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.
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."
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.
Verizon, Sprint, et. al. are most certainly NOT paying anything for your phone. They are merely fronting the money. You, the users, are paying it all back with more than enough profit.
What this arrangement does, however, is to make the phone companies Google's immediate customers. Users are somewhere in the background, with no voice at the deal-cutting table.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
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.
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 know people who prefer the Sense skin over stock Android.
There are flaws with the stock versions of Android when it comes to ease of use. It is nice if you want customizations and freedom, but they don't always provide the best experience to the average user.
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/
This is the mother of all failed analogies. All of the devices you mentioned are interoperable and standardized in very important ways. Why do you think all Ryobi batteries are interchangeable? Why do you think all cars have the same basic layout and conform to the laws of the land? Why do all tv sets have the same basic standardized ports and display the same basic standardized signal? Why does just about any thermostat work with just about any furnace?
As an iOS developer, Apple has made it really easy for me to write code once and I know I only have to test it on about 3 devices. From there I know my addressable market is hundreds of millions of devices.
As a consumer I have confidence that when I buy a new iPhone in 2 years, all the apps I pay for today will work in the future. I don't hesitate about making the investment because I know it can be long term. And I don't have to go setup my phone from scratch either.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
well, make a html5 application with hardcoded coordinates.
and then complain when it doesn't look like it should on different devices, with different sized screens, some with kb some with trackball.
that's android fragmentation for you.
and only an idiot would release an ics-only app right now - unless it depends on some ICS specific api.
if you go with 2.2 things will work from friggin ziio's to fire's to samsungs to motos to lg's to sony-e's. perhaps even on that motos android watch.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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...
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