For those of you that aren’t aware, an anonymous user has submitted a video to Engadget claiming that his phone was running Android 2.4 (or 4.0), otherwise known as Ice Cream Sandwich. To say the internet is abuzz trying to prove the validity of this claim would be an understatement. Forums, news sites, and developers are in a heated smart phone war reminiscent of Android vs iOS back in the summer of 2010. This time they’re arguing against each other. Is this video real or fake? Let’s take a look.
The story goes (according to the anonymous user) that he was looking to buy an Android phone on ebay. When the phone was shipped to him he noticed it was running presumably an early build of Google’s newest Android build. He took a video, sent it to Engadget, and Engadget quickly posted the video. Soon after, his phone “stopped responding” and began to be remotely wiped.
Interesting, huh? There are a lot of arguments for and against this and I hope to provide plenty of both to let you decide. Below are several of the reasons people have picked a side, and (if possible) their rebuttals as well.
Why it ISN’T ICS
The biggest argument against is that this is a rather elaborate hoax by a dev looking for some sort of…something. Whether it be publicity, fame, money, etc. People against this being ICS essentially believe that either the buyer or seller of this is essentially trolling us all.
Convenience of the story: A lot of people point out that after this story blew up on xda and developers decided to jump in, the phone was suddenly wiped.
Google wiped the device because they don’t want ICS out to the public yet. When they saw it on Engadget they had the device wiped.
The smart yet dumb anonymous user: The anonymous user claims to know little about Android, but was able to realize that what he had was the next version of the OS and that he should video it and send it to Engadget.
Just because he’s new to Android doesn’t mean he had no idea what ICS was and that it was a big deal.
Smart yet dumb part 2: The user was given numerous instructions when he went to xda and either ignored the instructions, played dumb(er), or followed instructions incorrectly. By the time he actually started talking to devs, most of the important code had been lost.
He was new and genuinely confused.
The UI doesn’t look particularly new/impressive: Look at how big of a jump Honeycomb was? Why does this just look like a HC themed CM7?
Google never said they were reinventing Android for this. In fact, they said they were bringing together tablets and phones. So it SHOULD look like a honeycomb themed Gingerbread.
Phantom Voicemail Notification: He has the phantom voicemail notification found in community made AOSP ROMs.
Perhaps he actually had a voicemail. If not, Google could have borrowed code from CM.
(The later part of this rebuttal would be HORRIBLY unGoogle. Not the borrowing from the community part, but rather borrowing from the community and not fixing the bugs in the code they adopted).
Version IceCreamSandwich?: Google has always wrote the numerical number, not what it is called (for instance, your phone says Android 2.3.3 or something similar, not “Gingerbread”).
Other leaks showed the name, not the version (confirmed).
Why it IS ICS
Several prominent devs have backed it: Three or for devs over at xda (including jcase) have claimed to have seen some of the dump and say that it ICS. They aren’t sharing the dump because the device (if legit) is stolen.
Why wouldn’t they prove it if they have the dump? We’re just supposed to take “their word?”
The Linux Kernel: The device is apparently running a 3.0.1 Linux kernel, something no other Android device is running.
If a dev took the time to fake this ROM, they probably would have made sure to either build the kernel or more likely just display that.
The transitions: Notice how quick, unique, and smooth the transitions are? No device our right now can do that. The only launcher that can is horribly slow.
Again, custom ROM. He could have built this INTO the ROM taking advantage of the Galaxy S II’s beefy specs.
The guy DID work with devs: The anonymous user did eventually work with devs on a quick dump
Why did it take so long? And why did only 3 or so devs get to see the dump and decide they can’t show it to anyone else?
Small screenshot of errors: Just look at this.
As you can see, there are numerous arguments for both sides. One side relies on it being a VERY elaborate hoax, and is argued with how much time this would take to do. The other side bases their belief that the word of the developers should be enough, and is argued that they could be in on it. Personally, I don’t know what to think. There are too many arguments on both sides that I agree with. The developers that have backed its validity are HUGE. If you’ve rooted your Thunderbolt you can basically thank jcase for that, and he’s backing this anonymous user. But on the other hand, the story seems like something a 5 year old would come up with. I’m leaning towards it is legit though. What do you guys think?