Slashdot Mirror


Will Android Flavors Spoil the Platform?

rsmiller510 writes "Open source operating systems have a lot of upsides, but when you give cell phone makers and providers the power to customize the phones to whatever degree they like, it could end up confusing consumers and watering down the Android label."

34 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. The "choice is bad" argument by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the competitors don't have choice and can't get it they have to argue that "choice is bad". If you like choice though - if you prefer a less expensive phone or one with all the bells and whistles, or larger or smaller or whatever, Android is an obvious choice. If you like to choose the phone network based on pricing or features, quality of network, or how badly they restrict the phone's features to maximize your bill, again Android is a clear winner. If a single great design that's wholly integrated and secured by a single vendor is your preference, iPhone is a grand choice - and that's great! You get to choose that too.

    Lack of choice as a feature though is in general a tough sell.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the old fragmentation debate.

      Choice isn't a bad thing. Too much choice is. What can Android 1.6 offer me that 2.2 can't? It's a little ridiculous. Why should cheaper phones be stuck on 1.6 when they're fully capable of running 2.2?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but let's not forget the crapware that used to (still does?) ship with pre-build computers. You end up spending hours just getting rid of the crap Dell, HP, or eMachines decided should belong on your computer, all because they each wanted to have a custom install. I'm sure many users would have gladly paid even more to just get a vanilla copy of Windows.

    3. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you go to a Verizon store and look at the current Android offerings, you can see the crappware is already becoming a problem. The original Motorola Droid looks vanilla compared to the Droid X, 2, etc.

    4. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right now there are a few Motorola devices that are still on 1.6, and the expected release for 2.x keeps sliding and sliding.

      Many of Motorola's phones are marketed as "1.6, upgradeable to 2.x", but in truth there seem to be hardware issues that make this complicated, and it remains to be seen if 2.x will ever actually be distributed to owners of the lower selling phones.

      We've already seen Motorola cancel the upgrade for non-US phones of the same models, to "ensure the best user experience".

      Point being, advertised capability is not necessarily capability.

    5. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you can remove pc crapware. we really do own complete control (even bios) over our pc's.

      do you really think you can totally re-program a phone from open source code?

      really?

      when you buy a phone and it comes with icons and features you want to remove and can't, how is this OPEN again?

      its not open. its open on some areas but not in the ones we need. when ATT comments out the software sources menu option, this is a prime example of what we are complaining about!

      locking boot code is also evil and yet allowed by the android system or architecture.

      really bad move, google. google just bad much worse deals than apple did with the carriers. apple DEFINED what was ok and what was not. google said 'hey as long as we can insert ads, we don't really CARE what you do mr. vendor.'

      very different models in how to reign in your carrier. google had as much control as apple did but chose not to flex their powerful muscles. they made bad judgement call when they let the carriers run wild with THEIR codebase.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a developer this is exactly the reason I've moved to iPhone development, and away from Java on mobile devices. Nokia, Samsung etc ruined it for themselves by introducing conflicting extensions and quirks to their platforms, along with expensive certification schemes in partnership with the carriers that made distribution as a small company or sole developer prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Apple smoothed this out no end with its single store and platform.

      I'm no fanboy of Apple, or anyone else, but increased fragmentation, and the "embrace and extend" attitudes of phone manufacturers could well end up frustrating Android developers in much the same way.

    7. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issues on the iPhone you linked to are for a model that is over two years old. I had a 3G until two weeks ago, with iOS 4 it could get slow at times launching certain apps but it wasn't a big enough issue to warrant reverting back to iOS 3.x and it's not a big enough issue that my fiancee complains about it.

      It's not like there are any iPhone 3Gs sitting on shelves across the planet with the slow ass iOS 4 while a iPhone 4 is sitting next to it for sale. The fragmentation chart you linked to comparing iOS to Android is flawed in that the 3.x flavor fragmentation isn't because of Apple, its because users just don't update their phones. The Android fragmentation is the fault of the vendors, so apples and oranges for that argument.

      So really its 44.54 iOS 3.x, 34.05 iOS 4.x and 21.42 running jailbroken or iOS 2.x and are never going to patch anyway or get apps anyway so who cares? At least in early August

      The Android issue being discussed here is fragmentation of current phone models. Apple is shipping iOS 3.x for iPads and iOS 4.x for iPhones and iPods, so mobile wise Apple is shipping one flavor of the iOS, 4.x

    8. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by HappyClown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I'm comparing Apples to Androids actually ;) Where was my 'apples to oranges' argument? I'm talking about the difference of OS versions in the wild (which seems to be what really matters, not how things got into that state). I'd agree with you if that chart was showing versions of Android *currently being shipped*. It's not, it's comparing versions *in the wild*, same as the iOS figures, so I think it's fair to compare them. I agree that there is a difference in how the two situations came about. Some vendors are still shipping with older Android versions installed (nothing worse than 2.1 though AFAIK), and that clearly has an impact on the chart. Since the Android updates go out over-the-air though, the uptake of these releases is clearly far higher than upgrades being applied manually to old iOS devices.

      Bottom line is, there's a bunch of old Android phones running 1.5 and 1.6 that likely will never have their OS upgraded either, same as the iOS 2.x situation you described. Who's "fault" the fragmentation is (vendor vs user) doesn't really matter so much given that if you're an app developer, you'd need to be compatible with at OS versions from at least the past year or so regardless.

      As an aside, I've got two colleagues at work here with the 3G. One upgraded and has recently rolled back to 3.x, the other refused to upgrade after he saw the grief the first guy had. That was what motivated me to post about the issue in the first place. Your experience was clearly different so I guess it's a bit of a mixed bag.

    9. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by mlingojones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Android *is* open. Open for the carriers.

      The users, not so much.

    10. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? you just totally contradicted yourself, and in the same sentence. So you are saying that iOS fragmentation is a user issue, not a device issue, so um, how do you upgrade the original iPhone to the latest version of iOS? There are the same issues here too, so get off your fanboy bus and try to be a bit objective.

      Support has ended on the original iPhone. It had 3 major OS updates from 1.0 through to 3.1.3. That's a pretty good run considering some Android phones haven't gotten any new major version. Furthermore because Apple tightly controls the API backwards compatibility for apps should be easy to maintain for developers for the foreseeable future, especially because the iPad is still on iOS 3.x. The difference is mostly in games pushing the envelop in hardware use and apps otherwise dependent on newer hardware but then that's the game isn't it ?

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    11. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not that 1.6 is inherently more reliable than 2.2.

      Actually, its a fact that all devices prior to Android 2.x have a fundamental OS flaw and are inherently less reliable. Android 2.2 adds limited JIT capability to the platform, fixes various life cycle problems which still existed at the start of the 2.x series (which is one of the reasons why 2.x is fundamentally broken), and goes a long way toward improvement memory management.

      In a nutshell, all devices running Android prior to 2.01 have fatal life cycle, memory and resource management flaws.

      In fact, one of the reasons why task killers briefly became popular on Android is exactly because of these horrible OS flaws; which I previously blamed on applications. Task killers are not only no longer needed, but they don't even work on Android 2.2 and later. The fact of the matter is, while many of the problems I blamed on applications were in fact application problems, many were not or were a compounding of application and OS bugs/flaws.

    12. Re:The "choice is bad" argument by twbecker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. The notion that iOS is more fragmented than Android is laughable. All iPhone models short of the original are fully capable of running the latest iOS, if some *users* choose not to upgrade for whatever reason that is *their* choice. Unlike Android where even newly purchased lower tier models don't ship with the latest version, and may very well never be able to upgrade to it.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
  2. Yes... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... in the same way that all the flavors of GNU/Linux have spoiled that platform.

    1. Re:Yes... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Three or four main distros each with three or four main desktop variants, each available in 64 bit, 32 bit, and who knows what else. To a newcomer, the choices are mind boggling.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Yes... by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ... in the same way that all the flavors of GNU/Linux have spoiled that platform.

      I would not be surprised at all if the sheer profusion of dists have scared off a lot of people unsure even where to start.

  3. pfft by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love the fact that there is such a wide variety of Android phones. Different features are important to different people, and being able to choose between different phones gives them the opportunity to buy one that caters towards whatever the find most important (good screen, good keypad, good camera, etc.)

    1. Re:pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is not the fact that there's choice, but that there are distributions that lock you in and give you no choice (which is most of them). The Android distributions available, currently, are not very good and are actually very poor representations of Android as a platform. If we had a choice of device as well as a choice of Android distribution without the lock-in, then it would be a Good Thing.

  4. its a valid point by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not a smartphone owner, not yet. I don't have a company paying my way for me and I'm not about to foot a $100/mo bill on my own. not yet and not with the current level of phones.

    a few weeks after you buy a 'smartphone' some other model makes yours a POS. well, almost. how can anyone buy in that kind of market and retain sanity?

    vendors are destroying the 'beauty' of the system. apple (I hate apple, btw) had it almost right when it controlled the carriers. the carriers are little children that run wild if not controlled. apple controlled them; android simply let them run even MORE wild.

    google fucked this up. and I think its too late now, the market is SO fragmented its actually damaged. fanboys won't agree but who cares what they think; its the rest of us middle-guys who simply want something stable and something SUPPORTABLE for a few years. the throw-away model every few months is not do-able for me, for this pricepoint.

    if there is ever a 3rd choice, I hope they learn from the 2 that 'came before'. apple model is too extreme but actually so is the android model. a middle ground needs to be there, really; and is not. we have the walled garden and the wild wild west where vendors can fark up YOUR phone and mostly get away with it.

    I'm still on the sidelines and not willing to fund this insanity until it levels out.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. Someone call Google! by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Terrible news everyone. Android enables the ability to extend usability and functionality beyond what the native platform supports! It's not a one size fits all shoehorn! What a failure! God, I need to sell my stock quick!!1

    You know. I've never bought a car thinking it had any features in it other than the ones I knew it had. How about instead of treating consumers like they're the awkward creepy man-child that greets customers at Wal-Mart, we just expect people to have enough interest in the product to do their research and read the fucking box and reviews to find out what the device is even capable of? I mean, are there any reasons other than because the expectation of personal responsibility is dead?

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    1. Re:Someone call Google! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it also enables the CARRIER or vendor to 'comment out' stuff that we would want and adding crap to our screens that we do NOT want. and often you cannot change this, as its not really a 'portable pc' as people want to think. its still in a lock-down mode when it comes to your ability to do things with ALL 'google phones'.

      google did not control the carriers. they made a huge mistake in this design aspect.

      this is the problem.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  6. but not in that way by calderra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, all these Android flavors spoil the platform, but not in the way most people are pointing to. Personally, I think the problem is that stock droid sucks. Stock droid sucks especially hard considering I can only get Droid X (I accept no substitute) bundled with a ton of Verizon bloatware that keeps running no matter how often I shut it down and I'm sure it's broadcasting my location information and lots of stuff. And the default launcher is slow, fairly ugly, and not entirely stable. LauncherPro is everything the stock launcher should be, but it bugs me constantly with pop-ups about paid features. If stock droid would learn more from the droid community, the droid brand would be faring better. Spending $200 on a phone just to hear "everything on your phone sucks- download these dozen programs to patch it up"... sucks.

  7. I Agree by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know I'll get modded to hell but I think that Android is in danger of suffering to forking into different carrier-specific versions. I believe that people _will_ hear about cool features that an Android phone offers, buy an Android phone and find out, too late, that it's available on _other_ Android phones, not the one they bought. This will start to result in negative user experiences down the road.

    The plus side of it (being fair here) is it is really driving competition and making the different forks of Android as well as iOS better because of it. It's forcing manufacturers to drive to improve, which is good for the consumer but, for people who want Android to win, it will soon become a discussion of specific forks of Android because there will no longer be one unified version.

    Heck, I find myself looking at Android phones thinking "if I were to switch from my iPhone, which one would I be interested in getting?" (I won't be switching - I like my iPhone - but I like to contemplate which version of Android interests me to keep my options open and all that.) That, to me, is a clear sign that the differentiation is real and something people need to keep in mind.

    1. Re:I Agree by kaiser423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Currently, the carriers have almost no chance of surpassing stock, vanilla, latest and greatest Android released by Google in feature set. They're just not that good at software, and not nimble enough to beat the big G right now.

      Essentially, I think that the carriers ARE trying the "embrace and extend" business model to fragment and force lock into them for certain features. But the problem is that they're having problems with the "extend" part, because everytime they try to extend, they see that Google has moved the signposts a couple miles down the road! Your "extend" has to be better than the stock offering, and that means they have to be better than Google at Google's game. Best of luck to 'em.

  8. I've already given up developing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not much more I can say. After developing for a year and a half by myself, it has gotten unmanageable. I can make an app that is polished and slick for the Droid, but the ratings get dragged down by other devices that it apparently doesn't run slick on.

    As a single person I can't possibly manage all of the QA and customer service that all of these devices demand. It was fun while it lasted. Never developed for the iPhone but I can see how it might be a better experience.

  9. Leave Android Alone! by MrTripps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The customizations many vendors tack on to Android suck (for the most part). Just leave Android alone and it works fine.

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
  10. The proper analogy is the 80's by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's not the 90's and 00's of Linux, but the Unix wars of the 1980's where proprietary Unixes battled it out for the workstation market. The corporate greed of Unix vendors (as opposed to the ideological Linux battles after-wards) allowed a Microsoft to flourish and eventually control the high end market.

    Despite Google being the unifying factor, the carriers are even more greedy and less capable than the Unix vendors of old, and meanwhile Apple remains ascendant and proprietary.

    Inconsistent user interfaces diminish network effects and will suppress Android adoption... then there are abominations like the Verizon vCast store.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  11. Seems rather contradictory by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of open-source tools, and Android has the potential to offer all the advantages of an open platform, but it also gives the handset and cellphone providers the power to customize and add endlessly to their phones.

    So just what is the advantage of an open platform if OEMs are not allowed to customize it? I see Android like the Linux kernel on which it is built. The Linux kernel powers all manner of desktops, phones and other devices with a wide variety of user interfaces. Similarly, Android is a building block to make a phone user interface. It allows manufacturers to make an HTC phone, or a Motorola phone (etc).

    And what is the alternative? Lock down the OS so OEMs can't replace applications with their own choices? Isn't that the practice that causes everyone to complain about Microsoft? Just imagine that the default browser in Android was Internet Explorer. Would anyone here complain about manufacturers replacing it with anything else on their model of phone? No? Then it seems a bit rich to complain about any other customization of the platform.

  12. They miss the point by sunking2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All it takes is a few vendors to drop the ball with bad implementations, or go out of business dropping support to create a bad association with Android. That's the real issue. Bad PR goes a lot further than good. At some point someone will put out a really terrible version that will in some respect hurt the label.

  13. PSA by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All this has completely soured me on Motorola.

    I advise everyone to stay far, far away from their Android offerings. After this burn, I'm not buying anything from them again.

    The phone was so locked down to start with, I should have done my homework and realized this was a trap.

    It appears they care about the Droid series, but nothing else. Don't assume Motorola will live up to their commitments.

    Run, don't walk, from Motorola.

  14. From a developer's perspective by VeryVito · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a developer for both Android and iOS (and a few other mobile) platforms, I can say this is already an issue with Android (from a dev's perspective, at least). While "choice" always sounds good for consumers, the only real choices are usually pre-made by carriers and handset manufacturers, leaving the consumer with little more choice than they had with previous generations of phones (Motorola's RAZR had a pretty good Wheel of Fortune game "app," too).

    Although the Android emulator is fine for quick checks, a viable Android product must be tested on a growing number of handsets and other products, making R&D for a new app MUCH more time consuming and costly than that of its iPhone counterpart (Even if you only wanted to support a single device, choosing to support only the latest iPhone 4, for instance, still gives one a much larger target audience than choosing only to support the latest Samsung Galaxy model on a particular carrier).

    And supporting a commercial Android app is a larger undertaking too -- more like that of traditional PC development, in which one might expect to deal with a variety of hardware or setting possibilities, but nothing like traditional mobile or game console development -- in which one can expect some level of uniformity among systems.

    In other words, iPhone developers can much more easily and affordably offer quality apps at lower prices than their Android counterparts. I'm not saying it's impossible to offer the same quality of user experience across the board, but it is without question a larger undertaking for Android development. And eventually, this WILL affect consumers, too -- either by limiting the size of their pool of quality apps, or by increasing the cost of these same apps.

  15. Really, people, just stop by daemonenwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, Steve Jobs complains that Android is fragmented and offers too many versions.
    No one else had said it before.

    Then a bunch of second-rate tech websites echo it.
    Then it gets reposted here and a bunch of 7-figure IDs and Anonymous Cowards post "me too" stuff.

    Do I have to spell out a marketing-company forged FUD campaign? Has it been so long since IBM vs. Microsoft? Do we really need to re-learn what this looks like?

    If a carrier abuses the phones, leave the carrier.
    If a phone comes out neutered, don't buy it.

    Having a codebase that moves rapidly forward is a simple fact of computing since broadband got big. Calling it a weakness is pure bullshit, especially when the competition moves (at most) at the rate of about a significant change once per year.

    1. Re:Really, people, just stop by twbecker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because there's plenty of carriers out there you can give your business to, especially ones that don't come with shitty customized software.....oh wait. No one is saying Android itself as an OS nor the pace at which it's developed is a weakness. What people are saying is that it's bullshit when you have to replace a device that's less than a year old just to take advantage of new features. You can't trust carriers to guarantee an upgrade path at all, let alone a timely one.

      --
      "The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
  16. Neither model is actually better by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple's model for the telephone market is almost definitely better for application developers. An application developer can buy 3 models of phones (and iPad if you care about that thing), test on each and be sure that everything works. The fact that iOS is such a closed platform is fantastic and makes it so that we developers can be more confident of what we ship to the public. It also means that we can optimize code to run well on all the phones which run that operating system.

    Android on the other hand is more like the next step of Symbian... with slightly better design and control. Symbian was a heap of shit for developers. The API was a nightmare, content delivery worked only sometimes. Their package management system was a tinker toy. Additionally, their memory model was designed with a 25 year old PDA in mind, and their argument for it was that it needs to work with GCC 2.91. They implemented an ad-hoc exception model with a "clean-up stack" which was a lame excuse for auto-pointers as 2.91 didn't have good template support.

    Android on the other hand has a relatively simple development model and it seems as if application development (so long as native code isn't important) is really quite easy. You can code in their Java like language (I do this to help with the law suit to differentiate and call it something else) and make an app and get it running quickly. Unfortunately, it runs on about a billion different processors (there are tons of ARMs out there) with a gazillion (quite cool that word is in the spell checker) graphics subsystems out there (nVidia, frame buffer, TI, etc...) and there are a multitude of different types of touch screens (single touch, multi touch, hi-resolution, low resolution, no-touch, just joypad, high latency, low latency). There are a pile of audio subsystems, I won't even begin to cover the massive number of those, it's mind boggling.

    Writing simple cook book and business apps for Andoid is a charm. Takes far less time than on iOS, almost as little time as on Windows Phone 7 (which is WAY EASY) and can be tested more or less in an emulator without any problems. The only issue is the touch screen input which can be averted by making the buttons all a little bigger.

    Anything requiring high response rates, fancy input methods, real-time audio, etc... is a nightmare on the platform. It's even worse than on Windows. There are just too many methods of input.

    Android is a pretty neat touch screen platform that allows absolutely any manufacturer out there to make a full blown smart phone for almost nothing. Chinese vendors are already pumping these things out by the truckload and it's only a matter of time before it's possible to buy full smartphones for $50 or less.

    You can buy an after market iPhone screen and touch panel from China for $20 (free shipping). And they are pretty good replacements. This means that they can get them for less than half that. Cheap system on a chip ARM processors can be bought for less the same. It's entirely possible that you can get ALL the parts required to make a full Android phone in China for probably $30. The specs will be pathetic, but will improve rapidly over time. The result, an Android phone containing the bare minimum memory required to run the phone, the bare minimum CPU required to run a telephone call, the bare minimum audio quality required to hear the other person, probably not even enough specs to download an application.

    Of course, noone would buy these phones right? Well, probably not more than 100,000 of each model (which is the target Nokia sets for their mid-range smart phones). Remember there are a shit load of Asian people buy Chinese knockoffs of all these things. And what's best is, these aren't even knock offs. Thanks to the open source nature of Android, it's 100% legitimate to make these things. Of course, no westerners would buy these things. Umm... or would they. DealExtreme.com will sell tens of thousands of these. They'll be sold all over the Mediterranean and Caribbean islands to t