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."
Well, the wordplay is correct. You could also say that the mobile market is fragmented between iOS and Android, yet we call that differentiation and innovation.
After all - we could create a government mandate that all computers have to be x86 based - that would've stopped a lot of fragmentation. Would it have created a better world?
it's in my head
Oh wow shocking, Apple gained sales market share right after releasing a brand new super-hyped phone and lowering their old prices! Android is doomed! DOOOOMED, I tell you!
Anyways, fragmentation is good for the market. Allows for true competition and drives features. The newest Android phones are far and away more featureful than any iPhone, plus you can choose from any carrier and any range of features you want. I would have liked Google to encourage manufacturers to release more updates to their phones so people didn't get stuck on 2.1 or whatnot, but the fact that most Android programs work on most Android devices is nothing short of amazing when you think about the vast array of different hardware they can contain.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
But per the usual misunderstanding on /. , the general public is not geeky. It does not use hacks or cracks, it does not sideload or use custom ROMs. Most don't even upgrade the SD card, or even know that you can.
The general public picks a phone up and evaluates it, if they evaluate it pre-purchase at all, based on a 1-5 minute poking around on the device. I think the iPhone wins these battles with the average, uninformed consumer because the graphical presentation is slick and the interface is intuitive to the non-techie.
Some people equate smartphone with iPhone. For those who don't, most of them will buy whatever gives them the cleanest presentation and seems easiest to use. Openness and Google and other geek-factors don't enter into it.
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.
The fact though is that Google provides the tools for developers to handle the variations in screen size and such and in practice developers don't seem to be having too much trouble with the fragmentation issue.
I'm just finishing up my first Android app. It's a simple app, yet several times I've already needed to use reflection to dig around in undocumented APIs or roll my own version of a class included in the framework because of differences between the API versions. I have also found that it is difficult to add functionality to framework classes because Google makes many of the methods either private or final.
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!
Apple adds new features and doesn't necessarily port them to old iPhones.
Apple is pretty good about updating their product line to the current OS. True, you're not going to update your original iPhone to iOS5. But you're not going to buy a brand new last gen iPhone 4 or even iPhone 3GS with iOS 3. Same with Windows Phones, they all currently run the latest release of WP7, even if you buy a last gen samsung focus from. However, in the Android world you can buy a brand new Android phone with an OS 2 versions out of date, and that phone will never be upgraded. THAT is the problem. We're not talking about 4 year old phones not getting the latest release. We're talking about brand new phones that are out of date, out of the box. This isn't a fairy tale.
The target demographic for smartphones is geekier than the average public. Most geeks have smartphones, for example. Teenagers and young adults regularly defy the traditional concept of "too geeky" or requiring too much effort for the "average" person, and these same are also among the prime candidates for smart phones.
Nonetheless, "fragmentation" is a marketing term being bandied about by Apple apologists. It's an excuse to justify a technology monoculture that Apple has established in some corners of the market. Technology monoculture has invariably led to technology stagnation.
Rather than "fragmentation" being a bad thing, what's actually going on is "innovation," and that's a good thing. People didn't talk about desktop fragmentation in the PC era, people don't talk about console fragmentation when you need specialized controllers to interact with many of today's games.
This is survival of the fittest. My wife is a complete non-geek. She traded out her iPhone for Android and is eager to ditch her iPad. The sole reason being that she wants to consume content which requires Flash. She's not interested in assertions that her life would be better if only websites would ditch Flash, she's interested that her technology can't do the task she wants it to.
Technology monoculture is the real problem here. iOS suffers from it, while Android doesn't. Android should wear this term with a badge of pride; they are currently steadfastly half way between steps 2 and 3 (out of 4) in Gandhi's famous quote about winning. They were ignored (Android 1.x era), they were laughed at ("fragmentation"), now they're being fought (Apple v. Samsung for example). Only one more step to go.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
My experience has been a little bit different, I used an Android phone for about 2 years and now use an iPhone. I can't name any app that is better on Android....
Google maps. Navigation specifically. Voice navigation more specifically.
Android actually reduces fragmentation. Could you imagine what would happen without Android? Every phone manufacturer would have its own completely different OS. If Apple MS and RIM threw in the towel today and all switched to Android there would be significantly less fragmentation in the marketplace as a whole.
The argument that Schmidt is making - manufacturers need to be able to differentiate their products. Android allows them to do this without sacrificing interoperability on the scale that Apple/RIM/MS sacrifice it.
You - bonch/Overly-Critical-Guy - live in a closed bubble where all you can see is "Apple good, Android bad". You have blinders on your eyes. Please either take them off or stop posting.
AccountKiller
That's a problem with Android - there are a LOT of sub-par devices out there and people that start off at the low-end are often left with a bitter taste. At least with iOS, the devices are reasonably capable, even the older models. I dare say that the experience your friend with the crappy device had would have been much improved just by moving to a higher-specced android phone, but the important thing is that they're happy.
I'm going to be honest - I'm a big Android fan, but I am a geek through and through. I rooted my phone within a week of getting it and installed a custom ROM the next day - that alone was tonnes of fun for me and a plus to the Android experience. However, when family and friends ask which phone they should get, I'll never say "Get Android, it's da bomb!" partly because I know the reasons I like Android are reasons they'll hate it and also because I don't want yet another device to support. However, I will recommend devices that meet their needs and there's almost always an Android that fits in there, but I'll always say "Go into a store and play with it, ONLY get it if you like it". If anyone buys a phone just because its cheap or because people rave about it, yet end up not liking it, it's really their own fault for not trying before buying.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill