Google: Android fragmentation 'is a boogeyman, a red herring'
By Chris Ziegler 
posted June 1st 2010 5:17PM
posted June 1st 2010 5:17PM
Sure, as Android goes, the term "fragmentation" has meant moderately different things in different contexts over the past couple years -- fair enough. But the fact remains that releasing six major revisions of any platform within the span of 19 months (four of which are in heavy user circulation) is unprecedented and potentially unsettling to manufacturers and consumers alike. Your average Joe isn't going to understand why, for example, his HTC Hero that he bought a few months back can't use the Buzz widget or some of the cooler features in Google Maps, and Google hasn't done a very good job of explaining or justifying it, other than by blocking incompatible apps and updates from being visible in the Market."Because it means everything, it actually means nothing, so the term is useless. Stories on 'fragmentation' are dramatic and they drive traffic to pundits' blogs, but they have little to do with reality. 'Fragmentation' is a bogeyman, a red herring, a story you tell to frighten junior developers. Yawn."
Morrill's point is that "fragmentation" -- however you define it -- isn't to be feared. He writes that developers control their own destiny thanks to a combination of tools that allow apps to be targeted to specific Android versions, tight restrictions by Google over use of the "Android" name only on hardware that meets stringent spec requirements (which manufacturers are "motivated" to adhere to), and an assurance that every app is forward compatible with future builds.
Ultimately, we'd argue that Morrill is simply changing the subject here, but we think the conversation will become moot over time anyway. Speaking with the San Jose Mercury News, Android chief Andy Rubin talks about slowing things down -- something we'd said would happen not long ago:
Rubin goes on to say what we've all been seeing from the outside: Android is maturing from a very feature-incomplete platform into a fully-featured one, and as such, Google will start to have the luxury of taking on a less maniacal release schedule. It's not often we're against fast, frequent product releases -- but we think we could all use a little breather from AOAD (Android Obsolescence Anxiety Disorder) right now."Our product cycle is now, basically twice a year, and it will probably end up being once a year when things start settling down, because a platform that's moving -- it's hard for developers to keep up."
Fragmentation exists, but it's not Google's fault; it's the lazy-ass manufacturers who won't take the time to update. Look at Samsung who says that the Behold "isn't capable of updating past 1.6" -- 100% bullsh~t!!!
The other alternative is of course that Google creates all these amazing new features and then... just sits on them. Then NO ONE can enjoy them.
How is that better?
@Johnny Rockets
Google could've defined that all OEMs must support a certain number of upgrades, they could've redefined the hardware requirements to better suit the OS. The reason why they didn't is because they just want to get as many devices running some version of Android just to have the market share and as many people using google services as possible.
Its not google's fault. Ultimately every manufacturer wants to keep the software outdated, by keeping it outdated it tempts buyers to activate that ETF, it tempts them to drop another 200 dollars on the newest phone that comes out 3 months after you bought the last. By updating the phones, they can last the one or two years before you are eligible for an upgrade, and maybe even a year after that. Its just manufacturers wanting to make more money. With all the hype Google is getting with the new iterations its not their problem, they should just keep updating as fast as possible until they get their UI and software all tweaked to near perfection, when the big release comes once a year, minor releases whenever. Until that time, or until the time when you can do your own update.zip install on EVERY phone model, its going to be fragmented, because it makes economic sense.
Wasn't Android supposed to open source? So why is everyone complaining about hardware companies changing things in the OS? Be careful what you wish for.
@erikb
Because the hardware is locked down to prevent users from actually exercising the rights they should have under the software license, like installing new versions.
Tell that to the bastard child that is motoblur.
Ya i also agree with you mike it may be future update for us but it looks great whetever it is and google also play his role as well ....
Steve what do you actually mean ?
man he's gone nuts
www.androiddevelopmenttalk.com
Android blog
Simply walk into a best buy or any other store that carries phones from the major carriers to see how bad this really is.
There's no way i can get into a OS that leaves you behind so quickly, to me putting out so many "updates" just means that they are putting out unfinished software, which is fine if you just need to fine tune it a bit later (thats the beauty of software) but not if you just keep adding one or two "features" every 2 months. Remember that most carriers only let u upgrade your phone every 12 months or so.
there are 5 people at my job that have Android phones... out of those 5 there are 3 versions of Android running right now.
WTF?
it's simple folks, android ain't for sheeple. For that you got apple crap. Enjoy your crap. Stay away from cult following memes.
Isn't Google going to implement their "component" design in the future (possibly Android 3.0)? This would be great as it would separate your basic software from the application and everyone with a certain baseline would get all the updates for it. If they do this, it would reduce fragmentation down to the basic software (essentially drivers). So if you have android 3.0, you get all the updates for 3.1, 3.2, 3.3,etc. Then when android 4.0 came out, you have the option to upgrade your handset or stay with your current phone+baseline.
Android developers probable main beef is screen size and resolution. There are just so many. Your app may look okay in some devices but are unreadable/unuseable in others. And one can't very well test on all the range of devices if one's just a small developer.
Google's best move to combat fragmentation would be to bind the hands of the manufacturers. You would have less handsets, much less diversity, and little to no OS customization (HTC Sense, MOTO Blur, etc). So... If you take out those good points that android has, you'll end up with something similar to the iphone. If you eliminate all the options, and force people to buy a new iteration of a Nexus One each year, then you now have apple's gameplan.
Google is providing people with the Fragmentation-Free version of Android by selling the Nexus One. If that is a major concern you could always buy that phone for use on T-Mobile or AT&T (at least that's more carriers than you can buy the iphone for out of the box).
Manufacturers like HTC and Moto are providing these custom UI changes as a way to differentiate their products, which helps them in the marketing/sales arenas. I can't blame them for doing so, because they are trying to provide reasons you should buy "their" handset over the next person's handset, but the downside is the continued development costs and delayed updates.
There is no right or wrong answer to the issue of fragmentation, nor is it a purely good or bad thing. I think the pro's out-way the cons, only because the Google Experience devices give the option of a fragmented-free future (at least for the normal 1yr or 2yr cycle nowadays). Though I really like what HTC and Moto are doing on the high-end hardware side.
As a final side note: I own an iphone, not android.
Solution to your platform's biggest problem: deny its existence.
The way I see it, there are two kinds of fragmentation in the Android OS. The first, is horizontally, different versions of Android made by OEMs, EG, Motoblur, Sense. This offers differentiation between the different Android devices, whilst still allowing everyone access to the wide wealth of Android apps. This kind of fragmentation is a good thing, good for consumers, as they can get a better tailored experience for their taste, good for manufacturers, because it allows them to differentiate themselves from the other Android phones resulting in more sales.
Then there is the vertical fragmentation, caused by Google adding new APIs and functionality to new versions of Android. This is greatly up-played by blogs. About 99% of apps will run on Android 1.6. This vertical fragmentation is bad, as it results in confused, maybe slightly disappointed customers, sometimes.
Now, the thing is, the only way to get rid of the vertical fragmentation is to get rid of the horizontal fragmentation. It basically comes down to what is worse, all Android phones being the same with no differentiating factors for manufacturers, no tailored experience for consumers, and no choice for carriers, certain phones not being able to run 1% of apps?
I agree that fragmentation is the wrong word. Linux is fragmented; there are over a hundred active distros. There are three main versions of Android: stock, Sense, and Motoblur.
When I was shopping for a new phone, I assumed that the phones running 1.x would always be running 1.x. That's why I ended up settling on the Nexus One.
On the mac, we have this little thing called Software Update. It keeps our OS updated to the latest version. Imagine that?
Honestly though, why the hell can't google just push out updates to anyone with out-of-date android software? Problem solved.
I am sticking with web OS, the best mobile operating system out there. It is somewhat open source, but not to the point of fragmentation (frankensteintation)
So why can't I install the Adobe Flash 10.1 Beta on my Vodafone Australia, HTC, Google Experience Magic running the latest update Android 1.6?
If it's not fragmentation what is it.
So Google is denying that all these Android devices running different versions-some several revisions old-complicate things for their platform more than they should?
I've seen this fragmentation issue before. It happened with Palm OS. It happened with Windows Mobile. It's happening to Android, and unless Google does something to get all those devices up to 2.2/Froyo or whatever the latest version may be at the moment, it'll get equally out of hand. (And, no, letting the guys at xda-developers do all the dirty work as they've been doing with WM doesn't count.)
If a developer chooses to only support later versions of the OS, then those folks with a device stuck on 1.6 aren't going to be very happy-especially if there isn't an updated custom ROM available yet, if ever. It tarnishes the image of the platform.
Perhaps this is one of those instances where the OS provider needs to have more control over their hardware partners, since said partners have a habit of faffing about with OS updates, if they even provide them (again, see Windows Mobile). Sometimes they don't provide updates because they'll try to sell you a new device instead. Palm did it, HP and the others who had HTC build WM devices for them did it...
It's not like it's even difficult for google to fix. Why not just change the licence so any manufacturer that releases a product based on android must provide OS updates for a set amount of time say 2 years. Obviously hardware supporting....
I really don't think it will affect sales the way phone manufacturers seem to think it will. The majority of people get new subsidised phone when their contract runs out or they break their current phone. 2 Years of guaranteed updates would be an additional selling point to stay competitive with iPhones.