

Is Android fragmented or is this the new rate of innovation? - sigzero
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/22/entelligence-is-android-fragmented-or-is-this-the-new-rate-of-i/

======
jbyers
Five years ago many handsets were obsolete they day you bought them. I'll take
fragmentation over slow progress any day. And I did for a year and a half.

In October 2008 I got a Google G1 the day it came out, replacing a tired
Blackberry. This phone is the poster child for Android fragmentation, running
a now-ancient version of the OS. But I could run most apps, and despite its
relatively slow speed and limited non-SD memory, I believe it was the best
alternative to an iPhone at the time.

Thanks to Google my new phone is an HTC Evo 4G. Same apps, same basic OS
experience, only with the performance and phone features that make a G1 look
like a toy. This is the platform I want: innovation as fast as possible on
hardware and software at the same time. HTC is keeping up just fine and I'm
betting developers will too.

~~~
ROFISH
Yes, but an iPhone 2G could reasonably run _all_ apps except for a few
hardware features not present (MMS, GPS, OpenGL ES 2.0, video camera) because
it received all OS updates. And until iPhone OS 4.0 comes out that effectively
end-of-lifes the 2G, one could be reasonably happy with the post-sale support
of the original iPhone with two years of major upgrades, three including
security/bug updates.

The thing that scares me off the Android platform is the OS fragmentation. The
sheer fact that I have to hack my device to upgrade it mind-boggles me. The
fact that the G1 is not receiving what is becoming the greatest OS upgrade for
the Android a mere _1.5 years after release_ is discouraging beyond the least.

~~~
watty
Most users don't know what OS version they are running or care. Those that do
can "hack" it (feels wrong to call installing an OS hacking).

~~~
ROFISH
I have heard of (not actually experienced as I do not have an Android phone)
programs on the Android Market stating "You must have Android 2.0+ to run" or
"Does not work on XXXXXX device with 1.5, but we're working on support!" While
most users don't care, developers do. Because Apple offers the upgrades free
through iTunes ("New update! Click here!"), the number of upgraded iPhones 2Gs
with 3.0 (opposed to the 1.0) nears 100%. Thus most developers can just build
against the latest OS, get to use the new APIs, and be okay.

However, I do admit the loss of the 2G upgrade changes things a bit, and I
would like to see how Apple handles it. The easiest answer is that the App
Store allows one to select devices that are incompatible with certain builds,
however I would love to see a universal binary situation supporting the old
OSs much like PPC/x86 or iPhone/iPad apps.

~~~
Tichy
I've updated my iPod Touch once, and it wasn't free.

~~~
teebes
Indeed, only iPhone upgrades are "Free", because they're subsidized. But the
majority of people don't seem to get that just because you're not paying
something at that particular point in time doesn't mean you didn't incur that
cost over a stretch of time. It's also why people still think of iPhones as
being worth $200 when in fact they are worth $600, and why they get so angry
when they get hit with the early termination fee.

------
mechanical_fish
I see that the author of this article is not particularly reassured, and
neither am I.

What I learned here is that Google employees are grandmasters at parsing.
("The fact that the phone you bought three months ago won't work with the
software we launched today does not meet the _technical_ definition of
'platform fragmentation'". Imagine my relief.)

I've also learned that, not surprisingly, Google engineers have no experience
selling hardware. They seem to think they're still programming for the web,
where you can push out ten new apps every week and people are _happy_ about
it. When a customer buys hardware they want some assurance that its makers
will support it throughout its operational lifetime, and will not simply throw
the unit over the wall, dust off their hands, and move on to the "more
innovative" new product of the week.

My hypothesis is that Google will continue to find that the cellphone market
has a natural rate of product obsolescence that is difficult to fight. The
good news is that the entire installed base turns over every two to three
years. (To a programmer who has to support ancient garbage like IE, this
sounds too good to be true - three years is actually really fast.) The bad
news is that, in the USA at least, you can't really make everyone buy a new
phone more often than once every 12 to 18 months, because the subsidies don't
come along more often than that. To "innovate" the hardware any faster just
produces a mismatch between yourself and the customers. One party or the other
is going to be uncomfortable, disoriented, and potentially resentful.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I dunno. One of Apple's big innovations with the iPhone was to take the
carriers out the loop when it came to software updates. This remains a big
benefit of their plug it into a computer strategy (aka "digital hub").

Google appears to be aiming for the same thing, but OTA and with a more carrot
and stick approach. Look here's a shiny new version of Android with new
features and better speed. Oh, you can't have it for 6 months because your
phone vendor wants to muck around with it to no great purpose, well that's a
shame, but don't get suckered next time you upgrade.

You seem to be claiming it's all about hardware (apparently all phones
released so far can do 2.1 _if_ updates are available), when it's really all
about carrier and phone vendor relationships.

Personally if the maps app gets updated once a week then that strikes me as
good for the customer, they shouldn't really have to care.

~~~
lenni
You're saying what I'm thinking. I have a (European) HTC Hero and HTC combined
with T-Mobile make the crappiest, most sluggish update experience possible. I
am very disappointed with them - so much that will probably buy an iPhone next
time around.

Also HTC's Sense UI is a perfect case of what you call "phone vendor wants to
muck around with it to no great purpose".

~~~
dlib
I also have a HTC Hero and exactly the same experience. I don't care for the
Sense UI and next time I'll get a phone that runs the native Android UI (a
Google phone or they should force that any phone with alternative UI's also
can run the native UIso upgrades are possible) or an iPhone.

The future looks good for Android but there's still a lot of work to be done.

------
Tichy
Fragmentation killed J2ME development for me. It was impossible to keep doing
it as an Indie, because you needed to test your app on hundreds of devices.

So I worry a lot about this aspect for Android, but I have some hopes that it
won't become as much of an issue.

The main reason is that all Android phones still have the same software basis.
They have the same virtual machine and so on (except for the OS versions, but
there won't be hundreds that soon). So the issue of having different bugs on
every phone should be greatly reduced.

Another thing I hope is that it will be easier to do refunds, so I would worry
less about pissing off customers when my app doesn't work on their phone. (I
don't actually know how refunds work for Androids, but there must be a way?).

With the most common payment channel for J2ME apps, premium SMS, it was very
difficult to do refunds. Typically you would only learn what phone the
customer has after he sent the SMS, by which point it would have been to late
to tell him that the app won't actually work for him.

Anyway, I just decide to be optimistic about Android for now.

~~~
commandar
The Android market allows users to refund within 24 hours of the purchase once
per app. So if they buy and discover it doesn't work on their phone, they just
open the market up and select "Uninstall and refund."

------
iaskwhy
"Devices going obsolete in months and new operating systems released on weekly
cycles make it difficult for even Google's best partners to keep pace."

I don't have an Android mobile but I do have a first generation iPhone. The
day iPhone OS 4 was announced and I learned most of the features wouldn't be
available for my iPhone it was like it lost all its utility and I immediately
thought of it as obsolete.

It's stupid because it's a perfectly working device even without the latest
updates but it's been really hard to keep those thoughts away. It's like I
need a new iPhone (and I don't!).

All this to say I wonder how people with an Android mobile deal with this kind
of thinking since there's a new Android OS version twice a year against a new
iPhone OS version every two years.

I'm sure most people don't care about OS updates but most of us here do,
right?

~~~
cloudwalking
Developers certainly care about OS updates. What frustrates me the most about
Android fragmentation, and a really essential difference between the Android
and iPhone platform, is that you can still buy a new phone running 1.5! You
can't buy a new iPhone running OS 2.

~~~
mechanical_fish
You can't even buy a _used_ iPhone running OS2, unless the original owner
never plugged it in to iTunes or was really consistent about clicking "no".

~~~
cubicle67
I know it's not what you're talking about, but the way you've written that has
just given me a rush of nostalgia for OS2, the awesome OS stabbed in the back
by MS. My first encounter with the BOFH was in a friends OS2 magazine.

*removes rose tinted glasses :)

------
rameshnid
The support will come in only if one of android running phones leap frogs the
existing mobiles by a huge margin. That would compel google to shift to a
strategy that would include 'marriage' with a device and less chaotic market
presence.

Google is better at dealing with uncertain or probabilistic business
strategies. They have more faith in fragmented strategies.

Apple is linear because it can afford to be. And it has paid off so far.

Learning from other consumer markets like cars makes me believe android
powered phones will offer consumers choice.

However I do believe the Rolls Royce of the mobile market will be the iPhone
for sometime to come.

------
risotto
The iPhone was not only a revolution in hardware and experience, the concept
of regular software updates that made the phone significantly faster and
better was a great feat too.

But there's no reason this should only happen every year. Google is a capable
dev house and far less cautious releasing new software. We all like google and
the web and open source because it allows extremely fast and transparent
iterative updates.

I don't think google will or should slow down improving android. I'd hope the
hardware manufacturers experiment with shipping their own vanilla android
devices and learn exactly what customers and the market flock to.

Don't forget a Moto Droid is still a badass phone despite what iPhone 4 or
froyo offer. If you want the cutting edge you can install hacked firmware. Or
buy a nexus one. Or wait until your carrier will help subsidize a whole new
phone just like we've always done. There's no problem here as a consumer or
for google as a os vendor.

------
AndrewHad
I have a Verizon Eris now for few weeks. I just upgraded to 2.1 and it's been
better, but the total feel is not as good as the 15 min I spent with iPhone
(latest model).

Eris is cool phone but buttons respond slowly. I know it's not the Droid or
Incredible but it shouldn't be so laggy. I now have pinch/zoom but it's so NOT
smooth. Feels like graphics stutter. The turn by turn NAV is the best part.
But I'm coming from Windows Mobile with Verizon Touch and it sucked!!! This
touch keyboard is much better than WinMo but iPhone is still better.

The Eris has no help on the phone itself and it took me a while to figure it
out. The iPhone I had mastered in the store in 10 min.

I'm stuck for two years and depressed about it since I want the new iPhone,
even though have not seen it.

~~~
pkulak
Take that phone back tomorrow. You have 60 days, I think. I had an Eris for
about a week too. I just sent it back and bought a 3GS on Craigslist. You
could even trade it in for the Incredible, which you'll be much happier with.

------
lwhi
I find this really interesting on two levels.

Firstly, the issue to 'free' and what that means in terms of what we can
expect from a company which gives us something for 'free'.

The dynamic involved in getting something for nothing in modern society, is
incredibly complex. In almost every situation, when a company gives something
for free, the transaction holds a huge amount of value for the company in
question. In a sense we are paying them, but they are able to hold us (the
consumer) to ransom, because we didn't pay any money for the privilege.

Perhaps - due to this - there is going to come a time when, companies and
people, elect to obtain a certain level of service by dipping into their
wallets? Maybe a swing back to the days of paid models would be actually be
beneficial to the consumer?

Secondly - I think this is interesting because Android is an open-source OS,
and I've found that open-source OSs generally look after users with legacy
hardware. That old 486 box you had in the early nineties could potentially
still run Linux and be secure.

Bearing this in mind - why does Android have to be any different .. and will
it remain different for the foreseeable future?

------
mike-cardwell
I got a G1 17 months ago on T-Mobile in the UK. During this time it has been
upgraded OTA to 1.1, 1.5 and then 1.6. Also during this time, I've never come
across an app which required a version of Android which I don't have. I'm not
disputing they exist, just that they're very rare.

Next month, my contract comes up for renewal and I'll probably get a Desire. I
think it will come with 2.1, but will be upgraded OTA to 2.2 shortly
afterwards. I expect it will have several more upgrades before my contract
comes up for renewal again.

I don't see what the problem is. I don't feel as though I have an obsolete
device and it still runs all the apps I've tried for it...

------
jsz0
The platform fragmentation itself wouldn't be so bad if Google had some
baseline quality standards on the Android Market. Google hides their own
applications for 1.x users that are 2.x only. Why don't third party apps
behave this way too? Even if they don't want to force developers to support
phones that were brand new 6 months ago they could at least save the end user
the frustration of blind luck compatibility.

