Jump to content

Talk:Console Enterprises

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Console Inc.)

Current Rewrite Attempts

[edit]

During Protection

[edit]

I noticed the article was protected after my edits yesterday. Not surprised. I generally support the people who opposed removing half the article. I did go through (User talk:Hatoncat)'s edits and tried to pull out what I felt wasn't controversial.

Considering the majority of editors (including an admin or two) seem to support this branch, I would encourage (Hatoncat) to break down his/her reasoning and attempt to achieve a consensus, as admins have requested that he/she now do directly via their user-specific edit block. I've begun alert monitoring of this page to prevent vandalism or brute force attempts to bypass talk process. 66.87.134.69 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Discussion

[edit]

There have been many attempts over the past few days to ram through what multiple editors believe is possible vandalism. This includes the removal of this article's infobox, and a persistent attempt to roll back a single old revision - despite multiple editors contributing new content to newer revisions.

I am at the point of considering this vandalism or ill-willed intentions to edit this article. Why people have interest in doing that to a company that has made no public posts in over a year - I'm not sure. But all the same, if you want to propose reasons for destroying half of this article, state them here. That's what this page is for. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:95 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have rewritten the article to remove self promotional cruft, items which are poorly sourced, and some outdated and incorrect information, as well as material which violates our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines. If you have any specific concerns please raise them here before reverting again. Hatoncat (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the infobox does not comply with any of those rules. You've detonated half the article and replaced it with clearly-biased sources, when the original had good attributions. I could see this article splitting into two articles - one for the company, and one for Console OS as separate articles - but I don't see the need for it. Please break this down into smaller changes, one by one, so we can discuss them individually. Also, as noted on the talk page for your account, there are concerns about your username and a cursory Google search seems to indicate it's a parrot of the company's owner/executive. I also don't think you're that person... but are you related to the company in question? 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:95 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are not required, especially when they contain unverifiable and outdated information. Personal blogs and Kickstarter updates are not good attributions, whereas XDA is. I have no relation to the company. Your ip geolocates to California. Are you related to the company in any way? Hatoncat (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Folsom and used to work for Intel. Not affiliated with this company otherwise. You are claiming there are links in the aritcle you want removed. Please be specific and make a case for each of them. It may be fine to remove. I'm not saying all the stuff you want to change is bad. But you are making too many edits at once, and many of them are objectionable. Infoboxes are not "required" - for instance - but there is no point to removing them, and I see no justification for doing so here. Finally, if you have no affiliation with the company - why are you using a username that is affiliated with the company? To troll the company? I don't understand that decision making, and genuinely want to. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:95 (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have made at least four attempts to re-post the last edit, since my last reply. Please communicate. Again, I'm happy to go change by change with you and reach a concensus - but you're refusing to discuss between even proposed edits, and merely resubmitting the same edit. Dialogue is essential to gaining a concensus. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:95 (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the infobox that is accurate. Most of the controversy section violates our policies, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If you have specific edits in the current stable version that you disagree with you may raise them, but I would suggest you stop reverting to a version that clearly violates our policies. Hatoncat (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to establish consensus with a single edit we can agree on, and go from there with each one. Are you willing to move your proposed changes to your sandbox page, so we can discuss individually? You are claiming, for instance, that all the info in the infobox is "incorrect" - including for instance the name of the company. I don't understand that, but I'm happy to work with you to try and pull out edits we can agree on. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:95 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, we can go from the current version that doesn't violate our policies and you may propose any changes that you would like. Hatoncat (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which "policy" you are referring to - but the "current" version would be the one before your proposed edits, not the version after your proposed edits. But if you would like, you could post the version that you wish to see in your sandbox, and invite me there to discuss what we could pull from it and agree on. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:95 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Recent Topics

[edit]
  • The product iconsole-micro was discontinued. There was no release 2015. Even the homepage shows errors as you can see here http://console.com.co/iconsole-micro The wiki needs to be updated.
    • I agree, but with their “Teclast partnership” apparently about to gestate something, may be best to wait and see what comes out --- then rework it. 4.35.151.35 (talk)
    • Common with Chinese companies. Most of Teclast’s site is in Chinese. Doubt Console would make it their focus without something in writing. Maybe Teclast doesn't trust Console yet until it comes up with sales to back its ego. 4.35.151.35 (talk)
  • After Console Inc. published the source code on Github they tried to get new developers with rewards http://console.com.co/devrewards/ The first cycle for rewards was from March to April. There is no proof / source that any developer got a reward.
    • Worth asking, but sounds like Intel’s threatened pullout of Android played a role. That happened in May, right at the same time. Top article on their blog: http://console.com.co/thoughts-on-chips/ - Has anyone posted code and didn't get paid? Would be notable/relevant if so but sounds like it ran into that same issue with Intel. Would be surprised if Intel ripcorded on Android, but meh, hasn't been doing well for Intel either. They seem to keep falling all over themselves. 4.35.151.35 (talk)
  • The published Source code can officially be found here: https://github.com/iconsole There are is no new source either from Console, Inc. nor any other developers especially for ConsoleOS as you can see on the contribution page.
    • I have read code comparisons - there are new drivers from Intel like the Gen 8 driver, but they don't seem enabled. There are significant changes, when you run it the UX is moderately different. For me, it's about the backstory and the cloak-and-dagger Google BS. 4.35.151.35 (talk)
    • As XDA investigated, they can do that - just like any Android OEM. Even Cyanogen does that to a degree… Just like Google does with AOSP itself. At least they didn't close it up and claim it was unique where it wasn't after Google kibashed dual boot for everyone (see ASUS Transformer Duet... I still want one of those). 4.35.151.35 (talk)

Page currently about the wrong "company"

[edit]

The Console Inc. referred to in this article is nothing more than a guy with a failed Kickstarter project (Console OS). He was previously masquerading under the name Mobile Media Ventures and told backers he was changing to Console Inc. but it appears that change never officially took place because there is already another Console Inc. with a real business run by real people http://console.to

More details here: http://www.consoleosripoff.com/showthread.php?tid=71&pid=111#pid111 roddie digital (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just an FYI, I read the thread above and it appears to sort out later on. There is another company calling itself "Console" - but this company appears to exist, and appears to have filed valid dba paperwork. Unless the other company has a lawsuit/objection, there isn't likely an issue here. Two companies can share the same name, happens often. 64.134.236.33 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, and marked the page for speedy deletion. The entity referenced to in this article: - has no proven track record of any shipped physical product ("Console micro") - their software product ("ConsoleOS") is a basically unaltered fork of first Android-IA and now Android-x86 - is highly likely an one-man operation

  • I disagree, the controversey with forking Android-x86 is notable... and its origin as an Intel-backed project (alongside the suspiciously-killed Transformer Duet) is also intriuging. I forked this controversey into a new section, with an emphasis on neutrality... but I do not see it as lacking notability. 64.134.236.33 (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that not even Jide with a proven released RemixOS has a wiki here about them as a company, the subject should be deleted for a) insignificance and b) attempts of self-promotion. UniversalNation (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statement about self-promotion. The article should be rewritten to focus more on Console OS (controversy). The company Console Inc., which seems to have only one employee (Christopher Price) has indeed no significance. Except a few copyright changes, some changes to boot scripts and inclusion of third-party drivers Console OS is just a simple copy of an old Android-X86 version. In comparison to Phoenix OS and Remix OS there is also no special Desktop GUI for PCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.66.162 (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Console_Enterprises&oldid=1229932274"