Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt Doesn't Think Android Is Fragmented
adeelarshad82 writes "Eric Schmidt took issue with the idea that the Android mobile operating system is fragmented, arguing that it's a differentiation between devices rather than a fragmentation. The difference, as he explains it, is that differentiation means manufacturers have a choice, they're going to compete on their view of innovation, and try to convince consumers that their innovation is better than somebody elses whereas fragmentation is quite the opposite. Not surprisingly, some company analysts beg to differ, pointing out the ever increasing incompatibilities between OS and apps across different Android devices and other problems with Android."
Manufacturers competing on their "view of innovation"--which apparently means junkware like TouchWiz--is precisely what is fragmenting the platform. Schmidt seems to believe that by reframing it with a feel-good word like innovation, he can successfully claim that it's somehow the opposite of fragmentation. The differentiation and and in-fighting between manufacturers and devices is the fragmentation. Nothing he stated refutes the claim that the platform is fragmented; he's just describing the fragmentation in a different way.
NPD now says that iOS has officially closed the gap with Android in U.S. marketshare since the release of the iPhone 4S, so these issues are having a real effect on the platform. According to NPD's report, 150 Android handsets can't beat three old iPhone models. What's happening here is that Android phones catered to techies and budget buyers, but with the iPhone 3GS now free on contract, Apple now has budget buyers covered--and there are way more of them than there are techies.
The difference, as he explains it, is that differentiation means manufacturers have a choice, they're going to compete on their view of innovation, and try to convince consumers that their innovation is better than somebody elses whereas fragmentation is quite the opposite.
How is that different, and how is fragmentation quite the opposite? It's not. Fragmentation on Android is real problem. Of course Eric Schmidt is going to say it's not a problem, or that it doesn't even exist. Companies always deny problems. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
put's positive spin on a potentially negative product quality. Film at 11.
I don't know anyone who thinks the vendor's locked down version of android is better than the native os....
Totally shocked that the CEO of the company that licenses Android insists that it's not fragmented. Could we also get China's opinion on internet censorship or Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on Obama?
"Sufferin' succotash."
This is the guy who said "If you have something you dont want anyone to know then you shouldn't be doing" and this is the guy who said not use G+ if you don't want to share real name. He is the chairman of the company, he will try to put positive spin on negatives of their product. The only thing I hope is he just shut up
In the footsteps of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf comes Eric Schmidt:
"No, what you are seeing is not fragmentation, it's differentiation!"
"Google search plus your World is not favoring Google+ results - it's just reranking them more appropriately!"
I never had a virus nor ever met anyone who had a virus on its mobile phone.
These companies are just trying to profit from uneducated users.
As I said in a previous discussion, Android reduces fragmentation.
The main fragmentation that interest developers is the one between platforms, not within a platform. If Apple and RIM both switched to Android, it would be much easier to develop for mobile devices. They add a lot of fragmentation by continuing to push their proprietary platform. Google actually removes fragmentation by giving away for free an OS that anyone can use. There would be much more fragmentation in the mobile world if HTC, Motorola, Sony, Samsung and LG all pushed their own OS like Apple and RIM are doing.
Which is an unusually thing to say about Eric.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And both statements are correct
Google search plus change the ranking based on the USERS CHOICE. You say, use my profile to make the result more relent to ME means removing things not likely to be relevant to you. And since its a clear choice there really isn't a problem with that feature as a feature. It may lead to an echo chambers effect, but that's a different discussion.
It's like you are complaining that when you enter cookie -baking it change the page ranking to remove baking.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How about calling the manufacturers LIARS. They committed to putting ICS on handsets and now are going back and saying "just kidding."
In my case the Moto Droid 3. Bought it after hearing Moto commit to putting ICS on their new handsets. Now they won't even talk about ICS and the Droid 3. Luckily Cyanogen has stepped up.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Most apps work fine across all common Android versions; the only ones that don't are those that require functionality that just wasn't available on earlier devices. Most of the so-called "fragmentation" is things like manufacturer-specific apps and launchers. Those do exactly what Google says they do: they allow manufacturers to differentiate themselves from one another. That may not be a good thing (I prefer "pure" Android), but it isn't a problem.
I think a lot of the complaints from developers about fragmentation is complaints from iOS developers, who are used to an unusually rigid level of constraints across devices and have developed bad coding practices (like hard-coding coordinates and layouts etc.) because of it.
It's everyones favourite anti-rights IT lifer working for the City of Portland, banging on his pro-Google drum again. Some people don't like Googles reach, get over it.
If you are afflicted with bad press, argue the semantics.
Since it's technical stuff, nobody but the geeks are going to understand, and nobody listens to the geeks.
Most apps run well on every android version thanks to the design of API cross-compatibility (I have experienced this myself, being an early android developer).
However, I don't think you can avoid the fact that the OS itself is fragmented when your OS takes 6 months to a full year to be available on the majority of android handsets.
In addition, has Mr. Schmid had a look at this chart, put up by google themselves?
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html
It reads OS fragmentation all over it! And this is PRECISELY what pisses many (geek) users off, that they can't get the latest and greatest or that new phones come to market being outdated!
I am okay with a little fragmentation if it means lots of choices in phones. Shopping for smartphones, for me, is like being in a big candy shop and trying really hard to choose. And, while I understand how appealing the iPhone is for so many, I really like having lots of choices (I chose and really love my HTC EVO). The iPhone is a great choice for many but many others like other choices. Too much "sameness" doesn't feel good to me though it feels great to others. I don't think either camp is right or wrong - just another choice to make.
http://www.busyweather.com/
1 when viruses do show up these programs should deal with them
2 its also nifty for scanning files to be used on That Other OS computers since anything funky CAN'T go active but could be "seen"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Every rails against the M$ monoculture and fact that it leads to disease (viruses,mal-ware,spy-ware)... Then some of those same people try to rail again Google for fragmentation otherwise known as polyculture?
Let's face it, fragmentation dooms whatever it touches. And Apple's model is always successful. I mean look at the following things that are fragmented devices:
Television Sets
Cars
Cameras
Game Consoles
Power Tools
Outdoor Power Equipment (like snowblowers and lawn mowers)
Motorcycles
Bicycles
HVAC equipment
Now compare those doomed industries to the closed model that Apple represents. You know, the one where the only one left is the provider:
Motor Vehicle Department
Electric Company
Cable Company
Telephone Company
Gas Company
Isn't it clear that the companies that offer the non-fragmented service are the most successful and provide the most benefit for the customer?
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
A wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Inc.
I just upgraded from an OG Droid to a Galaxy Nexus. While I understand the sentiment behind this fragmentation argument, I just never came across it...what are some examples? I was running Froyo 2.2 on the Droid, and I could run any app I had an interest in trying. I never came across anything that was Gingerbread-only or even ICS-only. When I've dabbled in Android development I figured you'd target the largest share of phones, which was 2.2 or maybe 2.3 at some point. There wasn't anything I was making use of that required the latest editions.
Maybe it's just games? I see these articles mention both apps and games, and I admit that I don't do any real "gaming" on my phone other than something like Angry Birds - which ran just fine on 2.2. I see the potential for apps not working on everything, and sure you could have a bunch of ICS-only apps coming out now that it's available - but is that actually happening?
Neither one of those two links offer any evidence of "fragmentation", they're both grasping for excuses to whine. The second one is an unhinged conspiracy theory.
To me the most disappointing thing about the android ecosystem is how many phones soon become abandoned by the manufacturers. My HTC legend got Froyo very soon after I got it and that was the last update I got. My contract is expiring soon and I'm definitely not staying on Android.
Both iPhone and WP7 look more attractive to me at the moment with the Nokia Lumia 800 being the strongest contender for me. Sure the market isn't as filled as Apple's and Google's but it has all the apps I use right now.
If I were Google I'd be starting to get just a bit worried about the manufacturers (and carriers) stuffing the phones full with their own soft(crap)ware with little added value and then delivering little in terms of support and updates in the future.
It's true there is no fragmentation. When in Google's hands it's not fragmented. Once it leaves Google's hands and everyone starts messing around then it becomes fragmented. But remember it is not Google's fault that the non-Google people are messing with perfection. If everyone did the stock screen skin and just do one size things would be ok. But don't say that Google puts out fragmented items.
> The difference, as he explains it, is that differentiation means manufacturers have a choice, they're going to compete on their view of innovation, and try to convince consumers that their innovation is better than somebody elses whereas fragmentation is quite the opposite.
I remember the days of Unix fragmentation, and the explanation above sounds like the exact definition of fragmentation.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It is fragmented. Ever used android 2.3 on a phone, then honeycomb 3 on a tablet? Not mutually compatible and therefore fragmented. ICS has not been around long enough to remove the fragmentation created by phone and tablet, so in future maybe, but right now? Hell naw. My phone runs 2.3 android on a HTC desire. My Motorola Xoom runs 3.2.
The other possible parts of fragmentation are geared towards customisation by telephone providers for specific apps, again not fragmentation, but more like addons.
Or, you know, the fact that Twitter is trying to /charge/ them for the right to index those results, and they don't want to pay.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Why do you think all cars have the same basic layout and conform to the laws of the land?
With cars we have compact, suvs, pick-ups, 18 wheelers...They all conform to certain standards and perform the same basic function: transporting something from one place to another along the same road.
Android handsets represent a diverse array of cars, we have cheap compact Android handsets, we have sporty do it all handsets, we have handsets with physical keyboards fit for a certain utility, and we have the Samsung Note two-handset. But they all conform to certain standards, Android APIs and gsm/cdma/wifi/bluetooth...
Now app developers are like tire, radio, seat cover, rear-view dice makers for cars. With the iPhone like car you know that every seat in the car is the same, the rear-view mirror is always the same, the radio slot is the same, and the tire nuts are in the same place for the three models out there. The three models are extremely popular with about 30% market share, but they are limited in how much you can customize them and still sell them on the special super ad promoted iPhone car market vs the underground jailbroken one. It is understandably easier for developers to hit that 30% of the market than the Android market.
Now with the Android cars, a pair of dice may fit on the rear-view mirror, but they may not always look the best in certain models. There may be a standard radio slot, but not every Android car adopts that standard requiring a little extra work to get that radio installed, and some Android cars allow for giant monster wheels.
You may want a car that will just get the job done, do just about everything well, and you do not have to worry much about it, so you grab an iPhone car. Yeah maybe you can get some lumber home from the hardware store in the iPhone car which is sedan like, but an Android pick-up truck is much more suited for the task with someone who is hauling lumber everyday. Or perhaps you are tired of paying extra to be able to tow something behind your iPhone car, so you jailbreak it, or you get an Android car that natively allows you to tether things behind it.
The real problem are the toll booth operators of the cell phone world. It would be like if you could only use your iPhone car on the roads owned by the toll booth operator who sold it to you. Now the four major operators have roads just about everywhere, but some roads are worse than other, fewer lanes, pot holes, and some times there is only one good toll booth operator in the area you primarily drive and you are stuck with them.
Unfortunately despite its commanding dominance and market sway, Apple has yet to really free us from the tollbooth operators, but has loosened them a bit. Google seemed to be flirting with upsetting them, but has since backed off. Of course it is really in neither of their best interests perhaps to break up those cartels.
What we really need is freedom like with PC cars in the phone market. The OS would be like the engine. Some Android phones allow us to swap out the engine, and some manufacturers even provide engine upgrades. But other manufacturers, lock the engine in the car and do not allow us to load custom engines inside. This forces us to ditch old cars for new ones with the latest engine.
Okay I may be pushing the analogy now...
Google only makes 13/rd of it's mobile advertising money from android... the other 2/3rds comes from Apple.
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google-23rds-of-our-mobile-search-comes-from-apples-ios/
Chew on that a little while.
Android as an OS is irrelevant. It makes no money for Google, and it only serves to keep the carrier's control over you the consumer.
Every single time I launch my process killer on my old Verizon HTC Incredible ( work phone ) I see all these Verizon apps that I can't disable, and I can't uninstall, I remember why the carriers love Google so much and how so many folks are just playing into their hands.
What blows my mind about this is that Vendors are fragmented. Motorola has on the market, running being supported by more then one development team. If they had one development team that kept features synchronized (or disabled when lacking horsepower) they wouldn't have to re-invent the UI or whatever app for each new version of the phone. Google is conveniently enough doing the hard work of making a working OS, and the phone vendors just need to come along for the ride. Yet the phone vendors seem like they keep spinning their wheels trying to keep themselves busy, as opposed to innovating their flavor of hardware experience to really stand out as a polished product, with an identity.
I bought a motorola bravo, about a year ago, for $0.01 with a two year contract. How much more "low end" could I get? But it runs Android 2.3 just fine - motorola upgraded me, it ran 2.2 when I bought it. It's fast, easy to use, and does everything I want.
I like not supporting abusive companies like Apple, or Microsoft. I also like the freedom of being able to use my own microSD, and not being tied to iTunes.
I have never rooted the phone - have no reason to.
The manufacturers who want their differentiation have proved time after time they cannot be bothered to do the job properly.
(They do all sorts of crap like reintroducing obsolete features and making a mess generally).
Android could be improved greatly if Google made sure any custom UI had no performance degredation (And hopefully force the ability to switch back to the stock UI - I hope this is what the recent news article meant not just for apps.) and was coded to the current best practices. (Stock Android / WP7 / IOS all have this big advantage.)
If an app is junk you have the option to not use it. Not so at (least pre ICS) for the manufacturer crud.
Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about. Android is not fragmented at all - if you bother to write your app properly, then it will run on all Android devices. Trust me, I know - my company has just finished developing a cross-platform game on iOS and Android. The Android version Just Works on everything from the tiny Xperia "fridge magnet" phones through to the Sensation XE - we used OpenGL ES and JNI and designed it to be scalable from the start. There is *no* platform-specific code in the Android build.
The iPhone version, however, recently had to be backported to iOS 3.1.x, since our iOS team had used the boilerplate OpenGL ES code handily provided by XCode - that doesn't work on anything below iOS 4. (We're also doing a Symbian build, and from what I've heard, that's just been awful for the developers).
Compare this to the clusterfuck that was J2ME - most phones didn't implement the MIDP / CLDC spec properly. Some would fail to load certain PNGs, others would give you white images if you tried to generate them with transparency, some had arbitrary limits on Java class sizes, there were no standard key mappings (especially for softkeys!), some had bugs in their JVM implementations - a total and utter nightmare. Yet we (somehow) coped.
Anyone who says Android is fragmented doesn't know they're born and can get off my lawn.
I manage a helpdesk team and one of the things we have been told to do from above is to allow anyone who brings in a phone to hook it up to email. While this is great that people can go out and get their own device that suites them best, its been not so great for the dept.
The problem we see is that depending on manufacturer, device and android OS, all of them have different implementations of how exchange active sync works. When its in our hands, we can manage our way thru the menus and get it set up, but when trying to work with someone over the phone who has to read you the menus, things get a little messy. Its either worded differently, settings are on different screens(asking for the webmail address, domain, usename, requiring their email address instead of username, combining the username with domain). The list goes on and on. iOS devices on the other hand all have the same screens and thus WAY easier to configure across multiple devices.
I dont care if a phone manufacturer wants to make theirs pretty, but in a different way. Just please leave the actual configs and settings menus the same across platforms!
"We discover that remote exploitation is feasible via a broad range of attack vectors"
.. Just don't run remote code on your car ...
I don't think so
If an Android app runs on some hardware but not others, there is fragmentation. If you have to write code to address specific hardware when base functionality dictates that you really shouldn't have had to, there is fragmentation. If base functions which are supposed to be identical and available on all hardware aren't available on some, there is fragmentation.
That's what fragmentation IS.
Google considers some fragmentation to be inevitable given the mindboggling array of devices supported by Android. You can argue that Android could be less fragmented, but you can't argue that it could be perfectly monolithic like iOS. That has never been the point and Android has succeeded primarily by not being like iOS. Apple are just never going to make devices to cater to everyone's preferences and they are proudly elitist and have no interest in selling below a price threshold. They will also continue to charge absurd amounts and implements blocks to prevent user upgrade on things like SD card expandable memory, RAM, hard disk etc. upgrade in laptops.
Android is the new windows. Sure, every new version of windows will bring some incompatibilities, and there will always be issues with different applications on different devices. But Windows runs on every computer, from netbooks to laptops to massively powerful desktops and you can choose the computer you want and get bang for your buck. Apple doesn't do that, though their laptops have become cheaper, Windows laptops have become even cheaper. I recently picked up an Acer i5 laptop that clocks up to 3 Ghz and despite the crappy screen, it's an absurdly powerful machine for the price. And it lets you upgrade RAM and stick in an SSD. The iMacs are again ridiculously priced and annoyingly non-upgradable. Apple's approach is not built for market domination and WP 7 is still to become a real threat, especially when Microsoft has eschewed their approach with Windows to make WP7 more restrictive.
A large reason for the fragmentation issue is American carriers, and until other non Apple manufacturers let carriers dictate terms in an absurd market, it's not going to change. It is ridiculous that each phone gets four variants which need different OS upgrades, and that the only way to buy a phone is on a 2 year contract, you gain nothing by not getting a subsidized phone. Also the crappy US patent system is creating problems for American consumers. It's hurting American consumers much more than it is hurting Android. Android is gaining massive amounts of ground outside the west in developed and developing Asian countries for example. And that is at a price point where Apple show no interest in competing. Even Europe is bleeding and not many want to pay the price for an iPhone, when Android phones do the essentials well for far less money.
So Android is fragmented. Yes, apps are often not fully compatible and have issues with different releases. So Google will prescribe loose guidelines, they will try to push 4.0 as much as they can especially in recent and new and upcoming devices. But ultimately, fragmentation is ok because most people stuck on older versions could never afford an iPhone 4S, or the phone is not so important for them to have the latest and greatest.
Android fragmentation is inevitable because the very nature of Android has made it so attractive and let it gain the marketshare it has, and compare it to Microsoft's struggle to make gains. Google are making an effort for design uniformity and upgrade, but overbearing control has never been Google's aim and that's not going to change. So pick your manufacturers wisely. Right now, ASUS, Samsung, Sony Ericsson are your best bets.
"... whereas fragmentation is quite the opposite"
So, with fragmentation the different manufacturers try to convince consumers that their innovation is *worse* than somebody else's?
Steve Jobs created a huge reality distortion bubble large enough not only to enclose him but to engulf many who came near.
Eric Schmidt's reality distortion bubble is just barely large enough for him to live in alone. It's fairly robust, however, as no matter how many times it fails the giggle test he keeps bringing it back out.
Yeah, imagine if that happened in the Android world. People would probably call it "fragmented." Wait a minute.
Top-selling phones that are only months old aren't getting Ice Cream Sandwich. They won't have interoperability with Android 4.0. I've seen some crazy Android defenses before, but this takes the cake. Slashdot has become an all-out haven for crazy advocates. You people are actually arguing that Android reduces fragmentation, when the massive differentiation and fragmentation is the hallmark criticism of Android. And then you get modded up by other Android fanboys who desperately want to believe it.
Thank god the tide is turning, and not only has iOS marketshare caught up with Android according to NPD, but people are waking up to how evil Google is, and this site won't be full of so many fanboys sucking Google's teat anymore. Right now, it's little more than a Google advocacy site full of sweaty neckbeards and other manbabies who hate Apple.
You're emotionally attached to a smartphone operating system. God, you are creepy.
This is absolutely my favorite aspect of Android fanboys. Everyone else is biased! You certainly don't live in a "Android good, Apple bad" bubble or anything! No blinders on you, nosiree!
Holy crap are you non-self-aware. Do you not realize you're part of a core contingent of Android fanboy regulars who consistently reply to each and every post remotely critical of Google and Android? Dude, get help.
Android actually reduces fragmentation. Could you imagine what would happen without Android? Every phone manufacturer would have its own completely different OS.
This is backwards in two ways:
1) Android is acting as an ENABLER. That is the term that is used when someone acts in a capacity to encourage another to engage in a self-destructive behavior - as in letting cell phone companies keen to "leverage" the position as the carrier you are stuck with to force-feed you apps you do not want and brand the hell out of your UI. Android ENABLES companies to do exactly that, which is real fragmentation.
2) What would happen without Android? In the real world, if Android faded out today (no, it will not, speaking only hypothetically) you would not have each carrier with it's own OS. You would have carriers carrying iPhones and Windows phones at a minimum, probably still blackberries, possibly even WebOS devices. Note that ALL of those platforms prevent the Android fragmentation we are seeing by disallowing extensive carrier monkeying with the UI.
Only Android is allowing carriers to go wild, and so they are - to the detriment of users, carriers and Android itself. I thought Android had a lot of promos initially but was HUGLEY disappointed that Google did not put a foot down and mandate some consistency, when they were still in a position to do so (having the only viable OS for a while to compete against the iPhone).
Now Google cannot put that genie back into the bottle. But they can attempt to weave a spell hiding the genie and the bottle and pretending they do not exist.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Consume" and "Content" considered harmful. I would have said "view animations and use applications that require Flash Player".
I wonder what the OS stands for in AOSP?
In theory it stands for "open source". In practice it stands for "does not come with Android Market", as any seventh- or eighth-generation Archos tablet owner will tell you. Until the fourth quarter of 2011, no 4" Wi-Fi-only tablet (that is, alternative to iPod touch) was certified by Google.
AND, you still get to access android market and benefit from the wider ecosystem, even with your modified software.
A couple years ago, Google cease-and-desisted Cyanogen for distributing the Android Market application with CyanogenMod. Now someone else has to distribute the "gapps" package; how long will it take for Google to cease-and-desist that?
Android phones at the high end are almost always cheaper then Iphones when you buy them outright.
But do U.S. carriers have plans designed for buying a phone outright, other than prepaid carriers like Virgin Mobile that carry only the lowest-end Android phones? VZW and AT&T appear to charge the same for service whether you take a subsidized phone or not.
The chips in most of these tablets are technically capable (by spec) of decoding 1080p video. But that spec is (almost*) completely meaningless on a tablet which has 768 lines.
Your * acknowledges one benefit: you can buy one copy of a movie and use it on both the 720p-class internal display and the 1080p-class external display. In addition, DRM permitting, you can buy one copy and use it on both a 720p-class tablet and a PC with a 1080p monitor.
I don't see an issue with vendors modifying the UI or adding their own flavor of tools to the base OS. This should drive innovation.
If the vast majority of apks run acceptably on the vast majority of devices, there is no fragmentation to speak of, IMHO.
If developers are targeting their apks to ndk, depending on Tegra 2, 3 or nvidia features, or widescreens and pixel counts, that would be severe fragmentation. It doesn't seem to be happening, though -- I think google tried to address most of this up front.
I'd rather have a low end phone with Android that runs 90% of the apps (ie. exclude all the fancy 3D games, etc. that require better hardware) than a crappy feature phone that runs none.
Even if the Android phone's service cost five times as much as service for the feature phone? Compare $420 per year for an Android phone on Virgin Mobile USA to $84 per year for a dumbphone.
Every device maker you listed could use either WebOS or WP7. The only thing they COULDN"T do is over-brand and stick apps on them you do not want.
Which is a big part of the issue...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are icons you can't remove on the iphone.
Also true of any Android phone that's not a Nexus and not rooted.
That's a flat out lie.
From this LA Times article: "The Droid X comes loaded with several nonstandard applications for Google's Android, most of which cannot be removed." I must have misinterpreted something; what was it?
The non-root HTC droid incredible let's you remove all the icons. As this is not a rooted phone nor a Nexus phone you're statement is a lie.
When you day "non rooted or not Nexus" apparently what you really mean is "the droid incredible."
I find being offended by me offensive.
It was not a lie but instead mistaken. But I believe that my point is still valid: the set of {Android phones with Nexus in the name, plus HTC Droid Incredible} is still much smaller than the set of {Android phones}.
At no point does it state that the icons cannot be removed. [...] "This app cannot be uninstalled from the phone's software library"
The original claim was: "There are icons you can't remove on the iPhone. [But this is a]lso true of any Android phone that's not a Nexus and not rooted." You are correct that any shortcut icon can be removed from the home screen of an Android device. But if you touch the little grid of squares at the bottom center of the home screen, you end up on the "phone's software library" screen. An icon that cannot be removed from this screen is still an icon that cannot be removed from the phone. I will wait to continue this discussion until we can agree on a definition for "icons you can't remove".
it only applies to two handsets
To find reports that apply to handsets other than the two handsets mentioned in the LA Times article, go to Google and put in android "can't remove" site:slashdot.org .
Here we have a systematic trail of incorrect statements. That sir makes you a liar.
Past scientists have made a "trail of incorrect statements" due to incomplete understanding of physical laws. These statements were "systematic" due to the scientific method supporting them. So if lacking complete understanding of the world makes me a liar, we all are liars and need a savior.
but if you buy the phone from google in the first place, with an unlocked bootloader - is this still the case?
I don't know; I'd have to buy a phone to tell you. And I'm not about to go out and buy a Nexus smartphone just to pay a $700 a year phone bill. Buying a 4" tablet with Android Market but without a cellular chipset wasn't possible until the fourth quarter of 2011 when Samsung finally introduced the Galaxy Player, and there's still no non-phone 4" tablet that I can buy from Google (that is, no such thing as a Nexus Pod Touch).
I disagree that removing an application's icon from the home screen removes all icons of that application from a device. An installed application's icon may appear in places other than the home screen. Now how do I go about removing the icon from the list of installed applications?