I have made the observation, respectively some colleagues of mine, that some low-end phones struggle after being enrolled into our mobile device management (MDM). We use Microsoft Intune for that, but for this question, this shouldn't be relevant. Before rolling out the MDM, the low-end phones were used *as they were*, and some additional apps were installed for work purposes. Nothing too tasking. When we introduced MDM, all existing phones were automatically enrolled as *personally owned, work profile*. Hence, a work profile was created on them. Colleagues then remarked that certain low-end phones, specific models or makers aren't relevant here, have suffered severly performancewise. On the other hand, newly enrolled phones of the same model under the *fully managed* scheme, did not show any noticeable degradation in performance. Does creating separate profiles, one personal and one for work, in the enrollment into an MDM translate into an increase of the minimum requirements for RAM, the CPU etc.? Naively, or intuitively, this seems logical, since having two profiles and a set of duplicated apps running at the same time should result in more base-use of system resources. However, I couldn't find any information on this, as in "You must be this tall, to support a personal and a work profile". Is my hunch correct? Low-end phones being fine for single-profile use, but not for having two profiles.

With smartphones and the Raspberry Pi both being ARM devices, is it possible to run Android on a Raspberry Pi?

I have a Xiaomi 11 Lite 5G NE and I would like to know 1) Whether it can support the LHDC function provided by Xiaomi Buds 3T Pro. 2) If the above is a yes, how do I know I am using that codec? [Will the word "LHDC" be displayed alongside with the Bluetooth device?] I have searched many websites but cannot get a definite answer. In my phone, I discovered the following: Settings > ... > Developer ... > Bluetooth ... and besides "SBC", "AptX" and ...., "LHDC" is an allowable choice.

Play Store tells me: “Your device isn't compatible with this version.”
Aurora Store tells me: “Download Failed” “App not supported” 1) _Why_ do these stores think it is not supported? 2) If I get the .apk package file otherwise, how can I see the list of requirements (including minimum required API level)? (Btw, the app ([de.tafmobile.mobility.leipzigmove]) which raised these questions and took me hours to install runs just fine.)

As per the title, what hardware do I need to be able to run various versions of Android?

I have a Samsung Galaxy Win phone, rooted and with adbd insecure installed (using the link here ). This is the information shown by the USB OTG Checker app: I have added the android.hardware.usb.host.xml file into /system/etc/permissions folder and the USB-OTG app says that my phone is now OTG capable (before, it showed that OTG is not supported only due to the missing xml file). When I connect OTG cable and a USB drive, nothing happens at all. Same with a USB mouse. The USB Device Info app says nothing is connected. It's possible USB OTG hardware itself is missing from this phone, but it is very difficult to find any information about this model at all (it was really difficult to get this phone rooted in the first place). Is there a definitive way to know whether the phone supports OTG or not? Is there a Java function that I could call which would confirm OTG, or is there any function that would crash if OTG is not present at the hardware level? **EDIT 1:** Output after doing the procedure mentioned in the comment: "Do with root privileges: cd /sdcard && find /sys | sort >1. Connect USB. Then: find /sys | sort >2 && diff 1 2. This will let you know how kernel treats USB hardware."

--- 1
+++ 2
@@ -17357,10 +17357,15 @@
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/failed_transaction_log
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/19015
-/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/19034
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/21683
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22063
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22112
+/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22152
+/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22166
+/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22185
+/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22197
+/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22212
+/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/22224
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/2788
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/2796
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/2797
@@ -17402,12 +17407,7 @@
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/5383
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/5972
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6076
-/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6343
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6358
-/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6370
-/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6382
-/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6397
-/sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6410
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6423
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6439
 /sys/kernel/debug/binder/proc/6479

I've got a [Nexcom VTC 6200-NI-DK](http://www.nexcom.co.uk/Products/mobile-computing-solutions/in-vehicle-pc/in-vehicle-pc/transportation-computer-vtc-6200-ni-dk/ContactSales) box wich is a bit obsolete but nevertheless I'd like to install Android on it. As far as I understand its spec is far from being top notch: - CPU - Intel Atom D510 Dual Core 1.66GHz - GPU - N/A - RAM - 2Gb I've tried different images of [Android-x86](http://www.android-x86.org/) from Android 8.1 Oreo down to Android 4.2 JellyBean but I could only run them in VESA 800x600 mode or lower and their performance was inacceptable (I tried to switch off animation and optimize Android from inside, didn't work). My question, is it possible at all to achieve good-enough performance of Android OS on this piece of hardware? Would it make sense to research into making a custom build, possibly with custom drivers or dropping some unnecessary parts of Android, e.g. [media services](https://source.android.com/devices/architecture) ? This box is going to be used very specifically, pretty much for calculations using some Android software, but interaction with UI should be smooth.

This is more of a hardware question than anything, but it has to do with Android. I saw on this question, somebody saying that Android apps were architecture independent, and should run on ARM/ARM64/x86 platforms. Another reply was saying that the APK files can have architecture-dependent libraries, but not code themselves. Now, here's where my question comes in. I was looking inside the contents of an APK file, and I noticed that the only "lib" folder was for armeabi (32-bit ARM). But, my phone has a 64-bit ARM processor (aarch64, with the arm64-v8a instruction set), and the app runs fine. Hmm... how does that work? So I thought I would try a few other things. I installed Android-x86 in a virtual machine, logged into a Google account, and downloaded a few games. The one in question, which only has the "armeabi" folder, showed up as being compatible (as in, the install button was there) - but it immediately crashed after opening. I know there are some games that fake-crash on rooted devices (and Android-x86 comes pre-rooted), but the one in question is not one of them. I've used it on CyanogenMod on a real phone and it doesn't care. But something else I noticed: at least one other game I was looking for did not show up - the game Super Mario Run from Nintendo. See my screenshot here: Notice under "Library" there's no option to install it, and if you look at apps published by Nintendo, it's just not in that list (which means the Play Store is deciding my hardware is incompatible, and basically hiding it). But, it DID seem to think my Android-x86 VM was compatible with the OTHER games, which just crash immediately. So I decided to try something else. I picked up a cheap Intel Atom-based processor (one of the Insignia brand ones at Best Buy, as it's all you can get these days that's carried in stores). Run CPU-Z on there, you can confirm it's x86 and not ARM. Super Mario Run shows up, however, and works fine - so do the other games with only "armeabi" libraries! What piqued my curiosity is that, according to the specifications of the Intel Atom x3 processors, they actually have "ARM" GPUs. (Specifically the PowerVR 6500 series) CPU-Z shows this too, where it says the CPU is x86 but the GPU is ARM. I found some other press releases from 2015, when they introduced the Atom x3 line, about the two being combined. So in this case, is the tablet only able to run these games because its GPU is ARM? If so, what's the actual significance of the CPU portion being x86? I'm completely confused at that. I was considering tracking down a used older tablet with an Intel Atom, that still used the "Intel HD Graphics", and was not a hybrid ARM chipset. Something like a Toshiba Excite Go. But this is really just to find out if it would act the same as Android-x86, or if those apps would work. I'm curious what the incompatibilities/crashes are - is it just because Android-x86 is a hackjob and not official? Or do the apps with only "armeabi" libraries truly only work on ARM processors and somehow the Insignia can run them because of its hybrid chip? (As far as my phone having ARM64, it might have some sort of compatibility layer much like x86-64 for running 64-bit PCs? I don't know much about ARM but I know in the case of AMD64, it's an extension on top of the traditional x86 architecture so you can natively run both x86 and x64 programs - also why they won over Itanium, which was not like this.) Lastly, as far as the Play store recognizing whether an app is compatible or not - I would assume the developer doesn't have an actual whitelist of all devices the app can run on, that would be incredibly stupid and any time a new Android device came out, it would cause issues. So how exactly does that work? Do they provide minimum required RAM/CPU/resolution, things like that? Based on architecture as well? I know I've seen some apps that show as being incompatible with a larger-resolution tablet (like the Samsung View) that do work on phones, and always thought that was strange. Edit: One of the suggested threads from this one was actually about how the Play Store knows an app is incompatible, based on the app's manifest. And as much as it might make sense that it would be incompatible if it requires GPS and your device doesn't have GPS, or Bluetooth, etc., that doesn't really explain why an app would install fine on a 7" tablet but not a Samsung View. That isn't the fastest processor in the world, but it's better than some of the older 7 or 10" ones...

I am developing an Android app for my homework. And now I am confused to write the hardware requirements of my app. Example: - How much GHertz of CPU - How much RAM, etc.

when I installed Android Studio on my Windows box, at the end of installation it told me "Android SDK is up to date" but it complained that "your computer does not support hardware accelerated virtualization". Then it listed some alternative options. Looks like this is because my native HW has non-Intel (AMD) CPUs. So my question to Android developers is, does anyone know of a way to have hardware accelerated virtualization without changing my PC hardware?

I'm planning to get a new android smartphone and have eyes on the Moto G4 Plus. I took a look at the specifications and noticed that there is no compass sensor. I would like to play Pokemon Go but the hardware requirements says it needs a GPS. **Edit:** There's a website that says a camera, compass and a gyro is necessary for AR (augmented reality). That means i'm able to play, right?

I have an LG Optimus One P500 phone which has an official update limited to Android Gingerbread 2.2.3. But I've heard of people installing ICS custom ROMS on their phone even though officially it is not supported. My phone has the following specifications: CPU: 600MHz
RAM: 512MB
Current OS: Gingerbread (runs very smoothly with no lags for any tasks) So I'm just trying to find out **what are the minimum requirements for ICS** and whether a phone will continue to function as smoothly as it did for Gingerbread.

I have a Newsmy NP-711 Android 2.1 tablet (terrible device, cannot recommend it to anyone), and I would like to install CyanogenMod on it. On their page, they only have downloads for specific phone and tablet models. Is there no "minimum-build" that might work for non-listed devices? And how would I go about installing it?

I looked at the [publisher's system requirements](http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/air/tech-specs.html) for Adobe Air. I compared that list to [Huawei's device specs](http://www.huaweidevice.com/uk/productFeatures.do?pinfoId=3103&directoryId=6001&treeId=3713&tab=0) , but Huawei's list doesn't mention if the device has > ARMv7 processor with vector FPU, minimum 550MHz, OpenGL ES 2.0, H.264 > and AAC HW decoders How can I figure out why the store says the device is incompatible, and whether that conclusion is correct? I would prefer an answer that didn't involve installing the SDK, but if it requires reading and comparing device.prop and the APK, please provide a link to suitable directions.

I've noticed that Android Market sometimes allow me to download 3d games even when they are not compatible with my device (LG Optimus One p500), for example because the games require a Tegra GPU. Is there a way to filter Tegra-only games from the Market?