. lasts all day and I charge it over night. Obviously, I can't say for sure that the battery life is fine, but let's remember that this ROM isn't an Alpha release yet.

So, if you are wondering if you can install a customer Android 4.0 (ICS) ROM on your Samsung Galaxy SG2, then the answer is yes. Does it work perfectly? No.

Samsung themselves are working on their own version of Android 4.0 with TouchWiz which looks like being released (leaked) in the next few months (there are already [URL="http://www.sammobile.com/firmware/"]pre-release[/URL] versions available).

The good folks behind cyanogenmod are touting a CM9 release in the next couple of months - this ROM I'm using is stable but has a couple of major issues e.g. camcorder doesn't work. I believe we'll see a CM9 release candidate within the next few weeks and from then it is anyone's guess. Patience is a virtue (or so I'm told).

If I can conclude with a final thought on where Android 4 puts us in terms of everyday use:

From a hardware perspective the SG2 does everything I need a phone to do; Android 4 offers a mobile operating system that drives the hardware smoothly and has many apps that enhance the user experience.
Therefore, it's going to take one helluva phone to get me to upgrade within the next 12 months!

Even though I've spent a couple of hours tinkering with my phone (it really wasn't much more than 2-3) I had and now have a phone that just works.

Great post; I do envy the tinkering and experimentation that is so much a part of the Android experience for anyone technically inclined.

Would you mind if I promote this post to an article for others interested in doing the same?

[QUOTE=Ben;45131]Would you mind if I promote this post to an article for others interested in doing the same?[/QUOTE]

Not at all :-)

It was a tad long winded but I think at this stage posts about Android 4 (especially experimental builds) need to be as informative as possible. There are many people using custom ROMs these days, so hopefully it will benefit someone!

Lots of confusion all over the boards re which models of handset ICS will be coming to. The Galaxy S seems to have the hardware to cope with it but it looks like Samsung won't provide the update. Perhaps a marketing decision so that original Galaxy owners need to buy something new?

I'm going to be controversial, but why do handset manufacturers have to update the OS at all? Apple and Microsoft don't provide new OS's for my home computer free of charge.

Apple have set the bar by providing free updates to their existing handsets (let's not forget they did at one time charge iPod touch owners) but thy also control the whole package.

With Android I truly believe that users should be free to install their own updates, rather than the obligation falling on the manufacturer / network. In this scenario users would get a vanilla flavour of Android, but manufacturers and the networks would loose their control over the UI.

Of course in the smartphone world, 24 months is a long time (maybe the difference of 3 operating systems) so a consumer purchasing a device would be worse off if they didn't receive OS upgrades during those 24 months i.e. they would have a less functional handset.

I am comfortable at rooting and upgrading, but I also know plenty of people who never upgrade windows - they buy a new PC to do that, so why then are we suggesting that manufacturers should be obligated to provide updates if their hardware supports it? I don't believe average people are looking for their mobile to be able to run ICS.

Microsoft quite often does provide a free upgrade to the next version of Windows if you purchase your computer within about six months of the release date of the new version. I think if you were to apply this policy to smartphones, especially Android, you would probably fall within this window most of the time.

I don't think Android manufacturers can really win with this. Apple never really updates their older devices to the 'full' latest version of iOS. Currently, the iPhone 4S is the only phone with 'full' iOS 5. But people don't see it like this because they get an update that says it is iOS 5.

But the updates to older phones like this received in the Android world would most of the time been provided either by updates to apps or the manufacturers custom skin (TouchWiz, Sense, etc.) - but nobody will accept these as updates in the same vein as an iOS 4 -> iOS 5 update on an old iPhone.

Perhaps if Apple stopped passing off minor tweaks as full new versions of iOS on older devices there wouldn't be as much expectation for other platforms to update.

It's a hard one to answer - if you apply the desktop OS policies to smartphones then the answer is 'not they shouldn't obliged to update', however, people don't normally purchase their PCs on a 24 month contract so can you really adopt that policy?

[QUOTE=gorilla;45145]I'm going to be controversial, but why do handset manufacturers have to update the OS at all? Apple and Microsoft don't provide new OS's for my home computer free of charge.[/QUOTE]

you can use a computer without ever connecting it to voice or data services, you cannot do the same with a mobile phone.