Slashdot Mirror


Android Compatibility and Fragmentation

tbray writes "Here are the details on the Android Compatibility Program — which combines the source, a formal compatibility spec, an open-source test suite, and access to the Android Market as reward for good behavior (program page). People like to rant about the subject of fragmentation, so here's TFM that they should be R'ing first."

211 comments

  1. Fragmentation is mostly FUD by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fragmentation is mostly FUD, there are only a few screen sizes and the OS changes are pretty minimal.

    1. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the Android developer blog

      Because it means everything, it actually means nothing, so the term is useless. Stories on “fragmentation” are dramatic and they drive traffic to pundits’ blogs, but they have little to do with reality. “Fragmentation” is a bogeyman, a red herring, a story you tell to frighten junior developers. Yawn.

    2. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed on screen changes. But there's a major psychological issue with people shelling out hundreds of dollars for what they perceive as the "latest, greatest" phone, and then 6 months later being told they are stuck on version 1.6 when we've already gone through 2.0, 2.01, 2.1 and are about to see 2.2.

      If you think this isn't real, go see the thread on Engadget right now on this topic. People are angry about it. Frankly, I'd be pretty angry if my phone was still running 1.5 (apparently a third of Android phones out there are still stuck on this old-ass version as of a few weeks ago, and a third or so were still on 1.6, with another third on 2.1).

      Mind you, almost every phone has at least an *unofficial* community-produced ROM that will get them the 2.1 features and apps. Even the klunky G1 which was the first Android phone can get there - it's just not officially supported, presumably because Google, HTC and T-Mobile don't want to push down an update that replaces the SPL - I guess they think the support costs from doing that would be higher than the PR costs of not doing it.

      So yeah, the issue is a bit overdone - or rather, it's not so much fragmentation of hardware specs that's the issue - I think allowing some hardware diversity is a good thing, it encourages innovation. The real issue is lack of hardware support from manufacturers and telcos after the point of sale. Google has up-to-now done basically nothing to force guaranteed support periods and guaranteed maximum release delays on a newly released OS version. I saw nothing in the article to address this.

      *That* is the real issue that gets people riled up. *That* is what the users at Engadget are seething over. They want 2.1. They don't want to be told "we can't support 2.1 on your 8 month old handset, eat a dick" by HTC or Sprint or Verizon or whoever. Google is letting the carriers and hardware manufacturers release products, pimp them, then drop support 3 months later. They need to force some structure on customer support - I don't think every piece of hardware should be supported forever, but I think a year of official support for the latest version releases after the last date you sold the product is a minimum, and I think that a 2-3 month lag from Google's release of a new version to an officially supported ROM from the hardware vendor and carrier is a maximum. If a vendor falls outside of those parameters, every handset of their should be banned from the market, effective instantly.

      That's the stick they need to support their customers. If Google doesn't man up and do this, I'm afraid it will do a significant amount of harm to the rapidly developing Android market.

    3. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny, I saw this article on my RSS and knew that the first post would be this. You don't give any reason as to why the fragmentation stories are FUD.

      I am personally very hesitant to look at any android device due to the fragmentation. Hell, you have 1.6 devices being released alongside 2.1 devices. If this isn't fragmentation then what is?

      As has been posted, read some comments from users about how pissed they are that their 1.6 device won't run certain apps or is lacking features that could be implemented by a 2.x release but their carrier won't deploy any updates.

      While the fragmentation can't be squarely put at Google's feet, there's a shared responsibility between the hardware manufacturers, the carriers and Google to ensure that this doesn't happen. Unfortunately this hasn't happened and Android is headed squarely toward a cluster fuck.

    4. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think every piece of hardware should be supported forever, but I think a year of official support for the latest version releases after the last date you sold the product is a minimum

      If the contract period is 2 years, and the early termination fee is based on the contract period, they better support the phones for 2 years.

    5. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by dave562 · · Score: 1

      That's the stick they need to support their customers. If Google doesn't man up and do this, I'm afraid it will do a significant amount of harm to the rapidly developing Android market.

      Don't hold your breath waiting for good customer support from Google. Google has been great about bringing technologies to market. They have proven themselves nearly incompetent when it comes to end user support for those technologies. They really need to open up their hundred billion plus dollar bank accounts and fund a decent customer service / marketing department. Google is great if you're a coder and are comfortable working with half done APIs. They aren't so great if you're in the market for something that just works.

    6. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Android Market makes sure your app is only visible to those devices where it will run correctly, by filtering your app from devices which don't have the features you listed.

      I've seen this a lot with friends who have different android phones. Friend A with HTC: "Hey try this really cool app". Friend B with Motorola: "What App? I can't find it anywhere in the market place." My understanding is that the app doesn't even show up if their phone is not compatible, it's invisible. I guess they don't want a bunch of apps that when you bring up the page says, "Sorry your phone is not compatible".

      I also know from the QA side of the house that you can have the same phone hardware with 2 different OSs depending on the carrier. Usually we don't have major problems, but there can be glitches and bugs that are introduced. And then there is the speed of the upgrades. With the iPhone we looked at one major update per year. When we started working with Android last year it was 1.5 (which had been our for a while on the G1) and 1.6. Then suddenly it was 2.0, then 2.1, now 2.2 all the last 9 months or so. Apple has generally release a new OS every year with a minor .1 release shortly there after. Same with blackberry.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    7. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think every piece of hardware should be supported forever, but I think a year of official support for the latest version releases after the last date you sold the product is a minimum

      If the contract period is 2 years, and the early termination fee is based on the contract period, they better support the phones for 2 years.

      Supporting the phone as it was sold is not the same as offering free upgrades to the OS, Apps, etc. You bought it for the features it had. Live with them, or buy a new model with new features.

    8. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Sancho · · Score: 1

      There's support and then there are upgrades. There's really no requirement, explicit or otherwise, for Sprint to offer a 2.1 upgrade for the HTC Hero.

    9. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The stories just say that fragmentation is killing Android, but they provide no evidence. They are making the claims, here. I have found no evidence that there's a fragmentation problem. There are apps that don't work for all devices, but iPhone OS has that issue, too, and it's only going to get worse.

    10. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by ickpoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure Google needs to do anything about it. Instead carriers need to. I personally am a bit pissed that my G1 is stuck at 1.6. When I replace it (fairly soon), one of the requirements will be that it is on the current Android release and that it follows the current releases for at least awhile (G1 followed for 4 months?) If the carrier cannot do this I'll just go to a different one.

      I suspect that most people will feel the same way, so, it is only a matter of time before it becomes the standard (hoping).

      --
      I am not a script! .Sig?
    11. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed, however the killing of the platform has started in minor ways, unless there's collaboration between carrier/manufacturer/Google it will end up as a platform that users don't want a bar of.

      Let's face it, we're not talking about techies who can handle that some apps don't work, we're talking about users. They don't know the difference between a 1.6 & 2.1 device, they just see a phone with Android across the box. If it doesn't work they'll never buy another Android phone.

      Sometimes it is difficult to step back and ask "What would a user do in this situation?". It's something that the IT industry seems to forget, that the users are what matters for a consumer device.

    12. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you don't develop on Android. Here's a few aspects that fall under the fragmentation category: Inconsistent accelerometers, cameras, depending on HW and device drivers. Some devices include Google Maps API, others don't. These two right from the top of my head.

    13. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      It depends. When you're number one selling point is that your product will evolve with time to continue to be relevant for a certain time (which is the case of any smartphone maker since the smartphone market just changes so fast) I think it is VERY MUCH the same thing.
      Nobody ever bough the iPhone or any Android or WebOS device to use it as it comes. You expect your $700 device to be able to keep up to date (at least on the software side) for at least as long as you're paying for it which is 24 months if you bought it on contract.
      If you're not expecting this just buy a Samsung feature phone, they can do pretty much the same things, cost twice as less and they get obsolete in 6 months.

    14. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      As a former Windows Mobile developer, I am terrified. I now work on the iPhone, but my company is looking at the Android as a target platform. From what I've heard, Android seems like Windows Mobile all over again. And Windows Mobile was a disaster.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    15. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Got to agree with you. The "fragmentation" issue is a non starter, and is a good way to spot a pundit or expert that has no experience with Android other than molesting a phone at a cell phone booth in the mall.

      --
      -- $G
    16. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Well, here's the good news: Android is nothing like Windows CE. The fragmentation issue is a non starter, except with people who have no clue that Android apps run in a virtual machine, and are nearly totally insulated from the underlying hardware. Most of the whining about screen sizes comes from developers who want to use photoshop slicedowns as GUIs instead of using Android's GUI.

      --
      -- $G
    17. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Engadget has been stoking the FUD fire for a long time. Do you own research and find out which devices are slated for upgrade. Practically the only one not slated for upgrade is the G1.

      Engadget is toeing that sycophant line dutifully. I think I have seen 3 articles with them calling Android horribly hopelessly fragmented in just the past two or three months. It's ridiculous. They are sensationalizing and anger mongering.

    18. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      contracts are for suckers. I am on T-mobile, no contract, and my bill is much much cheaper for it.

    19. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Thats why I'm going for a N900 rather than a Android or iPhone.

      The future has turned out to be Meego and there will be very well supported versions of it for the N900 (if not official).
      So its a phone which will continue to get upgrades.

      That plus you can tinker with it completely. :)
      Want a new kernel? Sure.

    20. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by BufferArea · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a developer centric sentiment. There is fragmentation if either the user or the developer sees it as a fragmentation issue. From what I've read, most developers see it as a small see either no fragmentation or a small fragmentation user. From many user's perspective, there is a huge fragmentation issue. A lot of this really a marketing and/or support issue. When a user buys a brand new, recently released smart phone, they expect to get the top of the line OS features - unless they're specifically told they're not going to get those features. It's pretty ridiculous that you can buy a new phone with Android v1.6 when 2.2 is available and not have official support to upgrade the OS. People want to treat their smart phones like the computers they are, which means they should be reasonably upgradeable on the OS level, not cheap disposable cell phones. Remember, for most users, saying there is an unofficial way to upgrade the phone OS is the same as saying they can't upgrade the phone. There are a lot of things to dislike about Apple, but at least they don't abandon their users once they have their money.

    21. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by luther349 · · Score: 0

      yea i herd of that and its frigging sad. 2.2 had major speed changes and would get the old clunky g1 to preform well. not even apple is like that with there older phones, all iphones and ipods will get 4.0 firmware but non 3gs and 3g ipods will not get the multitasking feature being the hardware cant handle it. but at least apple is still supporting them. even the new arcos 5 it tablet running 1.6 isn't getting a 2.2 upgrade. and drooping support for a phone that's still under contract should not ever be done. sense most contracts run for 2 years i say that's how long any device you buy from a provider should be supported.

    22. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Pastis · · Score: 1

      If the customers really want free supported OS upgrades over other criteria, the first manufacturer that promises and implements it will get customers. Market forces will solve this issue. No need for Google to intervene

    23. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by adolf · · Score: 1

      Feh.

      I'm on Verizon, no contract, and I still want updates.

    24. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Are you also hesitant to buy any Apple products because the original 3G won't run iPhone OS4? That's fragmentation, oh noes!@@#!@#

    25. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you call my G1 klunky

    26. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      The main problem with all the fragmentation, as I see it, is the uncertainty. Waiting for an update when your carrier/manufacturer etc. is unwilling to give any information as to when, or whether at all, an update is coming, is pretty crappy.

      Will I be able to run the latest update to, say, Adobe Reader (which is already limited to 2.1) in half a year?

      Will I be getting USB and WiFi tethering?

      Will I be getting the JIT Dalvik compiler?

      How about future upgrades, like browser support for coming technologies (Smokescreen, updates to HTML5 etc.), or other things I'm hoping for, like native network share support, reverse tethering (internet access through a PC's USB connection a la MS ActiveSync), USB OTG support (hardware is built right in)...

      There are custom ROMs, of course, but not all devices have that option, due to some jackasses deciding to lock up the bootloader.

    27. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by peppepz · · Score: 1
      Yes, but even applications running under virtual machines use APIs, and Google spits out a new API every 3 months. Phones in general will NOT be upgraded to support the new APIs (it's an exception when they are), and developers have to either resort to multiple code paths for backwards compatibility, or drop support for older phones (where "older", here, means older than a couple of months). That's the issue of fragmentation.

      -- An angry Android user stuck with Android 1.6 on a six months old phone, which received 0 updates from its manufacturer, and is frustrated from seeing applications disappear from the Market because they require 2.1

    28. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by peppepz · · Score: 1
      At least Apple will upgrade their phones until it's technically not feasible for them to do so. I think they're the only phone manufacturer with such a policy.

      Blackberry and Nokia do release some upgrades for their phones - at least they own hardware of the devices they sell, so it's easier for them to do so, although carriers usually get in their way.

      Google is in the worst position since it only controls the core software platform (except for the case of the Nexus One). A phone won't receive an upgrade unless both the phone manufacturer and the carrier are interested in it. Which is a pretty rare combination.

    29. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by jedrek · · Score: 1

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

      I have an HTC Tattoo, the I can't use a bunch of apps I'd love to use on it, a couple others crash. Fragmentation has pretty made Symbian a platform only the nerdiest geeks code for, I'd love to see that not happen to Android too.

    30. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Xest · · Score: 1

      "I've seen this a lot with friends who have different android phones. Friend A with HTC: "Hey try this really cool app". Friend B with Motorola: "What App? I can't find it anywhere in the market place." My understanding is that the app doesn't even show up if their phone is not compatible, it's invisible. I guess they don't want a bunch of apps that when you bring up the page says, "Sorry your phone is not compatible"."

      How does your beloved Apple handle this when someone builds an app for the iPad or 3GS that depends on features the original iPhone didn't have? The choices seem pretty stark:

      1) Let people see the app, tell them it's not compatible so that they have to increasingly rummage through apps they can't use to find what they want the older their handset gets

      2) Prevent people releasing apps in the first place that don't work on all handsets, meaning no one gets to use apps which could be groundbreaking on newer handsets

      3) Let people access any app even those that are incompatible with their handset and have them fail miserably when they try and use them

      4) Hide apps people can't use, displaying them to people they can use, as you mention is the case with the Android marketplace

      At the end of the day, it's a problem even Apple must surely deal with too, if not now, then eventually (else face stagnation as their hardware is left years out of date as is the case with all current iPhone screen resolutions), as far as I can see, option 4 seems the most sensible choice out the lot, and I'd be more dissapointed if the Android marketplace took any of the other approaches.

      Personally if I can't use an app, I don't care. It's something I've kinda had to deal with all my life. You know, I'd really like to play Metal Gear Solid 4, but unfortunately it wont run on my XBox, I'm sure I'll live though, maybe next gen I'll get a Playstation and miss out on Halo 10 or whatever. Fortunately, the world still wont end though, and I like many other users apart from perhaps the most rampant of fanboys will continue to simply not care because that's really just the way the world works- you can't have everything, ever. As long as the best or at least a perfectly acceptable option is taken though, that's enough to make me happy.

    31. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Xest · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "It's funny, I saw this article on my RSS and knew that the first post would be this. You don't give any reason as to why the fragmentation stories are FUD."

      It's actually been explained, and I have to question the motive for your posting, because it takes a certain selective ignorance to not see the given reasons. All the same, to give you the benefit of the doubt, here are the reasons they are FUD:

      1) There's a choice between fragmentation and stagnation, if a set of devices does not change over time to avoid fragmentation, they rapidly become outdated.

      2) Fragmentation has been fundamental to the most successful computing platform of all time- the PC. Without fragmentation there would've not been such rapid development or adoption.

      3) Because of the above, fragmentation has allowed the likes of PC to be extremely versatile, and software developers have coped with it for decades without any real problems.

      4) Because fragmentation has been so fundamental to the development of the PC, and dealing with it is so well understood, Android has been able to be designed with the issue of fragmentation in mind, and hence handles it in an extremely graceful manner- more so than most other platforms.

      5) Because of point 4, the supposed issue of fragmentation hasn't actually really caused any problems, hence why the Android marketplace has some of the most innovative apps on the market (particularly those from Google such as Skymap, Translate, as well as the likes of Layar) which work perfectly fine even on my old HTC Magic running Android 1.6.

      So in other words, despite all the fragmentation FUD being talked about, there's no actual evidence being produced of it causing any real life problems. The only whines seem to be from those who simply don't have the first clue about software development because professional developers understand concepts like abstraction layers and how they help you deal with differences in platforms.

      I hope this answers it for you once and for all, but judging by your tone it sounds like your mind is made up, to you it sounds like Android has a fragmentation problem because a few blog posts told you so, even though they provided no evidence at all to back up that theory, let alone any "evidence" that can't easily and demonstrably be refuted as being FUD in itself.

    32. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      Nokia have said it won't be porting Meego to the N900. The community probably will but that can take time and end up imperfect.

      Nokia actually have quite a bad record of supporting their Nx00 devices once they release a new one.

    33. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ditto the E series.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      I have an HTC Tattoo

      I wonder if that's more or less geeky than having a Tux tattoo?

      --
      Squirrel!
    36. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      From a developer perspective Android fragmentation isn't THAT bad - a minor pain usually. From a user it's entirely a different matter. Different hardware, UI, default settings, etc is a big deal. The fact that Google evidently doesn't understand this is disappointing in that it means they don't even plan to fix the situation. Without understanding the average consumer Android won't be anything better than just another clueless and geeky graphical environment.

      Somebody needs to find the genius that made the Google search page a logo, a text box, and a button and fire the dimwits that think it's a good idea to layer in lots of clunky widgets and customizations. That crap isn't what made Google the verb of searching. It's not what will let Android kick the iPhone's butt.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    37. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Threni · · Score: 1

      Support? We're not talking about support. SQL Server 2005 is still available for purchase, but 2011 is when support starts to dry up. Is Microsoft wrong? Of course not. They're offering software. Buy it, or don't buy it. Whatever. You're still got a phone, and it'll still be supported by developers if they want to sell anything.

    38. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Erm the N900 is Nokia's development platform for Meego until the next hardware version.

      There is already Meego for the N900, although it doesnt quite function as a phone yet.

    39. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      When we started working with Android last year it was 1.5 (which had been our for a while on the G1) and 1.6. Then suddenly it was 2.0, then 2.1, now 2.2 all the last 9 months or so. Apple has generally release a new OS every year with a minor .1 release shortly there after. Same with blackberry.

      Would you rather Google had named their Android updates in smaller numbers?

      Or are you saying that Google should slow down the rate of improvements to the OS because you can't keep up?

      If it's the second, then I advise you to target a release which offers you the features you need and stick to it. Android's backward compatibility works amazingly well.

    40. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I run a 1.6 Android phone. I heard that Google Earth was out and searched it. No such app.

      Neat trick, keeping me from installing something that wouldn't work on my phone, but I'd prefer "This app is not compatible with your device" and removing the 'install' option perhaps.

      At any rate, a minor user interface change.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    41. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      My olde iPhone (which isn't even a 3G) runs 3.13. It won't run OS4, but Apple doesn't even sell that model of iPhone. In fact, won't every iPhone that Apple currently sells run OS4?

      In contrast, aren't there Androids currently selling with 1.6 or even 1.5? If so, that's a pretty big difference between the Android & iPhone in fragmentation.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    42. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your history of the PC.

      The single biggest drive to PC adoption was the IBM PC, which at one stroke pushed the older, fragmented, small computers to minor roles. There was no real competition to IBM until the actual clones came out, with compatible BIOS. Since then, the mainstream market has been whatever runs the latest Microsoft OS. Almost all PCs have had screens of reasonable size, keyboards, and (since Windows became standard) mice. PCs themselves have become commodity items, which is about as far from fragmentation as you can get.

      Before that, the small computer market was hindered by fragmentation, with Apple, Commodore, and Radio Shack as the main contenders. There were different approaches to deal with it. You could buy a different CPU that would fit into your Apple if you wanted to run CP/M programs. Infocom developed a virtual machine for its text adventures. Many programs were released on one or two systems only.

      We'd seen this pattern in mainframe computers. In the early days, everybody wrote their own applications, and all you really wanted was a COBOL compiler, and there were lots of suppliers. IBM's competitors kept dying off, until OS/360 and its clones and successors were the only survivors. In minicomputers and workstations, things pretty well resolved into IBM and Unix, although it took a while, and different Unix implementations caused (and still cause) problems in the marketplace.

      So, fragmentation is a problem where it exists. It's good that Android is designed to minimize the problem, but they're working in a minefield.

      Suppose I want a PC. There's several places I can go, and they'll be happy to sell me one that suits my needs, giving me as much information as I need. They won't try to control what I do with it afterwards, since that would make me more likely to buy elsewhere. (No, Apple doesn't control what you do with a Mac after you've bought it.)

      Now, suppose I want a smartphone. It's much less useful without a carrier, so suddenly I'm at the mercy of some of the least customer-friendly companies that deal with individual customers. They like keeping strict control over what I can do with my phone, because they couldn't nickel-and-dime me otherwise. They'll be happy to drop support once I'm on a two-year contract with a hefty early termination fee. They aren't interested in helping me make an informed choice.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    43. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      iPhone apps run on the iPad, so they show up, but are marked as being iPhone-only. Apps that are both (universal) are marked that way. Apps that are iPad-only don't show up on the iPhone's App Store app. (I don't know what it does in the iTunes App Store app, but I assume there are appropriate indicators.)

      Apple encourages app developers to fail gracefully when hardware (and software) features are not present. I have not had the issue with my apps, but I would assume Apple tests and rejects any apps that do not.

    44. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Windows Mobile ran in a VM too (.net)

      It was still a disaster. Screen size differences are always a disaster, no matter what.

      Most of the whining about screen sizes comes from developers who want to use photoshop slicedowns as GUIs instead of using Android's GUI.

      Developers don't give a shit about that. It's the management that does. Most companies care about making flashy products.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    45. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by hydroponx · · Score: 1

      Correct, but I've been a customer of Sprint's for 4 years, got my HTC Hero in October and got the 2.1 update at least a week and half ago. Considering the official announcement was "by the end of 1H 2010", I'd say I got it early. So far, I'm pretty happy with it, I think I would rather they do a little more on the performance than worry about re-working the gui to work with new API's but, all in all, it's usable, stable, and feels a little faster than 1.6 was.

    46. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Sancho · · Score: 1

      With the exception of Adobe Reader, these are not really problems at all. These are feature upgrades. While it would be nice to get those extra features (and nice to know when you are getting them), it's almost completely irrelevant to the fragmentation "problem."

      Application compatibility is the issue, because developers who write an app want it to be able to run on a wide variety of platforms with minimal testing.

    47. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      The problem with that argument is these support periods aren't currently transparent at the time of purchase. The net result is that people I know have simply delayed buying an Android phone entirely until things stabilize more. I think the early adopters will just get burned here, some may end up turning away from Android, others will just hopscotch to different manufacturers. But I suspect the ecosystem will stabilize and development will slow down enough that fragmentation won't be such a huge issue before the market is able to "punish" manufacturers who don't support their hardware very much.

    48. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Pastis · · Score: 1

      I have an ADP1 (aka G1), it's very limited hardware wise, making it hard to support the latest OS version. I could say I almost got burned.

      But thanks to the open nature of Android and the XDA community, I am able to upgrade to 2.1 and soon 2.2: http://db.androidspin.com/androidspin_developer_display.asp?developerid=105

      > The problem with that argument is these support
      > periods aren't currently transparent

      That's what I said. We need one manufacturer to take the risk and take this market by saying something like: we support 2 years upgrades on our devices. It shouldn't be too hard, they could pay one or 2 of these hackers from XDA to work on it full time. Today, some have to rely on donations to replace their phone when they fry it.

      http://twitter.com/ChiefzReloaded/status/14681541487

      > fragmentation

      'fragmentation' isn't an issue, it's an enabler. In my case a lot of innovation comes to the OS to be able to support older devices. That's good for everyone.

      See also http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-android-compatibility.html

    49. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      If Android were anywhere near feature-complete, you would be perfectly right.

    50. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Do any decent amount of development work for PCs and you'll realize that there are, in fact, differences that would count as fragmentation. Especially when you start talking about things like writing PC games, in which you do in fact have to deal with obscure hardware issues exactly like what the original poster is talking about.

    51. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Xest · · Score: 1

      Say you want to develop an application for the PC, to name a few, you have to deal with:

      - Different memory amounts
      - Different processor speeds
      - Different operating system features and libraries (different OS versions, different library versions e.g. DirectX)
      - Different line new line formats
      - Different text encoding formats
      - Different graphics card capabilities
      - Different speed connections
      - Different screen resolutions
      - Different DPI
      - Different processor extensions (i.e. for SIMD technologies)
      - Different threading models

      Many of these things are exactly the same as on Android. Many developers don't notice a lot of them nowadays precisely because they are abstracted away. If you want to write a game in XNA, the different SIMD extensions supported by the processor aren't your concern, because XNA just provides it's own Math library that automatically deals with that for you, but even then you have to deal with different processor speeds, graphics card speeds, memory availability and so forth.

      I don't think you understand what fragmentation is, because you seem to believe that a commodity item can't suffer from it which makes little sense. Just look at all the old video standards, look at all the old audio standards, the different processor capabilities and architectures we've had through the years. Fragmentation is only harder to notice on the PC than it could be precisely because developers have long known how to handle it, but it's there, more than on any other platform.

    52. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by Sancho · · Score: 1

      So you bought a feature-incomplete phone, and now you're complaining about it?

    53. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Actually, I bought a feature-incomplete phone figuring, "Hey, it's 2010, I'll be getting the newest software via OTA updates just as soon as Google can push 'em out the door!".

      Obviously I was mistaken, and it's my own fault for being so naive, but that doesn't mean the situation isn't downright crappy...

    54. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Stupid management gets stupid results.

      --
      -- $G
    55. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      This is what I don't get - how is possible for the carriers to dictate what OS the phone runs? My N900 gets updates from Nokia's servers, either directly or via a PC. Android is supposed to be open, so how exactly does the carrier fit into this?

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    56. Re:Fragmentation is mostly FUD by soppsa · · Score: 1

      except with people who have no clue that Android apps run in a virtual machine

      Yea ok, because virtual machines have shit all to do with the UI layer... Touch or multi touch? Screen size? Oh right the Android's GUI totally solves having a nice looking UI on all screen resolutions. Spoken like someone who has never done anything other than indie development.

  2. This wasn't his point, but..... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This wasn't his point, but the author of the article described the android fragmentation perfectly. Quote:

    * Bugs - devices might simply have bugs, such as a buggy Bluetooth driver or an incorrectly implemented GPS API.
    * Missing components - devices might omit hardware (such as a camera) that apps expect, and attempt to "fake" or stub out the corresponding API.
    * Added or altered APIs - devices might add or alter APIs that aren't part of standard Android. Done correctly this is innovation; done poorly and it's "embrace and extend".

    Each of these is an example of something that can make an app not run properly on a device. They might run, but they won't run properly. These are the things that I spend my time preventing.

    The only thing I might add is that devices of different resolutions can be annoying, especially if your app has static images or custom widgets.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Informative

      This wasn't his point, but the author of the article described the android fragmentation perfectly.

      Actually, that was specifically his point. From the preceding paragraph:

      Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t real challenges in making sure that Android devices are compatible with each other, or that there aren’t very real concerns that keep app developers awake at night. There definitely are, and I spend a great deal of time indeed thinking about them and addressing them. The trick is to define them clearly.

      ..then he goes on to offer a definition for "Android Compatibility", and a few examples of problem areas (which you quoted). He then goes on to describe steps they have taken to mitigate the problems. The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem, and that's what he's doing.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I don't think that an Android device with a modified API should be allowed to be called an Android device. That said, I've never heard of any apps for which this was a problem.

      The camera thing...well that's an issue with iPhone OS, too. But most importantly, you can restrict your device to certain features in the marketplace, so this shouldn't be an issue.

    3. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem, and that's what he's doing.

      Except the problem he's defining is 'making sure apps are compatible with at least one hardware/OS combo" - and he pretty much stops there and declares victory. If they have something in the works to prevent fragmentation, that's nowhere apparent in the article.

    4. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      You managed to read the article with a large bias. It *does* explain how to deal with the issues of fragmentation: a) guarantee APIs are forward compatible; b) have apps declare their hardware needs; c) minimize bugs/incompatible APIs using extensive testing.

      Google does assume fragmentation is inevitable. That seems to be under discussion by some people here on /. Personally, I can't fathom how is fragmentation avoidable, unless by stagnation. Stagnation is quite the opposite of the Android ecosystem, which is evolving at a very fast pace (fast hardware and software release cycles).

      If indeed fragmentation is inevitable, Google has seemingly defined the problem correctly and it looks like the solution is good.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    5. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Limit hardware options and use planned obsolesce seems to be working for apple very well. 1 new phone yearly and support that phone for 3+ years. Limit battery replacement optioons to make the consumer make a choice. buy a new battery, or just get a new phone.

      what is it 80% of consumers just buy a new phone when their battery doesn't hold the charge that it used to anyways. I know that is what i do. the average battery so far lasts me 2-3 years. iphone 3G is 2 years old and the original is going on 3. I know the battery life in my 3G isn't what it once was. Now I will look at options and find one that works for me. 99% of my music is in MP3 format anyways.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You managed to read the article with a large bias. It *does* explain how to deal with the issues of fragmentation: a) guarantee APIs are forward compatible; b) have apps declare their hardware needs; c) minimize bugs/incompatible APIs using extensive testing.

      You managed to not actually read the article, or only read the parts that agreed with you. Read a paragraph or two beyond what you quote above and read how they have to hide the existence of fragmentation by hiding apps from people who can't run them.
       
      What you quote ensures compatibility, which is not the same thing as avoiding fragmentation.
       

      If indeed fragmentation is inevitable, Google has seemingly defined the problem correctly and it looks like the solution is good.

      Had they defined the fragmentation problem, you'd have a point. But what you've done is fail to read the article and fail to understand the difference between fragmentation and compatibility.
       
       

      Google does assume fragmentation is inevitable. That seems to be under discussion by some people here on /. Personally, I can't fathom how is fragmentation avoidable, unless by stagnation.

      We're in violent agreement on that point - I'm merely addressing the 'fragmentation is FUD/Google has solved the fragmentation problem' nonsense. Both statement are patently false.

    7. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wasn't his point, but the author of the article described the android fragmentation perfectly. Quote:

      * Bugs - devices might simply have bugs, such as a buggy Bluetooth driver or an incorrectly implemented GPS API.

      * Missing components - devices might omit hardware (such as a camera) that apps expect, and attempt to "fake" or stub out the corresponding API.

      * Added or altered APIs - devices might add or alter APIs that aren't part of standard Android. Done correctly this is innovation; done poorly and it's "embrace and extend".

      Each of these is an example of something that can make an app not run properly on a device. They might run, but they won't run properly. These are the things that I spend my time preventing.

      The only thing I might add is that devices of different resolutions can be annoying, especially if your app has static images or custom widgets.

      All that above is just bullshit and assumptions pulled out of the writers arse, without any real concrete examples.

      And one thing I always hate - amateur app developers who think they can design "better" user interface widgets than the native OS ones. Please stop it. Also solves the "problem" you mentioned.

    8. Re:This wasn't his point, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lose several customers that cite the limited hardware options and planned obsolescence as one (amongst several other) reason to not use that platform.

      It's also great that 99% of your music is in MP3 format. But mine is 50% FLAC, 50% OGG Vorbis (because it takes up less space for the same audio quality to my ears, meaning it is better for mobile devices with limited space than MP3). Oh, iPhone doesn't support that? Fuck that, then.

  3. Screen res by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    Are the screen sizes a big deal? Application and web developers have dealt with this problem for decades now.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Screen res by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are the screen sizes a big deal? Application and web developers have dealt with this problem for decades now.

      I think there's only two right now - HVGA (320x480), and WVGA (480x800), though there may also be VGA sized screens as well.

      The big issue is that the density increases but the screen size remains the same, so if your app isn't DPI aware things get small and hard to control. Desktop app developers tend to be fixed DPI - a larger window lets you show more information. Ditto web developers. But high-DPI displays means you don't want to show more information, but you should scale everything up. Even pictures if it makes the picture grow from literal thumbnail to larger blob.

      DPI-awareness is a difficult thing and many apps still get it wrong on the desktop, if you switch your Windows desktop to high-DPI mode.

    2. Re:Screen res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Motorola Droid is FWVGA, at 854x480

    3. Re:Screen res by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which you can just treat as 480x800, who will really notice the missing 54 pixels?

    4. Re:Screen res by hitmark · · Score: 3, Informative

      DPI awareness is mostly a problem if your GUI toolkit is pixel based, rather then vector based. Especially if those pixels have hardcoded limits.

      all the major linux UIs are moving towards using vector graphics for instance, and i think microsoft headed the same way with vista and later (tho win32 legacy programs will still be a pain, and why microsoft wants to see xp and older dead).

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Screen res by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not 54, it's 54*480 which is 25920. Which is a non trivial amount on a device that small.

    6. Re:Screen res by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      "Are the screen sizes a big deal? Application and web developers have dealt with this problem for decades now."

      Yes.

      From what I've seen, they often deal with it poorly or not at all.

      Now that 24" screens are cheap and plentiful a lot of bad web design is starting to show. For example "fixed width" layouts where all the content is in a narrow vertical strip bordered by eight inches of whitespace on both sides. Also sites that can't deal with anything but 96 dpi and overlap text or have it hanging off the sides of buttons when the resolution is set to, say, 120 dpi.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    7. Re:Screen res by OptimusPaul · · Score: 1

      I had been under the impression that most web devs still assume 72 dpi for screen resolution. I was also under the impression that browsers did as well.

    8. Re:Screen res by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Are the screen sizes a big deal? Application and web developers have dealt with this problem for decades now.

      No they aren't. Android 1.6+ has a very robust way of dealing with virtually any screen size.

      http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html

    9. Re:Screen res by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      This is why the Android SDK shows you how to use their 9patch drawing support.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    10. Re:Screen res by malf-uk · · Score: 1

      I'd have assumed that the previous poster was referring to horizontal (or vertical resolution*), not the actual pixel count within that missing area

      Seeing as it leaves 384000 pixels out of the original 409920, the 25920 pixel loss accounts for a fairly small loss of 6.3%.

      * depending on which way you're holding it ;)

      --
      R Tape loading error, 0:1
    11. Re:Screen res by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Actually Android is DPI aware -- your controls and images will be scaled according to the system's DPI.

      The current solution with Android is to pack your images in different resolutions inside the app, and the system will use the correct version for the screen it's running on.

      It works fairly well, but it's still not ideal. The ideal solution would be, as you say, to use vector graphics, but the problem on mobile apps is that vector images are more expensive to draw.

      Current smartphone platforms are becoming amazingly powerful, but even if the CPUs were fast enough to provide a smooth experience (which I'm not so sure they are), you'd still need to worry about the battery usage, which is bad enough as it is today.

    12. Re:Screen res by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      This is a problem with a combination of poor APIs and lazy programming usually. On Windows this happens all the time because the tools for making UIs worked in pixels, which made scaling a problem. How many of you have heard a user complain that raising their screen resolution "made everything smaller". A 12 point font should be 12 points no matter the resolution. Points aren't defined in pixels but as fractions of an inch.

      Resolution issues are best handled with APIs that are pixel-agnostic whenever they can be, postscript comes to mind as an excellent example. That said, programmer awareness makes a big difference too.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    13. Re:Screen res by alexo · · Score: 1

      Motorola Droid is FWVGA, at 854x480

      Will I regret asking what the "F" stands for?

    14. Re:Screen res by hitmark · · Score: 1

      bainstorming a bit here.

      what if one make use of that GPU to do the vectoring the first time round (calculating vectors are what they are built for, no?), and then cache the output for future use?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    15. Re:Screen res by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me, but I'm no OS guru :-)

      Actually, my post wasn't entirely correct. Android does support a type of vector images called ShapeDrawables.

      From what I've seen, it looks like a really, really simple implementation of SVG (which unfortunately is missing from the current APIs).

      Though because it's so simple, it's not very useful.

    16. Re:Screen res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will I regret asking what the "F" stands for?

      Only time you can answer that. Anyway, the "F" stands for full.

    17. Re:Screen res by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android, by default, will handle the DPI considerations for you. If you override the behavior or do something silly, like define your UI in 'px' instead of 'dp', you get what you deserve, a broken app. Android also provides a simple way for you to provide resources customized for different DPIs and then the system will automatically select the appropriate one.

  4. Here, let me have a go by DavidR1991 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The thing is, nobody ever defined “fragmentation”"

    Let me try: You have several different versions of Android 'in the wild' on different phones, different carriers, etc. There are different stances on whether these version of Android can be updated (based on manufacturer) etc. yadda yadda

    Now, looking at that situation, I would say 'fragmentation' is more along the lines of 'Is it going to remain easy for to target Android phones in general considering how many versions currently exist [/not obsolete] concurrently?'

    So yes, it is mainly about compatibility. But it also means (much like any other platform) if the version leaping continues (and so many versions exist concurrently all the time) playing to the 'lowest common denominator' of supported features will be required

    1. Re:Here, let me have a go by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Since the market will let you set which devices your phones works with you can very easily have two versions of each app to deal with the two screen sizes. This can also be used to restrict your app to phones running which ever android version you like.

    2. Re:Here, let me have a go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can very easily have two versions of each app to deal with the two screen sizes

      Developers are lazy, this is why there are still mission critical apps that run on windows 98 out there, because the developer never bothered to write a version of the app that works in later OSes.

    3. Re:Here, let me have a go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It restricts by OS, but I've never seen the ability to filter your app by device.

    4. Re:Here, let me have a go by hitmark · · Score: 1

      my understanding is that it filters by minimum (and max if one want to) android version, and what specific "intents" (firmware/hardware features) the app requires. All this is feed by the device to the marketplace and so incompatible apps can be hidden away.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Here, let me have a go by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      My mistake then. It filters by OS and hardware features, so you could use that to eliminate hardware you did not want to support. I should have been more clear.

    6. Re:Here, let me have a go by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      I don't get your question. Just target Android 1.5. Aren't future versions backwards compatible?

    7. Re:Here, let me have a go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Aren't the newer versions of iPhoneOS not available for older ipods (and possibly iphones)? If that's true, I think the change in features between the versions is much less 'backward-compatible' than the change between Android 1.5 and Android 2.0, at least from an app's perspective.

      For instance I doubt we'd find an iPhone developer willing to write their app for the iPhone OS 2.0 so that it'd work on older devices (and miss out on the cool multitasking of OS 4), whereas I'm sure that unless an Android developer had a specific new feature (such as contact integration), they'd stick their app as compatible for Android 1.5 and be available for the vast majority of phones.

      Furthermore, having a little bit of experience writing an android app everywhere I looked they were trying to get you into good compatibility practices. Simply designing a different layout for a different screen size (which was just the layout itself, it still interacted with the same code) and checking that a feature was present on the device before using it.

      I've seen iPhone developers stressing about their app running smoothly on both the 3G and 3GS due to the different specs; the problem is not Android's alone.

    8. Re:Here, let me have a go by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not that they're lazy it's usually because nobody has paid them to update it. That's a big difference indeed. Since they're presumably only being paid for upkeep, there's no money to do the work to bring it up to date and so it goes undone. However were they to be given the resources to bring it up to date, I doubt very much that it's less work to try to keep a long dead platform on a ventilator than it is to keep things up to date.

    9. Re:Here, let me have a go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, even the original iPhone can run the latest OS. So while there may be *minor* differences in hardware compatibility, you can always target the latest OS. For the android, if you target Android 2.2, you exclude most of the market because as far as I am aware, only the Nexus One has it. There may be a few others, but the vast majority is still stuck on 2.1 or less.

    10. Re:Here, let me have a go by OptimusPaul · · Score: 1

      Other than the iPod touch the iPods never had and never will have the iPhone OS let alone a newer version of it. To date I believe every iPhoneOS device can run the latest version of the OS. The difference between the 3GS and those that came before is the 3GS is considerably faster. There are other issues with missing hardware features on the older models as well, GPS, compass, video camera, iPhone is not immune to those little things. I think that the problem with Android's apparent fragmentation is that there are so many different hardware options it feels fragmented. Throw in the actual differences, which on their own are minor, and the problem seems a lot worse than it is. This is going to sound weird, but the main reason I haven't jumped into Android development is because there is no barrier for entry. Any loser can develop apps for android. That does two things in my mind. 1) floods the market with garbage 2) opens the door for malware, which we have already seen. Sure you can call me scared, but really I just want everyone to be held to the same standard as I am, and the standard I hold myself to is fairly high.... not as high as Apples standards, but much higher than the Android App store standards, which are none.

    11. Re:Here, let me have a go by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To date I believe every iPhoneOS device can run the latest version of the OS.

      That won't be true for long. iPhone 4.x's pseudo-multitasking feature is only going to be available on the 3GS, not the 3G.

      Any loser can develop apps for android. That does two things in my mind. 1) floods the market with garbage 2) opens the door for malware, which we have already seen.

      We've seen malware for the iPhone too. A lot of good Apple's policy has done there, huh?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    12. Re:Here, let me have a go by OptimusPaul · · Score: 1

      that iPhone malware was only on Jailbroken phones, so I'd say their policy both kept it from mainstream and indirectly caused the problem.

    13. Re:Here, let me have a go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple "leaving behind" some old phones that are too slow for multitasking doesn't seem that bad. It's not like they're still selling iPhone 2G and 3G alongside the iPhone 3GS the same day they're releasing iPhone 4G. Compare that to Android, where people are still stuck on 1.6 while 2.3(?) is being sold. And those people on 1.6 are stuck with empty promises that "eventually" they'll get upgraded.

      Regardless of Apple's upgrade strategy, Google/Android needs to start holding carriers to task for updating their Android phones in a timely fashion. I'd honestly rather be told that my 1.6 phone can't be upgraded than hear that I might maybe get the upgrade some time in the next few years and always be 6 versions behind the latest release.

    14. Re:Here, let me have a go by Umbriel · · Score: 1

      I own a 1st gen iPod (no speakers, Bluetooth, microphone or GPS) with also the older chipset of the 1st gen iPhone, and it's running firmware 3.1.1 that is latest of Apple, updated with iTunes though official channel. Only if I want to install some software that needs some of the missing hardware that app won't install and tell exactly what feature is missing and why install it's being cancelled. Some odd tower defense game won't install in my iPod because of missing microphone, so fine, one game less and I also understand that I have only generation and model to miss such features.

      So even oldest devices have newest firmware, and in the way of updating I got Mail, Maps and all base apps that weren't there when I bought my iPod, though it's still to be seen what will happen with 4.0.

    15. Re:Here, let me have a go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPhone is WAY faster than my Nokia E62, which handles multitasking perfectly well (even with only 32MB of RAM). Heck, the iPhone can probably emulate the (IMHO) best multitasking machine ever, the original Amiga! The only reason not to support multitasking on older iPhones is to force people to buy new iThings.

    16. Re:Here, let me have a go by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Apple "leaving behind" some old phones that are too slow for multitasking doesn't seem that bad.

      Ha! Too slow for multitasking? Is that you, Steve?

      The iPhone 3G is faster than some Android devices, and those manage to multitask just fine while running interpreted code. The only way the iPhone 3G could be too slow to multitask native code would be if Apple's OS programmers were dangerously incompetent.

      Compare that to Android, where people are still stuck on 1.6 while 2.3(?) is being sold. And those people on 1.6 are stuck with empty promises that "eventually" they'll get upgraded.

      2.2 is available on a single device. Most of the people who were on 1.6 have already been upgraded -- the Hero and Moment just got 2.1 a few weeks ago -- and anyone who hasn't and is tired of waiting can root the device and install a third-party build of 2.x. Unlike Apple, Google doesn't claim that rooting is illegal.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  5. This doesn't solve fragmentation by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 0

    This doesn't solve fragmentation at all. The problem is (from an app developer standpoint) is that there are too many variables in the android world to code an app once to run successfully across the ecosystem.

    Say for example you've got an app that requires typing (an e-mail app).

    You have to design a version for on-screen keyboards (because it'll use part of the screen real estate) separately from a version that uses a hardware keyboard. They don't need to be separate apps, but you need to design (visually at least) for both scenarios, or you end up locking out a good portion of the people who use android devices.

    This design (and resultant porting) is exactly what killed the feature phone app market. Developers spent too long making ports of an app for the Sony w810, w900 LG VX9600, Motorola RAZR because each one implemented things JUST different enough, regardless of the JSR being implemented. Then you had to test each one fully.

    Sure, there are 100,000+ android devices out there, but they're across a wide set of carriers and hardware, so in order to sell your app on all 100,000 of those phones you've got to tweak your app for each device.

    Conversely, with the iPhone there's one hardware platform. One way to implement a keyboard. One way to call the Camera API (and if there's no camera, the app doesn't need to do anything different). This makes an app developers life MUCH easier since they only need to design and write ONE app to reach all 2+ million handsets out there, Apple's draconian and confusing app store submission policies not withstanding.

    So fragmentation will ALWAYS be an android issue until they say "here is our reference hardware platform(s) -- you must use of these three sets of features when building hardware." Coincidentally this is exactly what MS is doing with Windows Phone 7 -- three hardware platforms, that's it. You still have to design your app three times, but at least you know that if you design for one hardware platform, ANY device within that platform by ANY manufacturer on ANY carrier will have the same exact limitations and abilities.

    1. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by hitmark · · Score: 1

      the impression i have gotten on the default android keyboard at least is that it works independent of the ui of the app in use at the time. It will fade out the entire app, and display what your typing in a area above the keyboard rather then attempt to stuff it inside the ui of the app.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The hardware vs onscreen keyboard does not require two apps.

      The iphone is not one platform, there are 3 different phones and there is about to be a forth.

    3. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      So fragmentation will ALWAYS be an android issue until they say "here is our reference hardware platform(s) -- you must use of these three sets of features when building hardware."

      To an extent that's already happening. Phone goliath Nokia among others are setting up an alternative to appstore:

      Twenty-four mobile network operators have formed the Wholesale Applications Community to avoid fragmenting the apps market and to give developers one point of entry to all the members, the GSM Association announced on Monday.

      The operators will now start working on uniting their existing developer communities, so developers will be able to go to one place to get their applications distributed instead of having to go through multiple application approval processes.

      The community will also start working on a common development standard that should be ready within the next 12 months. The standard will be independent of phone type and operating system, according to the members.

      That will allow them to better compete against Apple's App Store or Google's Android Market, which have independent and competing approvals processes tied to their phone or operating system.

      "Developers are going to have a lot more access to a lot more customers," said Alex Sinclair, chief technology and strategy officer of the GSMA, at a news conference at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

      The Wholesale Applications Community members include: AT&T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, NTT DoCoMo, Orange, Telefónica, Telenor Group, Sprint, Verizon Wireless and Vodafone. Together the operators in the group have about 3 billion subscribers, the GSMA said.

      The group has the full backing of the GSMA and the list of supporters will grow in the coming days. "There are several people who are annoyed they couldn't get their name on the list in time," said Sinclair.

      Apple is not among those clamoring to be added to the list, but if the company wants to join the group, "it will be welcome," he said.

      Just like many phone manufacturers, operators have seen the success of Apple's App Store and want a piece of the pie. Some, including Orange, Verizon and Vodafone, have already launched their own application stores.

      Mobile phone manufacturers LG Electronics, Samsung and Sony Ericsson have also voiced their support for the apps community.

      The Wholesale Applications Community faces a number of obstacles, according to analysts at CCS Insight.

      "Operators are trying to regain control of apps, but have a poor track record with this type of industry consortium," they said in a research note.

      "Big challenges remain overcoming inconsistency between standards bodies like JIL and Bondi," the analysts continued, referring to the Joint Innovation Lab created by a group of mobile operators including Vodafone, China Mobile, Softbank and Verizon Wireless, which also has the support of phone manufacturers LG Electronics, Research in Motion, Samsung Electronics and Sharp.

      There is no competition between the Wholesale Applications Community and JIL, as all members of JIL are also members of the community, according to Sinclair.

      "The last thing we wanted was a Jack versus JIL situation," he said. The groups hope to converge their various specifications within 12 months, he said.

      These are some seriously big names, big enough to knock it out of the park if they wanted to.

    4. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by uprise78 · · Score: 1

      Amen and well said. It amuses me to no end seeing the comments from people who have never developed for a mobile device saying fragmentation is BS and desktop has been dealing with it for years so it's no problem at all. What a joke. Try developing an app where: - there may or may not be a physical keyboard - the screen resolution may or may not differ - the screen aspect ration may or may not differ - the screen DPI may or may not differ - the camera may or may not work (or exist) - the RAM could vary wildly - the processor could vary wildly - there may or may not be multitouch - the screen may or may not be of decent enough quality to accurately and quickly detect touches The list goes on and on and on and it will only get longer over time. I just cant wait until there are tablets of every conceivable configuration and OS version on the market. Even then there will be my good buddies commenting on how "fragmentation is FUD".

    5. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "You have to design a version for on-screen keyboards (because it'll use part of the screen real estate) separately from a version that uses a hardware keyboard. They don't need to be separate apps, but you need to design (visually at least) for both scenarios, or you end up locking out a good portion of the people who use android devices."

      Please, tell me what the name of any of your apps are, since they would be the FIRST I have seen that bother to code for different keyboards. The rest all just let the screen sit, and let the Android keyboard cover them up.

      I've learned to deal with this, but on some web pages, the keyboard covers up the form no matter what I try, so Steel and the Browser fail here. The Craigslist app I use covers up option button on their form. Maps in search ditto, but nothing is lost.

      This is a nonissue, unless you've coded to move your screen intelligently to keep required real estate visible despite the keyboard.

      Actually, I meant to call you out. This is a BS issue for me. But hell, I'm just a user. I know nothing.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      It amuses me to no end

      Is that you, Lo Pan?

    7. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      So what happens if Apple releases an iPhone with a blackberry like keyboard - something which a lot of enterprises have asked for? You need to write a condition check to see if the device has a keyboard, or if it doesn't and act accordingly.

      You can write a filter for your application manifest to filter the app so it doesn't appear on Android phones without a keyboard.

      Or you could write two versions like you say.

      There's 3 solutions for you.

      This problem seemed to be solved ages ago on Symbian ;).

    8. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      So fragmentation will ALWAYS be an android issue until they say "here is our reference hardware platform(s) -- you must use of these three sets of features when building hardware." Coincidentally this is exactly what MS is doing with Windows Phone 7 -- three hardware platforms, that's it. You still have to design your app three times, but at least you know that if you design for one hardware platform, ANY device within that platform by ANY manufacturer on ANY carrier will have the same exact limitations and abilities.

      Microsoft does that for desktops too, and probably any device that runs a Windows OS for that matter. In order to get the little Windows badge, the computer has to have certain minimum specs. It doesn't seem like much, but if they didn't have any kind of certification program, things could be much, much worse in Windows land. Windows Media Center PCs all had to have TV tuners and DVD/CD burners for example, and I'm sure there were more requirements besides the obvious.

      Google will probably have to do the same to stay ahead of Apple, or any combined HW/SW maker, or at least to stem fragmentation.

      Another way to look at this, and something I think many are overlooking here is _future_ features. Android can't effectively lead in features if they have to wait for the phone manufacturers to one by one adopt the latest proven iPhone features. They'll have to do what Microsoft does and sweet talk the hardware manufacturers into somewhat simultaneously supporting a new feature and that's not even easy for Microsoft to do. Otherwise, Android phones might once in a while sport bleeding edge features, but not in a consistent way, and Google wouldn't be able to take advantage of them until the feature was widespread and supported by multiple manufacturers.

      This same stuff plays out between OS X and Windows, Macs and PCs all the time. Apple can say "from now on, all devices will have X, build rich software around X", even "all new device wont have Y", wheres Microsoft and Google have to work harder to pull off projects like Microsoft's Media Center PCs or get rid of floppy drives, or 16-bit BIOS for example. A more recent example is HP's push into touch screen desktops. Apple could probably sit on its ass for few years at this rate, say "let there be touchscreen Macs" and leave the Windows touch screen PC (wherever they end up then) in the dust, playing catch up!

      I would clarify that fragmentation affects iPhones, Android phones, PCs and Macs but the difference is Apple can control it.

    9. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Correction, not Nokia, but 3 billion customers is hard to argue with.

    10. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is (from an app developer standpoint) is that there are too many variables in the android world to code an app once to run successfully across the ecosystem.

      Yet strangely many people are successfully doing this.

      You have to design a version for on-screen keyboards (because it'll use part of the screen real estate) separately from a version that uses a hardware keyboard. They don't need to be separate apps, but you need to design (visually at least) for both scenarios, or you end up locking out a good portion of the people who use android devices.

      Completely wrong. Where are you getting this from?

      Sure, there are 100,000+ android devices out there

      Over 100,000 Android devices activated per day.

      so in order to sell your app on all 100,000 of those phones you've got to tweak your app for each device

      No you don't. You have no idea what you're talking about. And you're at Score:4 right now, which is shameful.

      One way to call the Camera API

      Ugh. You shouldn't have posted because almost everything you have said is just completely wrong.

      The Android developer platform is extraordinarily universal. There's a density independent pixel format (which is how an app looks almost the same on a 320x480 screen as it looks on a 480x800 screen), support for varying screen ratios, a single way to inter-operate with the camera and send emails and read the GPS signal and get orientation signals, or even do advance OpenGL graphics.

      One app to rule them all.

      There are of course differences and occasionally "quirks". If you make a rich graphics game it's going to run terribly on a G1. Flash is only available on some devices. And of course if you have to target a newer API, presumably because it has a feature that you can't live without, you limit your app to that version and above (just as if I use Transactional Filesystem calls my Windows app would be Vista or newer).

    11. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      there are too many variables in the android world to code an app once to run successfully across the ecosystem.
      Fail. There already are thousands of apps that work across everything from the original G-1 to the latest, greatest device from HTC, Moto, Samsung or whoever.

      You have to design a version for on-screen keyboards

      I suppose you could do that, if you wanted to spend 90% of your money rewriting libraries that are part of the Android operating system. And your app would be huge. It's a lot easier to use Android's widgets and let the operating system help you out with things like keyboard input and the like. If you do it right, the user can pick from the 25 or so virtual input devices in the market and enter text in the format they like. These really aren't a big deal, and are in many ways the same issues we've dealt with for years with Windows and Macintosh applications running on different size monitors, with different resolutions and different pixel densities.

      So fragmentation will ALWAYS be an android issue until they say "here is our reference hardware platform(s) -- you must use of these three sets of features when building hardware."

      You have a very fundamental lack of understanding of how computers work. This is what operating systems, device drivers and APIs are for. I code to the GPS API. The API talks to the driver, the driver to the hardware, and the OS orchestrates everything. I don't have to know the details of the underlying hardware. This is also not a new concept in computers and is one of the reasons operating systems exist - to abstract hardware details. Most OSes have an open file command. That command makes all the software and hardware that goes into accessing something stored in a compressed, encrypted hard drive invisible to the programmer. Same goes with keyboard input. With Android, it goes a level deeper - Android apps, even when ran on an Android phone run inside of a virtual machine that insulates the application from raw hardware nearly completely.

      Coincidentally this is exactly what MS is doing with Windows Phone 7 -- three hardware platforms, that's it.
      Microsoft has certainly not been doing a knock out job in the decision making department for several year, outside Xbox. They've lost the catbird's seat in mobile phones, and their CE/Mobile operating system hasn't evolved much in ten years. MS is now trying to replicate the iTunes model, and not trying to come out with a world beating platform. It's remarkable how far away this strategy is to how MS became the biggest game in the computer business. They allowed rapid evolution of hardware. They encouraged their customers like Compaq, HP, ALR, IBM, Dell and Gateway to push envelopes and bring better, faster computers on an almost weekly basis for 20 years.

      --
      -- $G
    12. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Or you could just use Android's libraries and widgets and let the OS pop up the onscreen keyboard when someone taps into a text field or accept keyboard input when a slider's keyboard is open. Ironically, those phones with keyboards actually use both the onscreen keyboard (when the phone is closed) and the hardware keyboard. The whole thing is largely invisible to the programmer.

      Oh, and you have one app.

      --
      -- $G
    13. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would seem that you have never done Android development. As an Android developer, let me tell you that all your fears are entirely unfounded. If you are developing two versions of your UI, one for physical keyboard and one for virtual keyboard, then you are a useless developer who should go back to VB. Fragmentation is simply not a problem when you are developing apps. You pick your target version (say, 1.6), and your are then limited to its APIs. As the article states, Android is 100% forward compatible.

      Unlike JME, Android really is code once run anywhere. I have yet to encounter *ANY* device-specific bugs across a dozen different Android phones. They have all functioned exactly as the documentation said they would.

      Basically, follow the Android documentation and your code will work. Don't follow the documentation and you're an idiot.

      Also, Android uses density independent units by default for just about everything. So if you are drawing in pixels, you're doing it wrong.

    14. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by adolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And of course if you have to target a newer API, presumably because it has a feature that you can't live without, you limit your app to that version and above

      Indeed. There have been several occasions on which I was forced to upgrade the OS on my iPod Touch, just to use a new app. ("Forced" as in: The app would not bloody install on the software version I was running.)

      And, of course: On the iPod Touch, OS upgrades sometimes cost actual money.

      So. If we assume that fragmentation is a problem, then it is very plain that it is not an Android-specific problem.

    15. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally this is exactly what MS is doing with Windows Phone 7 -- three hardware platforms, that's it. You still have to design your app three times, but at least you know that if you design for one hardware platform, ANY device within that platform by ANY manufacturer on ANY carrier will have the same exact limitations and abilities.

      It's a bit too convenient, because MS is just starting anew. What do you think will happen when those three platforms start getting obsolete?

    16. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      And of course if you have to target a newer API, presumably because it has a feature that you can't live without, you limit your app to that version and above (just as if I use Transactional Filesystem calls my Windows app would be Vista or newer).

      Actually that's not completely true. You can target a newer API version and still define a previous version as your minimum API level in the manifest.
      That's what the documentation proposes if you want to support different DPIs (introduced in 1.6) and still make your app available to devices running 1.5.

      This will work well as long as you don't explicitly call any functions which are only available in the newer API. In fact, I haven't tried this, but I guess if you want to use a new API feature, you can do it as long as you block previous APIs from making that call with an IF clause. As I said, I haven't tried that, but my guess is it should work.

    17. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      That's my point - you can check for conditions and act accordingly :).

    18. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by trippytom · · Score: 1

      This response is total BS ... getting vanilla Android apps to work across devices and operating systems is trivial enough, but once you do anything interesting (use the GPS, camera, address book, etc) some phones will surely wet the bed. Write once, debug everywhere.

    19. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It's little things like this that make the iPhone that much more attractive. There's no automatic UI rearrangement, but Apple at least publishes examples and guidelines to assist with view management. I've never come across an iPhone app that didn't ensure that the text area was in view when the keyboard was active.

    20. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      iPad developers have to deal with this now. The iPad can be docked or paired with a physical keyboard. There are APIs and sample code to help deal with this.

    21. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the difference here is that your iPhone upgrade IS AVAILABLE. People with androids are not being supported with the necessary upgrades by their carriers. My friend hacked some 2.1 firmware onto his Eris some months before Verizon released (and still months after 2.1 was available elsewhere). Having to get firmware off some shady bittorrent site is not a very professional option for keeping your device updated.

      Agreed on having to pay to upgrade the iPod Touch being stupid.

    22. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by adolf · · Score: 1

      I don't have an iPhone, and I don't always have $10 for an iPod Touch upgrade. Furthermore, as of 4.0, feature disparity (read: "even more fragmentation") will begin on this hardware line, starting most prominently with the lack of multitasking on my iPod Touch 1G.

      Therefore, your argument is void.

      Thank you for playing.

    23. Re:This doesn't solve fragmentation by soppsa · · Score: 1

      I don't have an iPhone, and I don't always have $10 for an iPod Touch upgrade.

      Dude what the fuck? I probably spend $10 in the appstore *a day*.

  6. Open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you bitches take it up the ass.

  7. hrmf... by hitmark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    this should have been made perfectly clear from google's side from day one. Yet everyone kept talking about android marketplace as if it was a part of the android source until the first android based devices without marketplace showed up, and none could figure out why.

    i only ran into it after ranting about google's mismanagement of marketplace access on some forum, and got a link handed to me.

    another issue is that 1.6 required that a compatible device could function as a phone. So any device thats been in development since 1.6 was first released, wont have marketplace unless its a phone or stalls its release until they can get 2.1 or newer working and approved by google. And even then the max resolution of the screen is 800x600, and i think the screen size is in the 5-7" range.

    basically, google is lagging badly behind where third parties want to go with android. And its not helping that marketplace is only really usable in select nations so far (and when a sim is inserted into the device).

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    1. Re:hrmf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And its not helping that marketplace is only really usable in select nations so far (and when a sim is inserted into the device).

      My Motorola Droid works perfectly well without a SIM ...

    2. Re:hrmf... by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

      basically, google is lagging badly behind where third parties want to go with android.

      That sound eriely familiar to the way they handled Google Apps. I was all gung ho to replace my Exchange server with Google Apps but there were a couple of not so minor little details to be addressed. I tried to get an answer from Google but couldn't get one. Everyone suggested talking to a GAPE partner. I tried to ask the GAPE partners the same questions and their response was, "Google assures us they're working on those features. No, we can't tell you when they will be ready. No, we really can't. Google won't tell us when new features are coming. Here, why don't you try this work around...."

    3. Re:hrmf... by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      So you're saying, you want *more* fragmentation, is that it?

      Let me suggest Windows Mobile. Wide range of hardware, all sorts of screen sizes and resolutions, non-phone devices - should meet all your requirements, does it not?

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  8. The problems is also that you can't upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem I see with Android is that companys that makes Android phones like to add there own UI, and when a new version of Android OS comes out. they can't upgrade it, and it takes month for them to upgrade... And you have to wait for that (if they even want to upgrade the firmware)
    If only they made UI modual based, or made the specific drivers avervebel. So when google releases a new version people can upgrade rigth away.
    Maybe have the option to say, run native Android whit out the vendors UI.
    Or wait to the ventor update the UI.

    Personly I would reather run the newest Andorid without fansy UI, then run a old version.

    HTC still have alot of there phones on Android 1.5 (some gets 2.1 update this month i Europe) And they have said that some of the phone will never get 2.2 version.
    Sony Ericsson's frist Android phone runs 1.6 and will get a 2.x update in August/September. If it's not delayd.

    Make is so costumers can easy upgrade to the newest version, and don't have to wait/hope for vendors to release an update. Will help alot.

  9. And in any mobile device by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You will have either fragmentation, or stagnation as the device gets older. Even something totally controlled like the iPhone. As time goes on, one of three things will happen:

    1) Apple will introduce new iPhones with features the old ones do not, and cannot, have such as higher rez screens, faster CPUs, etc. Software for these new phones will not run properly, if at all on the old ones. The phones will fragment along the lines of new and old.

    2) Apple will refuse to introduce any features that would break compatibility with older phones. They maintain total compatibility through keeping various things at one spec. This leads to stagnation of increasing proportions as time goes on, such that new iPhones are literally years behind competing products.

    3) Apple discontinues all support for older iPhones. They have the service providers remotely kill the hardware so you are required to purchase new hardware.

    There's just no way around it. If you want new devices to have new capabilities, well it will lead to fragmentation. There are plenty of things you can do to help, particularly in making sure newer devices can seamlessly run older software, but you can't have all sorts of new stuff and have everything work just like it did before.

    1. Re:And in any mobile device by hitmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      3b) apple makes sure to plan for a "incompatible" hardware upgrade when most of the early adopter contracts about to expire, and therefor they will be looking around for a replacement anyways.

      planned obsolescence is a "wonderful" thing.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:And in any mobile device by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      For sure, but that doesn't prevent fragmentation. People will refuse to upgrade. Just how it goes. Won't be the majority I suspect, most people who get smart phones like new gadgets and get new ones often. However there will be a non-trivial amount that won't. So as I said: You get fragmentation or stagnation.

    3. Re:And in any mobile device by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      It's been Apple's obvious marketing strategy over the past few years, the switch coinciding with the beginning of my boycott. Apple has surfed on its tech-savvy, high quality, time resilient hardware image just long enough to have enough users to switch their strategy to a 2 years lifespan-hardware, hype-based strategy that makes me sick. Now they seem stuck into a "virtuous" cycle of endless hype that brings them millions of new customers every years that is actually derived from the fact that they already have millions of customer. Some sort of "it's cool because everybody gets it because it's cool" paradigm that I can neither understand nor bear.

    4. Re:And in any mobile device by ekhben · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) 3GS has better processor, graphics, and more memory than 3G. iPhone has better location and a camera, iPod Touch does not. These differences exist, they just don't currently impact more than a few niches of applications.

      2) Clearly not happening.

      3) If you ignore the hyperbolic nonsense about remotely killing devices, this is happening. The original iPhone and iPod Touch devices are not supported by iPhone OS 4.0. The iPhone 3G is no longer available for sale, on the same trajectory as the original iPhone was a year ago. Apple have shown that they won't hang on to old hardware forever - OS X 10.6 doesn't support PPC, for example.

      One thing is highly in Apple's favour right now: all devices can upgrade to the most recent OS without the carrier being involved. There's very limited OS-level fragmentation in the App Store; users who never sync very rarely purchase, and users too cheap to spend $10 on their iPod Touch are generally too cheap to buy many apps. Developers can target the most recent OS version quite happily. When the original iPhone is no longer supported by the current OS, there will be a lost market segment for people still happy with their device but unable to keep up.

      A higher resolution on the new iPhone will probably increase fragmentation, though many apps should not need any work at all, if they followed the UI guidelines and used auto-resizing and system fonts. Unless they specifically need to use the higher resolution, new apps going forward should have very little trouble targeting the whole family (less the two out of support originals).

    5. Re:And in any mobile device by peragrin · · Score: 1

      And that is where the non user replaceable battery comes in. You see after 2 years my Iphone 3g is running about 70% of it's battery life than when i first got it. In 6 months my phone will be almost 2.5 years old and I will be ready for the next phone anyways.

      The real question is will I find a decent android phone with a decent UI that can easily surf the web, and you know make calls, or will i have to upgrade to an Iphone HD that comes out in 6 weeks?

      Droids always come off as half finished to me, with no polish and poor craftsmanship in the hardware.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:And in any mobile device by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Software for these new phones will not run properly, if at all on the old ones.

      What makes you say that? You don't think Apple has built iPhone OS APIs to take such things into account?

    7. Re:And in any mobile device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you read your own post - point 1 applies to android just the same. the version differences only impact a few niches of applications.

    8. Re:And in any mobile device by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you read your own post - point 1 applies to android just the same. the version differences only impact a few niches of applications.

      Same with the screen resolution issue. "If [the developer] followed the UI guidelines and used auto-resizing and system fonts", an Android app will fit whatever size screen it's running on.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    9. Re:And in any mobile device by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

      1. Apple introduces new devices once a year, and support reaches back for at least 2 years. With Android devices, you get new devices on the market a few times per month, and the manufacturer will not support devices older than 6 month, when they have become fossile devices. There is a big difference here. And Android devices are everything from phones to full size computers, all with different hardware and capabilities. It is like coding for the PC.

      2. Apple will leave features out from old models. iPhone OS 4 will not guive my 3G any multitasking, and the 3GS have way better 3D graphics than my 3G. And the hardware they introduce in less than a week will probably run past all Android devices. But Apple is not just about hardware specs, it is about quality. I tthink all agreed that 2MPix from iPhone 3G camera was better than 3MPix in all competition. iPhone has the best touch screen, and are generally considered to be of googd quality, nto designed to be replaced every 6 months.

      3. Apple does not kill hardware out of contract. My phone was officially unlocked by Apple after 6 months. And I have been using it with 4 ot 5 other providers, also some that do not have any Apple relationship. My iPhone 3G ran fine everywhere. And the old iPhone 2G also works for everybody.

      Apple do have fragmentation, the iPad is the biggest difference. But it is considered a different device.

      But there is a difference in having fragmentation happen once per year or twice per month.

    10. Re:And in any mobile device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Have you touched the Motorola Droid? 1. It's damn easy to surf the web (easier than on my desktop at times, in my honest opinion). 2. I make calls all the time on it (as in several a day, some lasting hours at a time); I don't even know what you're trying to say there. 3. How the hell does the Droid's hardware come off as bad compared to the iPhone? It feels more solid to me than any iPhone of my friends' that I've held and played with (which is every generation released so far). And in my personal opinion, the Motorola Droid has better styling than any of the iPhones so far. That is, of course, opinion. If you can't find something that in your opinion is fine except for the iPhone, then great. Go for the iPhone. But don't push off your opinion as a matter of fact. I'm getting so sick of iPhone users doing that all the time (not that others don't as well, and I give them the same bitching when I get sick of it; iPhone users just seem to be especially guilty of it for some reason I could never fathom).

    11. Re:And in any mobile device by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      That is also the fundamental problem with a large company standardising on a laptop or pc configuration. It is easy to buy the first 5,000. But what happens in 6 months or two years when new employees come on board? The vendor will sell you something in the same case if you demand it, but the chipset will be different.And 4 years after the lauded 'company-wide standardization' is implemented (to make support easier), you end up with lots of non-standard equipment and if the the outside box is identical but the inside is different, you've actually made support harder, not easier.

      Same old same old. Expectation do not guarantee results.

    12. Re:And in any mobile device by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The 2-year cycle for cell phones existed long before Apple got in on the act. And Apple doesn't force anyone to upgrade. In fact, Apple developers go out of their way to help developers create apps that fail gracefully on hardware that doesn't have a particular feature (such as the camera, compass, etc).

    13. Re:And in any mobile device by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Droids always come off as half finished to me, with no polish and poor craftsmanship in the hardware.

      Then clearly you haven't spent significant time with one. I've never handled an Android phone that wasn't an impressive machine, although the early ones on t-mobile were a big premature. But my Moto Droid is simply fantastic.

    14. Re:And in any mobile device by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Actually I have friends with various droid phones.

      Just the other day I tried to use his phone to search for a random want ad that we were making fun of. I spent 10 minutes struggling to use the web browser. The keyboard responded stupidly, and for the life of me I couldn't find the back button in landscape mode, web sites would get stuck in menu selections( I was in the wrong drop down menu and it wouldn't let me out without selecting something).

      I got so frustrated I pulled out my iPhone and went to the same website to show the usabity differences. I found the ad with my iPhone a lot faster as I could navigate the complex website far easier.

      Android has the features, but using them requires a counter intuitive stupid methods( like rotate to portait and press the back button to get out of long menus)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    15. Re:And in any mobile device by pdusen · · Score: 1

      So you're used to your iPhone and inflexible enough that you are unable to abstract UI concepts to different implementations on the fly.

      Unfortunately, that's probably more typical than I'd like to admit.

      I'm reasonably certain, however, that had you bought a Droid instead of an iPhone, you'd be making this exact same complaint in reverse.

    16. Re:And in any mobile device by peragrin · · Score: 1

      no I wouldn't as your completely wrong about me. I switch OS's on a regular basis. all my data files are in open formats so I can switch quickly between OS's.

      on a driod their is no back button in landscape mode, you have to use the hardware buttons which are in a awkward place in landscape. The browser doesn't have a clear method of going back in fact bringing up the address bar itself is a pain. maybe I am just blind but on the iphone there is a clear button that is always on screen showing the back, forward, bookmarks, and tabs. I didn't see anything like that in landscape mode. I kept getting stuck in a layout designed for large screens(web sites fault) but my iphone could still navigate such pages, where as the droid would get stuck in menu options.

      the droid does handle sites designed for mobiles better, but I don't want half ass mobile websites. I want the full site. The iphone delivers, droid doesn't, always. Now to be fair I haven't played with 2.2 yet maybe parts of it have finally caught up. However even my iphone 3G with 2.0 was a far better overall experience to use that android has been so far. The fact that HTC has to add their own TUI on top of android should say a lot more than people realize.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    17. Re:And in any mobile device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, there are SEVERAL browsers currently available for Android (stock, plus Dolphin, xScope, Opera mini, and Skyfire), with Firefox on the way soon. Can the iPhone claim that? If you're having trouble navigating the web on a Moto Droid, it's really your own fault.

    18. Re:And in any mobile device by LaRainette · · Score: 1

      #1 I'm not talking about phones only.
      #2 Yeah Nokia doesn't either. You can keep your 3310. Only difference with the iPhone: the battery is replaceable and it cannot be destroyed. Doesn't catch on fire either.
      #3 before Apple products were not planned to be obsolete in one year : like Oh we created a new tablet but guess what we let room for plenty improvement on the 2nd one that's going commercial in 12 months because our marketing team says some morons will buy both if we skipped the right key features in the first one (720p/1080p video ? HDMI out ? front facing camera ? usb ports ? )

  10. Welcome to the real world, dear Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honeymoon is over! Now face the reality of wild variations in hardware people like to put into phones (trust me, it's not just screen size!) and inevitable variations in driver implementations. And welcome the flak you get when things inevitably start breaking.

    To an extent, this discussion is reminiscent of Java J2ME. Sun's done a lot to maintain compatibility across implementations. Despite tens of thousands of unit tests and logical and stringent versioning, differences in implementations inevitably creep up. Notwithstanding other problems (licensing & java verified program) this has been slowly choking J2ME for years.

  11. They openly admit fragmentation exists by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    The amusing part is TFA doesn't say what they submitter thinks it does - they openly admit fragmentation exists. And their response to fragmentation? "Android Market makes sure your app is only visible to those devices where it will run correctly, by filtering your app from devices which don't have the features you listed".

    And thus, magically, since no one can download an app that they cannot run - fragmentation is gone. (It should go without saying this is laughable.)

    Google is making sure that your app will run one someones hardware/OS, but that's a far cry from making sure it runs on all hardware/OS combinations.

    1. Re:They openly admit fragmentation exists by Gansan · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. The "solution" he describes at the end is actually formalizing the fragmentation and accepting it! It does help the end user by hiding it, but it doesn't really solve the fundamental issue.

    2. Re:They openly admit fragmentation exists by Namarrgon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh for.. look, how do you propose to make e.g. a GPS tracking app run on a device that doesn't have GPS? (yes, I'm aware all Android devices must have GPS) How is allowing apps to use specialised hardware on Android any worse than allowing apps to use the compass on an iPhone 3GS, but not on a 3G? or camera apps on an iPhone but not an iPod?

      The only way to avoid fragmentation as you define it is to have one unchanging, stagnant piece of hardware that only runs one version of the OS, on one network from one vendor. Even Apple doesn't do that.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  12. "The Web is not a 'print' medium!" by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even now lots of web developers want to treat the browser view like a physical sheet of paper, demanding iron-fisted control over placement of everything on the page. This leads to all kinds of work to maintain the control. I keep wishing more web developers would get over this. Not only would I find it a lot easier to actually make use of their work on smaller screens (my Android phone, my netbook...), I think in the end it would be a lot easier for the developers, too.

    It sounds like mobile application developers often have the same problem...

    1. Re:"The Web is not a 'print' medium!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly never tried to design a web page for an employer who only knows it should include a few buzzwords he heard at the golf coarse and doesn't really understand, an art department who are the photoshop equivelent of script kiddies and a marketing depatment who think it needs more advertisments for your products on every available bit of screen real estate. Also it has to be viewable in IE 6 because IT can't be bothered with upgrading and so the only people with a current browser are the ones who ignored the "don't install software yourself" rule.

      In short, insisting on attractive visuals and resolution agnostic design is trying to have your cake and eat it to.

  13. Let me get this straight by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    1 - We hate apple beacuse they are closed ( but predicable )
    2 - We hate android beacuse its not predictable ( but open )

    Cant have it both ways...

    Oh, and #3 - We hate windows phones, just beacuse..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Let me get this straight by ekhben · · Score: 1

      I would hate Windows phones, but I'm having trouble finding one to hate on...

      But let me answer your original point with a diagram.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight by peppepz · · Score: 1

      2 - We hate android beacuse its not predictable ( but open )

      I bought an Android phone because it was supposed to be "open". Then I found that it's locked down to the bootloader, that I can compile the code downloaded from source.android.com but then I have no way of running it on the phone, and that even if I found some warranty-voiding hack to do it, I would lose all google apps, the marketplace, and an assorted array of hardware functionality such as camera and FM radio. Sigh.

    3. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #4 --> get freerunner and run debian (it really makes things simpler to have the same OS on computer, router and phone)

  14. Alternate UI's by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    One of the disasters on Android is that handset makers are allowed to make their own custom UI. Does HTC better google in some ways? Absolutely. But users and developers both need a consistent UI to use and design for.

    As a consumer I really wanted to support Google's carrier independent supply chain by purchasing a Nexus 1, but the screen was terrible. Hoping to grab a newer HTC, but they have their own custom UI. May end up with the new iPhone after all.

  15. It's a huge issue to app developers, not Googlers. by pocopoco · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've developed 7 Android apps and the huge diversity of Android versions and devices out there really is a nightmare. I have an enormous number of extra code paths due to it. All this extra complexity makes apps tougher to write, tougher to test, tougher to debug, tougher to enhance.

    Some examples of bizarre stuff I have to do:
    Android 1.5 has a Java NIO bug that forces me to copy data to a temporary array on its way to buffers to be rendered via OpenGL. This hurts performance on older phones that often need it the most. It also means I have to do more testing to make sure both code paths are well exercised. I bet many developers don't even realize the bug is there an just have broken OpenGL apps on Android 1.5. The bug fix would be trivial to port back to Android 1.5, which would make it drastically more likely to get on to these older phones, but there's no sign this will ever happen. Do I keep code paths like this? Or do I give up the 25% of the market that is Android 1.5? Neither is desirable.

    Another really frustrating one is how I have to detect specific devices and request certain size depth buffers just to get decent performance. Hardware graphics acceleration is only enabled on the Samsung Galaxy for depth buffer size 16, for example, not for no depth buffer. Depth buffer size 24 works best on the Droid, etc.. The Galaxy has had this bug for a very long time. The Archos tablet has no hardware acceleration and there are promises that cheaper phones will be similar. Do I write all the extra code for adjusting rendering for each of these? Or do again give up large swaths of the market?

    Anyway, I'm constantly dealing with issues like this. It is really disappointing that Android team, the carriers, and the device manufacturers don't do more to prevent it. Doing things like back porting fixes so that older phones can be more trivially updated would help enormous numbers of apps and app developers compared to the very few resources needed on Google's part to do it.

    Meanwhile Google isn't even interested in solutions to these problems from what I've seen. One developer brought up another potential solution during a session at Google IO. He suggested making the highest level of Android a distributable framework, like .NET. This would allow updating it much easier. Not nearly as many phones would be stranded with old, buggy versions of the Java portion of Android at least. The Google staffers just brushed the idea off without even discussing it. They said fragmentation should really be called progress and to deal with it.

    This isn't really surprising. If you look at a recent app produced by Google, the Twitter app, you'll see that it is unavailable to a huge percentage of the market because they don't support older versions of Android with it. Independent developers can't afford to ignore large sections of the marketplace like that. Google isn't in the app business, so the Googlers just go ahead and ignore the issue. You can see a graph of the versions of the devices on Android Market here:
    http://developer.android.com/intl/fr/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

    And of course there are plenty of devices not on Google's market, many of which are even less likely to receive updates because they are updated by PC software rather than over the air.

    So Googlers aren't even eating their own dog food on this issue. They just make app developers put up with it on their own, never experience it themselves, and then ridicule the issue as a bogeyman. I think I was happier before I read the blog post. At least then I could imagine they were working hard on the issue and just doing terrible at it. Now I know they don't even consider it an issue.

  16. Unmaximize and show two web pages by tepples · · Score: 1

    Now that 24" screens are cheap and plentiful a lot of bad web design is starting to show. For example "fixed width" layouts where all the content is in a narrow vertical strip bordered by eight inches of whitespace on both sides.

    Then unmaximize your window. Fixed width designs are meant for putting two web pages side-by-side. Windows XP and Windows 7 both support a split screen: in XP, you click one taskbar button, Ctrl+right click, and choose Tile Vertically, and in Windows 7, you drag each window to the left or right side of the screen.

    1. Re:Unmaximize and show two web pages by Albatrosses · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. What if I only want to look at one page at once? Or I have a second monitor for doing that?

      Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to flow to the size of my screen like anything else, so I can do either?

  17. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or do I give up the 25% of the market that is Android 1.5?

    Most of the phones that run 1.5 right now are terribly underpowered -- OpenGL on a G1 is almost a sick joke.

    If you're targeting OpenGL, you probably should cut your losses and cut them.

    If you look at a recent app produced by Google, the Twitter app, you'll see that it is unavailable to a huge percentage of the market because they don't support older versions of Android with it.

    The Twitter application is an Android showpiece app, which is why it targets 2.1. They wanted to use animated wallpaper, quick contact bars, and so on, to highlight the best of the contemporary platform. Aside from the fact that about 50% of Android phones are running 2.1 right now, most other phones are going to see a 2.1 upgrade in the relatively short term. I suspect Google intentionally targets 2.1 to try to motivate the vendors to expedite their upgrades.

  18. Why fragmentation is FUD: by symbolset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You will find the answer to this mystery in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond [1992].

    Basically, Microsoft and Apple are code cathedrals. Using the Cathedral system they can organize the labor of a great many people. In a Cathedral you can do anything that is permitted to be done in that Cathedral - which can be almost anything that brings the controlling powers profit really. But if you want to do something they don't want you to do, then you can't and there's nothing you can do about it but leave the cathedral or accept that you can't do that thing.

    Android and the Linuxes are the Bazaar. It's noisy and chaotic. It can be harder to find things. Some of the things you find in a Bazaar are quite crude. But in the Bazaar you can do anything you want any way you want. The Bazaar is run by everybody in it, for each to his own benefit. Almost anything that can be found in the Cathedral can also be purchased in the Bazaar by a man with ready cash. Almost anything.

    One thing that can be bought in the Cathedral but not in the Bazaar is the preventing of things you don't want others to do. If somebody wants to prevent the use of VP8 or Flash in the Cathedral, or the development of hardware platforms that don't run Windows, well, anything can be proscribed if the price is right. The Cathedral is run by the head priest, and not specifically for your benefit but primarily for the benefit of the Cathedral - because it's this self serving nature that makes Cathedrals persistent and powerful.

    One is not necessarily better than the other. Each has merits, each has uses.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Why fragmentation is FUD: by 4phun · · Score: 1

      Google's app store concept is not like a real store where you find high quality merchandise regularly displayed along with some cut rate bargains brought in for sales. They run their Android shop like a rummage sale where it is mostly crap that you find for sale. Once in a while you might spot something close to a gem, but that is rare. Android has been a big disappointment for me. IMHO with the new Android cheaply made tablets coming Android is going to get a reputation among the general public as another word for crap in our language. I am not optimistic that anyone can prevent this at this point. :>(

    2. Re:Why fragmentation is FUD: by H-Monk · · Score: 1

      Ah, but to follow that logic, and yes, to repeat a bit what others have said, the phone companies and carriers are treating Android as if it were Apple or Microsoft software and not changing their behavior accordingly.

      (From what I've seen of these real-life analogues, if the main PR for a bazaar behaves exactly like it's a cathedral it will either (a) become a quirky open-air cathedral/bazaar with a limited but devoted following or (b) people will stop showing up. I saw (a) succeed once in Baltimore, so I know it's possible, but it's still pretty rare.)

      --
  19. Just a little off topic... by awyeah · · Score: 1

    ... but - are we starting to see fanboyism in the Android realm?

    --
    Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
    1. Re:Just a little off topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes. But moreso, we're starting to see people getting sick of hearing Apple fanboys bitch about things that several people using Android know to not be as big of a problem as the Apple fanboys are trying to make them out to be. Of course, the Apple fanboys will just turn around and find a way to twist that around to something bad. Because that's what fanboys do.

  20. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    He suggested making the highest level of Android a distributable framework, like .NET

    I thought Java was a distributable framework, like .NET. And I doubt every .NET runtime (including Mono etc) is completely bug-free either.

    And Google have already said they planned to spin off components of the OS, where possible, to make updating those components much easier.

    Look, you make a fair point about dealing with different hardware and different bugs, and I sympathise, but these sort of time/market tradeoffs are nothing new, especially on popular platforms (Windows and Linux PCs, Macs too, huge varieties of graphics hardware, memory, CPU speeds, screen resolutions, OS versions, driver versions, blah blah - I run into it too). The only way to avoid it is to buy into a single, locked-down platform (like e.g. a specific game console) - which risks stagnation, and limits your market.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  21. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by joeytsai · · Score: 1

    The bug fix would be trivial to port back to Android 1.5, which would make it drastically more likely to get on to these older phones, but there's no sign this will ever happen. Do I keep code paths like this? Or do I give up the 25% of the market that is Android 1.5? Neither is desirable.

    If they made an update, say 1.5.1, you would still want the old code path for the devices that hadn't upgraded - which leaves you in exactly the same position you are in now.

    Another really frustrating one is how I have to detect specific devices and request certain size depth buffers just to get decent performance.

    I'm not sure what you want Google to do about this. Do you want Google to dictate a certain hardware spec to all the vendors? If you favor a consistent platform (more or less) from a well-known set of hardware on a single carrier, you should go with Apple.

    This is simply software engineering - taking one set of trade-offs for others. If you want newer features, you target the later API, at the cost of a smaller audience. These are all very straight-forward cost/benefit decisions, that YOU get to make, not Google. This is the strength of the open platform.

    Through the market you can reach an enormous diversity of devices, which translates to a huge audience. I agree - it would be an amazing world if you could write a app once that works flawlessly on all of them. But as a software developer myself, I don't think that expectation is reasonable. That being said, I think Android does work quite well, and good luck on another platform like WinMo7.

    --
    http://www.talknerdy.org
  22. Welcome to mobile development! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has been developing for mobile (J2ME, BREW, BlackBerry, Android, iPhone, and more) since 03, I'd like to officially welcome the iPhone developers out there to mobile development - which has always been a freaky, fragmented place.

    Truth is the iPhone did not take over the way some thought it would. Not everyone owns an iPhone and I don't think the day is at hand where everyone will. So if you want ubiquity, you have to port, you have to test, you have to bend over backwards and bang your head against the wall looking for workarounds to botched implementations on obscure devices.

    Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise has drank the kool-aid.

  23. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very clear and interesting remarks you wrote. This is excactly what is putting me off from buying an android-phone.

    It's not only fragmentation, it's a bloody mess!

  24. Windows is totally fragmented by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Windows is totally fragmented. It's terrible. Why do people develop for it? Every machine has a different amount of memory, hard drive, resolution, aspect ratio, 3D capabilities. Some have mice, some have trackballs, some have joysticks. Plus, there's all these different versions: XP, Vista, Windows 7. For gamers it is worse: DirectX 9, DirectX 10, OpenGL. Even their flagship product has a mess of versions: .NET 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 are all found in the wild. Browser versions, service packs...

    Why does anyone program for this OS? Because it is fragmented. Fragmentation is a **benefit** - because if it weren't fragmented, the alternative is that each of these computers would have a different operating system. I'd rather have one approximately-the-same, cohesive API across different hardware, than have each device run a different OS. What they are calling "fragmentation" in the Android OS is called choice and diversity on other OSs. This is a good thing, and be happy with it.

    1. Re:Windows is totally fragmented by crazycheetah · · Score: 1

      But nothing from Apple is so fragmented! Why can't everyone just use Apple, so it's easy for everyone? Screw you if you want to do something that Furor Jobs doesn't think you should be doing with your computer or device! And if you're not willing to upgrade every one to two years, then what's you're problem? Not made of money? Well, you deserve to be behind everyone else, then! I don't care if it's your fault for not having the money!

      God, my karma is going to hell for this...

  25. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Everything you describe seems to apply to Windows, Linux, and just about every other operating system there is. If you look at most games, they have to do serious optimization to handle older video cards, including separate code paths. It sucks, but it isn't Android only. I am confused though as to why there are phones running these older versions. Why is that?

  26. What technology makes OS4 incompatible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What technology makes OS4 incompatible? What is it about that OS that the original 3G won't handle?

    I am agog.

  27. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure what you want Google to do about this. Do you want Google to dictate a certain hardware spec to all the vendors? If you favor a consistent platform (more or less) from a well-known set of hardware on a single carrier, you should go with Apple.

    This is simply software engineering - taking one set of trade-offs for others. If you want newer features, you target the later API, at the cost of a smaller audience. These are all very straight-forward cost/benefit decisions, that YOU get to make, not Google. This is the strength of the open platform.

    This is my thoughts exactly.

    You're gaining a huge install base by having Android compatible with multiple handsets. People like choosing different feature sets, not everyone wants a keyboard for example, but some wouldn't live without one. Some people will pay extra for a phone with excellent gaming performance, others won't care.

    This is akin to figuring out if a hypothetical game will run on User X's computer. Ship the game for a console if you don't want to deal with it.

    To be fair, for the wide variety of devices Android supports, there are very very few compatibility glitches.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  28. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've developed 7 Android apps

    Which 7 apps? It's not that I don't believe you -- although I have zero reason to trust such a claim -- but I would like to see the sort of featureset you target to get a grip on your difficulties.

  29. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by csartanis · · Score: 1

    My G1 runs 2.1 and opengl apps run great... where have you been?

  30. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    My G1 runs 2.1 and opengl apps run great...

    The GPU of the G1 is horribly underpowered, the processor not supporting NEON, and the RAM on the device is barely capable of running the OS alone. The G1 is the reason gaming on the Android platform is still so immature.

    Phones like the Nexus One, the Samsung Galaxy S, and the Moto Droid are magnitudes more powerful in the graphics department.

  31. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Java framework and the Android framework are different things. Yes java is the language of choice for android, but not java 6 or even 5, no you're stuck with some google modified version that seems to change its library in each version of android.

  32. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by jedrek · · Score: 1

    HTC doesn't offer a 2.1 upgrade for my HTC Tattoo. Period. It's supposed to "real soon now", it doesn't. Is Google at fault? Is Android? Is HTC? You know what, I don't care, it just doesn't work.

  33. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by jedrek · · Score: 1

    This is the strength of the open platform.

    Having a limited audience and increased development costs is a strength? Awesome.

  34. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by ncr100 · · Score: 1

    Reddit picked up on this thread here http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cal37/comment_on_slashdot_detailing_the_so_called/

  35. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    But a lot of the time you don't need that much juice. Any 3D hardware has the power to run something with the complexity of the original GLQuake, for example. Most game developers aren't after staggering graphical performance. They just need hardware that will draw a few textured objects.

  36. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by spedrosa · · Score: 1

    But a lot of the time you don't need that much juice. Any 3D hardware has the power to run something with the complexity of the original GLQuake, for example. Most game developers aren't after staggering graphical performance. They just need hardware that will draw a few textured objects.

    Maybe Droid developers. Meanwhile, the big studios are targetting the iPhone.

  37. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by boynas · · Score: 1

    I honestly believe that 1.5 users (and some 1.6) are not heavy users that will be purchasing a lot of apps. the iphone set a trend of buying a replacement phone at least every 18 months. how many 1.5 users are just about to buy a new phone? Also, what is the volume of market usage (sells) on this bracket (1.5 users) I agree that fragmentation is not effective, but is far from being an issue or something unacceptable. I think that newer phones deserve better attention. If I bought a new phone 2.2 or 2.1 I did it because app implementation is going to be faster and better. I am all about not setting breaks on development because everything needs to be compatible/cool with 1.5. 1.5 devices have a hardware disadvantage. my two cents!

  38. Newspapers use columns by tepples · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to flow to the size of my screen like anything else, so I can do either?

    No. There's a reason that print newspapers are laid out with a story in multiple narrow columns rather than spanning the text across the entire width of the page. Part of reading is finding the next line of text, and that's uncomfortable if the line is longer than about 40em, or 80 characters, or 20 words.

  39. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Zigurd · · Score: 1

    I have to agree with csartanis: Hacked system images like Cyanogen show that G1 hardware is, at least, adequate.

    The problem is OEMs have no incentive to put money into handsets they sold two years ago. Google has to take up the slack, either by creating incentives to update older handsets, or legitimizing hacks like Cyanogen as a form of "aftermarket upgrade."

  40. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Yeah, because the hardware of the (Motorola) Droid is so different than the iPhone 3GS. Oh wait, no, it's almost exactly the same.

    The graphics-intensive, pretty 3D games on the iPhone are mostly horribly sluggish. Not very impressive. The iPad is better, but not amazingly so.

    Nobody, nobody targeting mainstream mobile devices is doing 3D stuff beyond what we saw on PCs ten years ago.

  41. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by s73v3r · · Score: 1

    Yet, you're having to ignore large portions of that install base if you're going with newer features of the OS. You have to decide if that new feature that may be required for your app is worth alienating a significant part of the Android install base. At least with Apple, if they add a feature to the OS, you can reliably begin using it when its released, and be assured that most of your install base can use it.

  42. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by s73v3r · · Score: 1

    There are still 1.5 and 1.6 devices being sold. The Hero, the Droid Eris, and the G1 are still being sold, and with the exception of the Hero, have no plans of being updated.

  43. WebOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look into it. Amazing support form PALM. Lots of dev interaction. (almost) No Fragmentation. More open than iphone. More controlled than android. Very home-brew friendly. Oh, and it's not ugly as sin. Also, we're desperate for more apps. Room to shine, unlike on the big two at the moment.

  44. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone replaces their phones every 1-2 years though. Many people outside of North America aren't even on contracts and just stick with pay as you go. For them, upgrading is much more of a hassle because they have to pay full price.

    Regardless, newer phones still come with 1.6. Furthermore, if the firmware is at all customized by the creators, there can be issues updating.

    Cell phone providers can also give their own firmware and simply refuse to allow updates, unless the phone is rooted. Usually, only the tech savvy would be willing to go through a process such as this.

  45. What a load of cr*p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus man how much crap you say. So tell me something, genious, when the new iphone comes out how is it going to be for you? It will have new hardware components, new resolution and new functionalities that the previous iphones don't/won't have.

    Only a person that never programmed for a PC makes statements like that.

    About the Android fragmentation, sure they could update all those G1's and all, all the way to froyo and they should. Those companies who refuses to make updates will be in a disadvantage position against others that are willing to do so. So it comes down to the simple principle of natural selection. We just need a little time for it to produce results.

    You should be thankful that Android is now at this level, because developping for iphone is much more painful than Android is, even with the fragmentation "problem".

  46. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by ohwut · · Score: 1

    I had to read this a few times to make sure this post wasn't a few months old. Both the hero and eris have received an OTA 2.1 upgrade in may. The only US 1.5/6 devices are the G1, MyTouch and Behold 2.

  47. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by empaler · · Score: 1

    Wow, you just made me re-animate my /. account. You have just described some of the major reasons I have gone in a great big circle around the Android phones, even if I find the *idea* of a Linux-based phone OS by Google very appealing. I have an iPhone that has all the same advantages of the Apple computers, only amplified: Complete hardware control and testability. They might be a little more expensive, and Apple might be dickheads, but they still deliver a better end product to the users. Maybe in a year or two

  48. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly! I don't blame Google at all.

    1) Manufacturers and Carriers are not used to sending out many updates, and they must not have budgeted the time to do so. They should partner with community leaders to produce and test releases. I have a Samsung moment, which launched with 1.5 while other phones had 1.6 and promised 1.6 was emminant. They finally did a 2.1 update, but the sdx-developer community has a better OS and will probably beat them to 2.2 as well.

    2) This is no worse than any other open and free environment. No one bitches this much about kernel versions or GLIBC versions. People generally draw a line on OS support for PCs and their drastically different graphics/audio hardware. It is still better than DLL hell.

    3) Suck it up is the right response. YOU fix the issue! If the community worked together to come up with a common engine/library to deal with these issues, you would spend a lot less time solving them independently.

  49. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only US Sprint version of Hero has received 2.1 update. All of us European (GSM Version) users still have 1.5 on our HTC Hero. No 2.1 update.

  50. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by torpor · · Score: 1

    The problem is OEMs have no incentive to put money into handsets they sold two years ago.

    The OEMs should be profiting from their own app stores .. profits being driven from their customers. That they don't get this yet is hugely disappointing .. appstores - and naturally, software updates - are of huge interest to "next-gen" cell users .. but the carriers just don't want to get into it.

    I suppose its because of the draconian US laws about content delivery over telephone networks, in the end, though ..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  51. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Your statement is a red herring.

    The features that didn't exist before wouldn't exist today if they wanted to make you happy.

    The options are either properly predicting the future and making all future features available in advance, but not letting them work (since they can't yet), or waiting till those features are relevant and adding them to the api.

    Either way, unless you want a stagnant platform that never evolves, you're going to have API changes to deal with.

    On that note, how come my 1994 Newton MessagePad doesn't understand XML? Yeah.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  52. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HTC is at fault. They stranded the Magic at 1.5 in the Nordic countries.

    Thank Thor for Cyanogen!

  53. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by spreng · · Score: 1

    Everything you describe seems to apply to . . . just about every other operating system there is.

    One exception is Palm/HP's webOS. New versions of the operating system are pushed over the air to all phones shortly after release by Palm.

    --
    Patrick --- Are you detaining me or am I free to go?
  54. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by s73v3r · · Score: 1

    That's not the point and you know it. The point is that there is a significant number of phones out there that do not have access to these new features, and in all likelyhood never will. Over half the phones out there are on 1.5 or 1.6.

    The point is that the iPhone doesn't have this problem, or at least in any way close to Android, because the vast majority of the handsets are running the latest OS. You really only have to target the latest version. With Android, you can't do that. You either use the really old version, you implement separate code paths for the different versions and handsets, or you tell people using the older stuff (which is still being sold as new) to fuck off.

  55. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by jedrek · · Score: 1

    Again: I don't care. And Cyanogen doesn't run on my phone.

  56. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Its exactly the point. If new iphones come out with lets say dual cameras, the new OS and API will support that but the old phones never will.

    New features will always cause fragmentation. Your only way out is to stagnate in hardware development or to have perfect forward knowledge.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  57. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm...ignore them. If their phones don't get updates to 2.1 then they need new phones.

    Don't you want them to have a good experience with your applications?

    Still, Google needs to slow their development model and they should have released the CDMA Nexus One with a note the it will work with all releases for the next 3 years minimum.

  58. Re:It's a huge issue to app developers, not Google by soppsa · · Score: 1

    pretty 3D games on the iPhone are mostly horribly sluggish. Not very impressive. The iPad is better, but not amazingly so.

    Woohoo Apple bashing the form of an unsubstantiated anecdote. Weee slashdot!