I was going to write that Android needs a Dictator that lays down the law with minions and partners alike, especially to enforce a "No Devices That Suck" policy. But honestly, does Google care? If Dell wants to ship a device that sucks, let HTC prove this is a terrible idea by eating Dell's lunch. If Android 2.2 is better than Android 1.5, let customers vote for 2.2 with their wallets.
Of course, there is always the risk that a customer who hates a Dell Aero will replace it with an iPhone instead of an HTC, ...
Well, the largest problem I can see is that it's hard for customers to know what version of the OS comes in the phone they want. Google owns the Android trademark, they could just prevent anyone who isn't complying with certain guidelines from advertising the name Android.
They could call it whatever they want, just not Android.
Just as raganwald suggests on his last line - people will be stung by their experience and simply buy an iPhone next time.
Crap like this damages the whole Android brand. Nobody wants to hear "Oh, well you bought this specific instance X of Android on phone Y. That particular one is no good, but it's your fault because you didn't spend a week reading detailed product reviews on Ars Technica before buying your phone."
It's entirely possible that sales will nosedive after the current round of phone contracts/plans are up, as most Android owners are on their first model.
People aren't stupid. They can distinguish between Froyo and Cupcake.
It's even got a clear analogue in the XP/Vista/7 debacle.
Or for those who lived through it, Cupcake is the Windows 3.11 to Froyo's Windows XP, or something like that. People do in fact get that there are different versions of software. If you're aiming at people who don't... they aren't going to know an iPhone from a Nexus One anyway.
There are years between XP, Vista and 7. Between XP and Vista, almost a decade if you really want to exaggerate. It gives plenty of time for the versions and their peculiarities to absorb into people's minds. Android is different. Google makes releases fast and there's hardly an era between them.
Most people probably don't know there are Android versions, the rest will assume there's Android 1.x and Android 2.x, and a mere minority will know that the 2.1→2.2 is greater than 2.0→2.1 partly because in 2.2 Dalvik has a JIT compiler.
Side by side, yes, they will see they are different. They won't know why though. Most people will never realize they are running a particular version, and few will even realize it is Android (vs whatever phone they have in their hand).
The key differences between iOS versions and Android versions, as far as branding:
1. A major iOS release always coincides with a hardware revision, and are available at least one hardware revision back. Always. Android OS upgrades are not correlated with hardware revisions at ALL, and the latest hardware from one manufacturer (Dell, case in point) may be 16 months and several major versions out of date!
2. Apple advertises the shit out of new phones & new features (again, they coincide). When have you EVER seen advertising mentioning new Android features? When have carriers EVER touted Android, the OS, much less its version number?
3. (Major) There is no NEED for an Apple fan to know iOS version. Buying an iPhone is buying the latest iOS version. Existing users are told via iTunes that they can update their phone with new software (an iOS upgrade, but they don’t even need to know it’s called that).
4. (Bonus) The different manufacturer & carrier branding "enhancements" to Android muddy the water. Now you have two axes of "versioning": The fork, and the version number. Not so with iOS. (The iPad is out of sync, but this should be resolved before it’s much more than 6 months old.)
5. You NEED to know that iOS 4 will turn your iPhone 3G into a useless lump if you foolishly upgrade to it.
The constant harping on about the utopian world of iDevices gets rather grating, even for me as a long time Apple owner. It's just a different business model, it has ups and downs that affect different people in different ways. Do we need all this concern trolling about how some random device is going to ruin it all for Google? And the utterly predictable replies from iPhone owners so distraught at the thought of Android users facing the horrors of fragmentation? What happened to the old Apple-fan way of blaming those who buy Dell devices for their own stupidity and considering them somehow sub-human as a result of their purchasing decision? Why the sudden rush of humanity and fraternity towards these poor souls?
I could perhaps agree that mostly the Apple way is still better for ordinary joes with lots of disposable income but it used to be better for a far larger group (hence why I bought an iPhone 3G) but the rough'n'tumble world of Android seems to be rapidly eroding the historical advantage Apple held with the iPhone. The fact that Apple will probably have stiff competition in tablets before they even get it upgraded to iOS 4 or release the 2nd hardware revision shows how much of their lead has been lost.
> People aren't stupid. They can distinguish between Froyo and Cupcake.
No, they can't, normal people don't know that there exist different versions of Android. They don't care, because they don't want to care.
> People do in fact get that there are different versions of software. If you're aiming at people who don't... they aren't going to know an iPhone from a Nexus One anyway.
If you're not aiming at these people, then you're dismissing the largest chunk of the market, and you are going to lose to your competitors.
A half-measure would be to brand the versions with something more distinctive and memorable than a number, e.g. 2.3 = "Android Ginger".
Maybe Google is shooting for where Apple is -- frequent, free updates compatible with the vast majority of active hardware. If they could get there, it wouldn't make sense to invest in branded updates. But what do they need to do with (or to) the carriers/manufacturers to achieve that?
As I understand, I don't think Google particularly cares if someone replaces their device with an iPhone -- the last I heard from Google on the subject was (paraphrasing) 'any phone with mobile web and applications is good for us', the premise being that any device capable of visiting Google's web services was all that they wanted out of consumers, so that we could keep consuming their services and being served their ads.
I think this was the original idea. But now Apple is a direct competitor (iAds), and clearly not shy about blocking competitors from their platform. Microsoft (or whoever) could do the same as well. It makes sense for Google to control and promote their own platform for their services (see Chrome and Chrome OS), as an insurance policy if nothing else.
If a customer spends 90% of their time in service specific apps and iAds are the preferred ad platform for free apps, then Google is losing a chunk of their revenue stream. Heck, if a person buys the apps without advertising that further eats into revenue.
I get the feeling "there is an app for that" means that people have internalized getting an app instead of using the web for services where an app is available.
I think they care a little. Apple continues to make interesting moves that hint at moving away from using Google's service stack. They've acquired some companies that specialize in services that Google currently provides, for example. Plus, Bing is now an option for Mobile Safari's search bar.
Android is a direct win for Google because they're guaranteed some influence, which means more opportunities to serve the latest hot ad unit. Anything that isn't Android is a much more tenuous proposition. Look at iAds.
Sure it is. You restrict the use of your brand to people who meet your restrictions, à la Firefox. Everyone else can still use the code, just not the brand.
Isn't that what they already do with the "with Google" branding and their proprietary apps? I guess they just need to wield that club a bit more aggressively.
You aren't telling them where they can or cannot run the code. You are telling them where they can or cannot brand the product. The Android brand is not open source.
Consumer education and awareness is the critical element of this. Google doesn't need to dictate, but they should create some sort of gold star standard that certifies that a phone is the latest release or is promised to be updated to the latest release in some reasonable time frame. Companies like Dell that inexplicably stick some ancient version on their phone will suffer the consequences and will prioritize staying up to date.
Of course, there is always the risk that a customer who hates a Dell Aero will replace it with an iPhone instead of an HTC, ...