Entelligence: Is Android fragmented or is this the new rate of innovation?
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted May 22nd 2010 8:21PM
posted May 22nd 2010 8:21PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
A few weeks ago I sat down with the father of Android, Andy Rubin. Andy's a super smart person, having done stints at Apple, General Magic, WebTV and Danger before starting the Android project. We talked about a lot of things, and we particularly spent time discussing Android fragmentation. I've written in the past about my concern that the Android platform is fragmenting much like desktop Linux has over the years, and the potential for the platform to turn into a patchwork of devices and vendor specific modifications that bear little relationship with each other. I've spent a lot of time thinking about my conversation with Andy, and I've rewritten this column more than a few times as a result.
Today, there are at least five different versions of Android on the market. Many of them are highly customized to allow for new features and device differentiation, but that same customization also makes it harder for vendors to update them to the latest versions. New releases and versions of Android are often outdated by newer versions in the span of just a few weeks. For example, the Nexus One when released was capable of running apps like Google Earth that devices such as the Droid could not, because it ran Android 2.0, not 2.1.Tablet vendors complain their Android offerings lack features such as Android Market because Google forbids them to install the marketplace app, forcing them to create proprietary alternatives. It would appear Android is indeed fragmenting -- but perhaps there are other forces at work.
When I spoke with Andy, he pointed out there are several classical symptoms of platform fragmentation. First, older APIs no longer work and break in new releases. Second, multiple application marketplaces offer different applications that lack uniformity across platforms. Both of these are true when you look at desktop Linux. Neither are true of Android.
Andy's point was simple. Older Android devices that can't be upgraded to newer versions of the OS or run newer apps are no different than an iPhone from 2007 not being updated to OS 4. It's not fragmentation -- it's legacy. If so, legacy systems are now aging faster than ever before, due to a rate of innovation that has never been seen before in history. A rate that Google shows no signs of slowing anytime soon.
Does this rate affect Google's partners who need to produce the devices? Absolutely. The difference is Google believes the partner model is now fundamentally different. No one pays for Android, and consequently, the partner relationship isn't the same as when vendors pay to license an OS. One of the issues Microsoft had with Windows Mobile was that as all partners were paying to be part of the ecosystem and license the platform and all were treated equally -- which wasn't necessarily a good thing. Some WinMo vendors produced great devices, while many others produced mediocre devices that made the platform look bad. Some couldn't keep pace with others, forcing Microsoft to sometimes delay key releases so partners could absorb them and create the hardware needed for them.
Google has a different view. Android isn't summer camp for handset vendors and not everyone gets get a trophy for showing up. Google is treating partners equally, but will not slow the rate of innovation so weaker players can keep up. By constantly raising the bar, both in terms of reference devices and software, Google aims to keep innovating and drive that innovation as a differentiator. Google wasn't looking for volume sales with the Nexus One, it was looking to raise the hardware bar -- and arguably the best way to do that is to do it yourself.
The net result? A pace of innovation that shows no sign of slowing combined with even more reference hardware that keeps raising the stakes of what's possible. Keep up or don't -- what appears to be a fragmented market is merely the result of shortened cycles of innovation. Older devices seem obsolete faster than before, but this pace also brings speed new innovations to market faster. Google argues that the reason it doesn't permit tablet vendors access to Android Market just yet is to prevent devices that fail comparability tests from actually fragmenting the platform. The message? Keep up -- but don't try to jump ahead.
I'd argue perhaps Android isn't fragmented, at least according to the classical definition, but that the practical result is the same. Devices going obsolete in months and new operating systems released on weekly cycles make it difficult for even Google's best partners to keep pace. Worse, users are confronted with a dizzying array of devices, many of which are out of sync from a software perspective at the time of purchase -- causing some to delay purchases in fear of buyer's remorse or purchase a competing platform.
The open nature of Android is what allows this to happen. Google won't control what partners do with Android, but by constantly raising the bar it controls the platform's pace as well as the vision. As with most things, in the end it will be Google's partners and their customers that will determine whether that pace is acceptable, and that will either become a competitive advantage or provide an opportunity for other platforms to succeed.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
Today, there are at least five different versions of Android on the market. Many of them are highly customized to allow for new features and device differentiation, but that same customization also makes it harder for vendors to update them to the latest versions. New releases and versions of Android are often outdated by newer versions in the span of just a few weeks. For example, the Nexus One when released was capable of running apps like Google Earth that devices such as the Droid could not, because it ran Android 2.0, not 2.1.Tablet vendors complain their Android offerings lack features such as Android Market because Google forbids them to install the marketplace app, forcing them to create proprietary alternatives. It would appear Android is indeed fragmenting -- but perhaps there are other forces at work.
When I spoke with Andy, he pointed out there are several classical symptoms of platform fragmentation. First, older APIs no longer work and break in new releases. Second, multiple application marketplaces offer different applications that lack uniformity across platforms. Both of these are true when you look at desktop Linux. Neither are true of Android.
Andy's point was simple. Older Android devices that can't be upgraded to newer versions of the OS or run newer apps are no different than an iPhone from 2007 not being updated to OS 4. It's not fragmentation -- it's legacy. If so, legacy systems are now aging faster than ever before, due to a rate of innovation that has never been seen before in history. A rate that Google shows no signs of slowing anytime soon.
Does this rate affect Google's partners who need to produce the devices? Absolutely. The difference is Google believes the partner model is now fundamentally different. No one pays for Android, and consequently, the partner relationship isn't the same as when vendors pay to license an OS. One of the issues Microsoft had with Windows Mobile was that as all partners were paying to be part of the ecosystem and license the platform and all were treated equally -- which wasn't necessarily a good thing. Some WinMo vendors produced great devices, while many others produced mediocre devices that made the platform look bad. Some couldn't keep pace with others, forcing Microsoft to sometimes delay key releases so partners could absorb them and create the hardware needed for them.
Android isn't summer camp for handset vendors and not everyone gets a trophy for showing up. |
Google has a different view. Android isn't summer camp for handset vendors and not everyone gets get a trophy for showing up. Google is treating partners equally, but will not slow the rate of innovation so weaker players can keep up. By constantly raising the bar, both in terms of reference devices and software, Google aims to keep innovating and drive that innovation as a differentiator. Google wasn't looking for volume sales with the Nexus One, it was looking to raise the hardware bar -- and arguably the best way to do that is to do it yourself.
The net result? A pace of innovation that shows no sign of slowing combined with even more reference hardware that keeps raising the stakes of what's possible. Keep up or don't -- what appears to be a fragmented market is merely the result of shortened cycles of innovation. Older devices seem obsolete faster than before, but this pace also brings speed new innovations to market faster. Google argues that the reason it doesn't permit tablet vendors access to Android Market just yet is to prevent devices that fail comparability tests from actually fragmenting the platform. The message? Keep up -- but don't try to jump ahead.
I'd argue perhaps Android isn't fragmented, at least according to the classical definition, but that the practical result is the same. Devices going obsolete in months and new operating systems released on weekly cycles make it difficult for even Google's best partners to keep pace. Worse, users are confronted with a dizzying array of devices, many of which are out of sync from a software perspective at the time of purchase -- causing some to delay purchases in fear of buyer's remorse or purchase a competing platform.
The open nature of Android is what allows this to happen. Google won't control what partners do with Android, but by constantly raising the bar it controls the platform's pace as well as the vision. As with most things, in the end it will be Google's partners and their customers that will determine whether that pace is acceptable, and that will either become a competitive advantage or provide an opportunity for other platforms to succeed.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
@Technologeee
I don't get why more handset makers simply don't adopt a straight port of the newest Android build. Forget about Sense or Blur. Just load up the latest version, like the Nexus 1. Should make updating your phones much easier in the future.
Also, I would think that building interfaces that can be decoupled from the OS is the way to go. So, if HTC wants to have a "Sense like" experience build it in such a way that users can download it to their devices. It won't be as powerful or integrated BUT it would allow for your handsets to constantly get updated to the latest and greatest from Android. I have to think that is a huge competitive advantage. This is very similar to what SPB Mobile Shell does from Windows Mobile devices. It's a separate application that has integration with the OS. However, it is easily disabled/enabled by the user giving them the freedom to choose stock vs custom UI's.
@bjsguess I have a similar, perhaps better, question. Some people like Sense, some love it. Why not, add Sense to some devices. And then when Google makes an update, just update to vanilla??? Then, over time, make it compatible with Sense and add Sense back in with an update?
I honestly don't know why they don't give customers the option to drop their skin when something newer and better comes. It seems that it'd breed more loyalty than keeping with the status quo.
@FragmentedAndroid
"Another incorrect statement from article:
""No one pays for Android, and consequently, the partner relationship isn't the same as when vendors pay to license an OS"
HTC pays a licensing fee to microsoft. I would assume that you, being a blogger for gadgets, would keep up to date on events and be knowledgable on the subject."
Aren't you confirming his point? Unless you are inferring that MS makes Android, in which case you are incorrect. (Vendor = HTC pays to license OS = MS). OS = Android = Free = No one pays
@FragmentedAndroid
Microsoft bullying HTC into paying a fee to avoid being sued has nothing to do with Google.
Oh and there are quality games on Android just like the iPhone, it takes time for the platform to mature and the iPhone has a three year head start, not only that but every idiot and their mother flocks to anything with the fruit on it while Apple being Apple doesn't allow for consumer rights like Google does with allowing a 24 hour trial period and refund option. Apple just takes your money and tells you to shove off, so naturally it's more lucrative for developers.
But of course someone with your name will argue this because of your obvious bias. Never mind that there are three versions of the iPhone with a fourth about to come out. The original iPhone isn't getting an update to the new software but pay no attention to that, that's not "fragmentation" at all.
You people are charlatans.
I'd hate to say it, but here's the most logical solution.
Upgrade all 'legacy' phones to 1.6 and keep it as the XP of the family
Then upgrade all other phones to 2.2 when it is released.
After this, stop support and pull market for all other phones to try and lever manufacturers and carriers into upgrading.
This is why i cant do Android.. and who wants to spend $700 for an unlocked N1
@Don G An unlocked N1 is 529 USD.
@FragmentedAndroid Are you daft?
Manufacturers are going to start heaping phones into the Android ecosystem. It's free, it's reliable, it's a great OS...
Not to mention the phones are selling.
Seriously, looking at your past comments, you need to go back to school or read a book or something.
@FragmentedAndroid HTC is paying for access to Microsofts patent portfolio to counter Apples Lawsuit and apparently launch their own. Why do you think no one else is paying microsoft for android? get real man htc is benefiting quite a bit from that set up
@camroncake sorry, I don't have money to get a contract that allows me to upgrade every 3 months or so.
@SteveyAyo Hate to break it to ya, but Microsoft's patents are not going to help HTC in their battle with Apple at all. There is no retrospective protection when it comes to patent litigation, and on top of that Apple and Microsoft do not own the same patents, so I don't see the point you're trying to make.
@sonola777 They don't need to own the same patents if HTC can countersue. Apple is likely in violation of some patents that Microsoft owns. HTC is Microsoft's best manufacturer and Microsoft can't afford to lose that.
At this point, I don't see any point in replying to "FragmentedAndroid" anymore. Obvious troll right down to the name.
@juanvaldez Fragmented is too harsh, but like any other platform, android is not perfect, but its growing fast, very fast, that sooner apple will be stupefied with it. Actually, the day that Adobe starts creating apps on the Android will be the day Apple realize their mistake. This is just the beginning. http://j.mp/apple-google-battle-inevitable
@FragmentedAndroid
dude, are you, like, mentally damaged?
have you even looked at android apart from by reading this article?
android has plenty of games, and with the introduction of 2.2 to devices they can run games in webpages and such, take kongregate for example, it is full of hundreds, if not thousands, of AMAZING games, and is playable on android devices
id suggest you read up and get some facts next time
@bjsguess well i think that when android was originally developed it lacked most of the functionality and looks of the current 2.1 or 2.2 and sense and moto blur compensated for that which was incredibly important at the time, agreed less so now. But im sure the manufacturers are thinking that people are buying their phones for more then the hardware and i'd have to agree. I have a HTC Desire, the differences hardware wise between it and the N1 are minimal in the long run but i much much prefer the sense approach to stock, it looks much nicer, flows incredibly well and has more features but on the other hand i hate blur but i bet some people like it.
I must admit if i had the choice i would update to froyo now and then when the sense add on comes out id download it but i would definitly be downloading froyo for my desire now if i could and i dont see why they cant do that, just treat sense as a seperate application and have seperate OTA updates for it, it already is a seperate application as you see from the task manager
@FragmentedAndroid lol you are the troll account5 its funny you already have banned twice how many names are you going to make
@FragmentedAndroid manufacturers avoid Google at their own risk of getting left behind
@bjsguess
I fully agree
Sense or Blur are just apps, it will be better if they just are coded as simpel apps.
The problem is even higher for Sony with the X10, Sony is waiting to update the X10 just because of this buggy and scrap Timescape and Mediascape apps are coded inside Android, this is just unsane.
A petition is online to ask Sony for a Froyo update:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?froyo
Already 400 signatures
Thanks for your help...
@bjsguess
I'm a software developer (in a very different field) and I work constantly on differences between an underlying platform and local customisations. Local customisations cause big problems.
The solution is not necessarily to reduce the functionality of these customisations, but for the platform owners (Google) to provide standard 'hooks' where customisation providers can connect in parts of their own code. So in other words, rather than a provider making changes to standard parts of the operating system, they just make a plug-in which the operating system calls. At least in theory, if the API remains stable, this means these plug-ins will continue to work through any system upgrade. Of course, if the platform has new features, the plug-ins won't automatically gain these features (so the plugin might work exactly the same as it used to with the old OS version); but if it's a case of, say, an app requiring a newer platform version, it should just work.
I don't know anything about Android development so maybe this is already how it's done - but with this type of work there is always a chance to make it better (by providing more specific / detailed / organised places to connect in your customisations). For example, let's suppose the OS has a hook where a provider can change the home screen software. That's great but it means your whole home screen is stuck on the 'old version' through any updates. Instead/as well they could provide separate hooks for 'display the top bar', 'display a widget', etc.
The way to design this would be for Google to look at what manufacturers are doing to change the interface, and figure out where they need to add the possibility for such customisation so that it could run on top of a 'stock' Android build without breaking through future updates. I'm sure they are already doing this, maybe it's already been achieved in newer versions and only the customisations built for old ones have been left behind, etc.
Anyway it's a hard problem but the solution rests both with Google (provide more ways to customise the OS in a manner that will continue to work through version updates) and with manufacturers (stick to the provided ways to customise it, use them properly, and don't fall into the temptation to change something else by hacking the OS code).
No doubt neither aspect of this is helped by the ferocious speed of changes...
@Shooter McGavin
Apple doesn't sell the first generation iPhone. On the other hand, vendors still sell "old" hardware that won't update to froyo. How are consumers suppose to know that? They don't. Hence, fragmentation.
@Shooter McGavin
Actually it does, because Google's one of the biggest companies on Earth.. they knew they were walking all over tons of patents, and thought they would get away with it by giving Android for free.
Way to look out for your partners, Eric ;)
@juanvaldez Because android is still a young OS. Updating users to a new version while removing the "skin" would cause the users to lose useful manufacturer solutions, such as the x10's camera software. This wouldn't be all that different from a g1 power user updating to android 2.01 and doesn't solve the problem of the general consumer.
Like it or not, some of the "layers" on top of Android are necessary, like if the cell carrier imposes requirements on the manufacturer.
@Everyone
If anyone still needs proof of how well Android is doing, check this out:
http://url.joemedia.com.au/android
@bjsguess I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that "handset makers simply don't adopt a straight port of the newest Android build". Google needs to adopt a unified UI theme for stock Android (if I were Google, I would contract with HTC to design the base UI). These UI elements can then be skinned by downloading software from the Android Marketplace. The problem isn't obsolete hardware but rather the slow pace of hardware manufacturers like HTC and telcos to update their overlays to the base OS to keep up. The Hero, Eris, and Moment are all capable of running Android 2.1. The delay between the OS release and availability on these phones has little to do with Google IMHO. Google has already released Android 2.2 (at least to the Nexus One) while these phones are just getting upgraded to 2.1. If the model doesn't change, people will vote with their wallets and buy iPhones or Palm devices that are not rendered obsolete with the next OS update (b/c the vendors want to make a buck by selling a newer phone and not providing updates to older ones just 1 generation old).
@Wesscoast Hey to make a "well actually" comment, but Google is really not that big when it comes to corporate size or revenues in comparison to other corporations. In fact, they aren't even top 10 of tech companies if you include cell providers and ISPs.
Not to say Google doesn't have influence, because they clearly do. They just aren't that big on the grand scale. I think every once in a while we need a little context on an enthusiast site like this, as we tend to live in a bubble.
@juanvaldez Because "sense" is not just a "Skin", it is also a set of dependent widgets and applications. The user might have huge amounts of data and features tied up with the Sense-applications/widgets. If an update to vanilla was to suddenly remove all those things It wouldn't make sense (pun intended) would it.
@Shooter McGavin
"But of course someone with your name will argue this because of your obvious bias. Never mind that there are three versions of the iPhone with a fourth about to come out. The original iPhone isn't getting an update to the new software but pay no attention to that, that's not "fragmentation" at all."
It isn't fragmentation, it is called legacy, as explained nicely in the article. But you didn't read the whole article, did you? Read a couple of paragraphs and then decided to give your uninformed opinion.
@Shooter McGavin Don't forget that, while the Android Market's policy regarding refunds is great for consumers, it hasn't made developers very happy, particularly those who sell games.
@bjsguess
Android is not fragmented and older phones are not obsolete..
Please count the different BB, WinMo, and iPhone versions out there
With HTC Snaps, HD2s, Kins, Zune HDs, BB Storms, Curves, Bolds, iPad, iPod Touches, iPhone 2gs 3gs 3gses, and etc etc etc... The other OSes are more fragmented in my opinion.. Most Android phones are either on Cupcake or Eclair
And you buy a phone for what it does at that time.. You are not owed ANY updates by ANY company.. A G1, HTC Touch, and an iPhone 2G can BARELY be called obsolete so I dont want to hear anything about a 2009 Hero is obsolete because they dont have live wallpapers, oh no! Get outta her man Android is doing fine look at the numbers
@Natedawg11 I agree 100%. The G1 is still being sold along with the HTC Hero. These phones are dead in the water, cannot use many of the new great apps and will confuse consumers.
It's why I left Android for the time being.
Apple doesn't sell the original iPhone and even the 3G will get some of 4.0's features.
@blekpiah
Android is the crazy quilt mobile platform. Vendors have gone nuts trying to put a different face on every smartphone they make. Dude buys an Android handset and it will be non-upgradeable in a couple of months. If that isn't fragmentation then I don't know what is. Maybe this is only a temporary thing and Android will mature and not need to be upgraded as frequently.
This article stinks of someone who bonded to much with the person interviewed for the article...but underneath the true key to apples model appears: one phone, one platform and the marketers decide when obsolete should occur...this whole thing keeps the public comforted and willing to buy. One of the reasons I think Nokia missed the ship is that it releases to many different handsets and confuses the market. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm looking to buy an android phone.
@juanvaldez
I think Google was working on separating the 'skins' like Sense UI etc so the under lying version of Andriod could be updated and still work with the sense 'skin'
@juanvaldez wow, do you really think us normal mortals will be happy if the user interface on our phones flipflops between vanilla and vendor-customized like a landed fish every time new releases come out?!
@JOEmedia
It seems obvious to me that Google will take more market share than Apple, after all they give Android away for free. Whether that makes them as much money compared to Apple's model of selling software, hardware, apps, music etc is what investors care about. The 'experience' is what consumers care about. Market share is of concern only to the networks and phone manufacturers. Success isn't necessarily having the largest market share. The Google vs Apple war is great for consumers though and both models have their merits. It's MS who need to worry - is there any room left for them I wonder? I suspect their entry into the post-iPhone market will be greeted with as much success as the Zune.
@Shooter McGavin
The iPhone AppStore has not had a three year head start, it became available in OS version 2.0 which came out in July of 2008. The Android market opened in October of 2008.
@juanvaldez
This solution is well and good for power users... for the type of people who would be on Engadget commenting on it.
However, for the average consumer who just purchased a Hero without batting an eye, they don't know the stock Android skin. Switching from Sense to the stock skin is akin to when Microsoft put the ribbon in Office... all the same functionality, but average consumers felt lost.
I think a better solution is what @bjsguess suggested. Build the skin on top of the stock platform, but run it as an app. This allows power users who know what they're doing to remove it, average consumers won't know the difference, and upgrades would be extremely fast. The only downside would be a slight performance hit as this would probably require more resources than building the skin into the OS, but it's worth it.
@Shooter McGavin I think you're nuts. Apple is about to have its first device that isn't going to be supported by there latest OS. Technology at best has a 3 year shelf life and the original 2G just hit that. You can not compare that track record to Googles. Android phones seem to have quick shelf lives and OS updates have not been universal. Until Verizon went on their massive buy one get one free bonanza most device were running old versions of Android with no chance of accessing modern features. The reason HTC feels compelled to release Android with Sense is because the stock UI looks and feels like crap to many.
The core geek crowd might be able to live with some of the rough edges, but I am tired of it myself. Andoid is going to be fine, but its not there yet and playing up its weaknesses as features is exactly what you are accusing Apple of.
Lastly, don't kid yourself regarding gaming on Android. It's a joke compared to iPhone. That's called reality. It should get better, but we're still waiting to see. Android is getting up there in age now, so there is no reason to still see game companies pass on Android ports for WebOS - ala Gameloft etc.
@juanvaldez
I've been thinking the same thing for a while now. Why you can't put your own rom on these phones blows my mind.
What are we on right now T900? itll only get better
Im busy watching full blown flash videos on my N1
@stabbytheicepic
You ****...
-.-
@stabbytheicepic
Commenting in-between crashes?
@dorothymantooth lol no crashes here. It just works, and it's magical
@stabbytheicepic
I only trust that word out of Jobs's mouth. :) Just updated my N1 to Froyo (long install!!!) and Flash has been so/so, crashed twice out of 5 videos. Also, have you noticed yours getting real hot?
@dorothymantooth not any hotter then normal.
@stabbytheicepic
I think my N1 yelled at me..
I was playing a flash video, and it crashed.. and i swear to god I think I heard "Dont play it again, you ****"
....
I am so scared you guys :'(
@stabbytheicepic
I guess you like watching slideshows
@Technologeee
That's weird. My nexus has been talking to me, too, after I downloaded the update.
http://www.theonion.com/video/new-google-phone-service-whispers-targeted-ads-dir,17470/
@dorothymantooth it's crashed twice on five videos, and you call that so-so? Your standard are REALLY low.