Slashdot Mirror
Fragmentation vs. Obsolescence In the Android Ecosphere
whisper_jeff writes "Engadget has an interesting article up discussing whether or not Android is fragmenting. While the article discusses the concept that it may be more about handsets becoming obsolete at a dramatic pace rather than the OS fragmenting, it also begins by noting that there are currently five different versions of Android on the market, which implies there is a notable degree of fragmentation. Regardless of it being fragmentation or handsets becoming obsolete to new feature sets in a terribly short period of time, I believe this development cycle could turn casual consumers away and hurt Android's chances for long-term mainstream success."
Actually, you can build with a modern SDK while having a minSDK attribute set to 3 (android 1.5) so your app will be compatible with android >=1.5 (99.9% android phones are 1.5 or newer), and on 1.5 you can have access to so many things, it will be difficult to really have a need of doing something which is not possible.
Live wallpapers and maybe some advanced graphic functions will not be available, and the hardware of those "legacy" devices won't be able to handle that, anyways.
So there are only a few things left which are not possible, like account manager integration, the cool Log.wtf() function and a few more, but nothing extremely important, I'd say...
The only people to be hurt by the 'fragmentation/obsolescence' issue is developers. I don't want to downplay the developer issue, but as far as consumers are concerned , most of the big-time apps have no trouble supporting multiple iterations of the platform.
On the contrary, please do downplay the developer issue. Obviously, it matters a great deal to us as developers, but the purpose of hardware and software -- at least in the commercial market -- isn't to please developers, it's to please customers so they'll give money to the companies that employ the developers. If enough customers want a device that requires the developers to read documentation in cuneiform and write code in assembly language, then we'll be reading documentation in cuneiform and writing code in assembly language, or the software companies will find someone who will.
Don't get me wrong; *I* care about these issues as much as the next developer. But nobody but us cares about these issues or what we think about them. For the vast majority of us who don't work at mythical miracle companies that actually give a wet crap what their programming staff thinks, we'll end up coding for whatever platform the bean counters and bizdev monkeys decide is going to sell. And if they're wrong -- a decision that's ultimately going to be made by consumers with even less technical knowledge than the bean counters -- then we'll end up working on something else, possibly at another company if the last one didn't have enough capital reserves to withstand a product failure.
That being the case, the author of TFA is either out of touch with the reality of the industry or, as several posters have suggested, this is just astroturf FUD designed to scare consumers away by using long, scary words -- like fragmentation, for example -- whose meaning they don't know, just as most of them probably have no idea what an operating system is or that Android is an OS. I'd be willing to wager a decent chunk of change that most non-technical customers would read the headline and the first couple of sentences of TFA -- they're certainly not going to read the whole thing -- and conclude that the gist of the article is that Android phones are more likely to physically break into little bits than iPhones.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.