Related
Everytime I read mobile.engadget or any gadget site for that matter, I see posts "dogging" the Android operating system about how they are fragmented and certain apps/games won't work for older OS's/devices. Our EVOs have been out for almost 6 months now and this phone is still rock solid IMO but I wonder how fragmented (if at all) this OS is and what that means for this phone and future android devices. I'm literally asking cause I have no idea. And also what the heck is fragmented actually mean, cause all I get out of this is that the older Android devices just can't run the app or game because of the older/slower specs not necessarily because of the OS.
It would help if you posted the link. When you say fragmented, I would guess that this means that Android Users are divided between those that can run an application on said device and those that can't.
This is not any different that using M$ OS's as well. Not all applications will run on older Operating Systems. This is partly due to Hardware upgrades and partly due to marketing. If all software were reverse compatible then people would be less likely to upgrade their devices. Also the list of Drivers would get longer and longer as the Android Developers add phones to their database.
Apple only has what, 4 phones and 2 or 3 Ipod Touch's? And realistically most of the people that own these would have the 3rd or 4th Gen. Phone anyways. I think the "fragmentation" problem will exist on no matter what platform OS you are using, its just that Android is on sooooo many devices now ranging from Phones/TV and now its going into cars. It wouldn't surprise me to see it on X-box since they like to run Linux code.
So yeah.... Long story short its due to all of the different devices and the fact that no one keeps electronics for any length of time but IMHO Android will start to get a lot more life out of their electronics since the software is upgradeable like on a PC.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. We saw the same thing in the computer desktop arena. At one point you had Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, Win95, WinNT, and Win98 all running around at the same time. Going back even further all the different flavors of DOS. The PC industry survived so will Android. Eventually you will have to upgrade so fragmentation is pretty much a moot point. IMHO
My guess would be because there are phones running multiple versions of the OS such as 1.6/2.1/2.2. Some apps such as task killers will work on 1.6 and 2.1 but not 2.2+. Game compatibility seems more reliant on what that particular phone is capable of. Our phones can handle just about any game available whereas a G1 or MT3G is far more limited.
Sent from my HTC SUPERSONIC
Fragmentation refers to the fact that there are so many different versions of android the app developers have to code for. With the Iphone for example most everyone is at version 4.1 or 4.2. Android devices are being released with 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 2.2 and soon 2.3. It makes it extremely hard to code and optimize apps across all versions. I foresee this has having no negative effects on our beloved EVO's for though.
People like to point out the fact that there are multiple android devices, and not all of them are on the newest os (like some of the sgs phones not having froyo, or the moment, or hero for example). unlike the iphone, where there is only one device of each generation, and when the update is released, everyone can get it.
My take on this is I like variety, just because I like my Evo doesn't mean it suits everyone. Just like there are a ton of people that consider a hardware keyboard a must have, yet I would rather not have one. Having to wait for HTC and Sprint to release the newest version to my phone, or wait for one of the amazing developers contributing their hard work and skill to port it for use is just fine with me. Would it be nice to get it the moment google pushes it out, probably, however I can almost bet that the Nexus line will always get first crack anyway. This is just my two cents, I hope the explanation helps.
Sent from my HTC SuperSonic 4G using the XDA app.
Brutal-Force said:
It would help if you posted the link. When you say fragmented, I would guess that this means that Android Users are divided between those that can run an application on said device and those that can't.
This is not any different that using M$ OS's as well. Not all applications will run on older Operating Systems. This is partly due to Hardware upgrades and partly due to marketing. If all software were reverse compatible then people would be less likely to upgrade their devices. Also the list of Drivers would get longer and longer as the Android Developers add phones to their database.
Apple only has what, 4 phones and 2 or 3 Ipod Touch's? And realistically most of the people that own these would have the 3rd or 4th Gen. Phone anyways. I think the "fragmentation" problem will exist on no matter what platform OS you are using, its just that Android is on sooooo many devices now ranging from Phones/TV and now its going into cars. It wouldn't surprise me to see it on X-box since they like to run Linux code.
So yeah.... Long story short its due to all of the different devices and the fact that no one keeps electronics for any length of time but IMHO Android will start to get a lot more life out of their electronics since the software is upgradeable like on a PC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One example of many if you google...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/entelligence-will-android-fragmentation-destroy-the-platform/
Yeah I'm not smart enough to know if this would effect our phones or not, but who really knows as of right now? Why doesn't Android just do what MS did and make a standard for what the manufacturers need to build in order for it to be up to par for Android (for once MS did something right in that regard IMO). Is that what Honeycomb is suppose to accomplish, a minimal spec sheet for manufacturers?
My two cents:
I think the "fragmentation" issue is primarily software related and is the fault of the manufacturers and service providers. That said, I think the most important issue is whether the fragmentation discourages developers from creating apps for Android.
As hardware and software advances there will always be features that will work on some phones and not work on others. This occurs with the iPhone too and is no surprise, however, Apple still rolls out new OS's to all phones so that the vast majority of users are on the same platform.
While Google has been releasing two versions of Android per year, it is the manufacturers and service providers who decide whether or not to roll out the updates and that seems to be a crapshoot. Since the manufacturers are not just tolling out vanilla Android, instead choosing to overlay their own UI on top (e.g. Touchwiz or Sense UI), this would require effort on their part to rework their UI to keep up with Android updates. And, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't... So, even though you have hardware in circulation perfectly capable of running newer versions of Android they don't because the manufacturers don't allow it.
I think most people would agree the number of quality apps in the iTunes store far exceeds the number of quality apps in the Android Market. However, Android has been outselling the iPhone for almost a year now. The question is: Is it the "fragmentation" keeping developers from porting their apps to Android? Or, is it something else? If it IS the fragmentation then I AM worried. I think 2011 is an important year for Android and I remain optimistic the Apps will come. It'll be interesting if they don't...
To Be Continued...
the evil fragmentation comes from low-end android phones also some developers not properly coding
Beejis said:
One example of many if you google...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/entelligence-will-android-fragmentation-destroy-the-platform/
Yeah I'm not smart enough to know if this would effect our phones or not, but who really knows as of right now? Why doesn't Android just do what MS did and make a standard for what the manufacturers need to build in order for it to be up to par for Android (for once MS did something right in that regard IMO). Is that what Honeycomb is suppose to accomplish, a minimal spec sheet for manufacturers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
simple to answer i think, here's the thing, not every phone is going to be the same, just like not every carrier is the same, what i mean is that each manufacturer is going to have their own set of hardware and specs to follow, thus giving them an option to best choose the Android version that best suits the phone they are building.
Engadget is a huge iEverything fan, so they will help bash android and google just as much as Mr. duschbag, sorry i meant Job's, but you get the point, after all it was Jobs that first coined the whole android is fragmented war, however someone correct me if i'm wrong.
Besides if manufacturer were to listen to android about having a set standard then we might as well also be referred to as Apple, but since we're not under the dictatorship of Stevie, we don't have to worry about that.
Android fragmentation deals with both software and hardware.
Software-wise you have different phones having different Android versions -- OEMs seem to only support their phones for a year, sometimes even less, and sometimes not at all after it's release. You already see this problem with 1.6 vs 2.0 vs 2.1 vs 2.2; and as soon as Gingerbread appears you'll be seeing a sudden split between Android version share. This causes problems for developers because each Android version supports varying API levels, so some phones are inevitably left behind by developers.
Hardware-wise you have a lot of phones that are very different. You can have two phones of the same Android version and you'll still see app incompatibilities. Different CPUs, GPUs, cameras, etc., causes developers to work extra hard to make them all work; this sometimes leads them to drop support for some either because of the extra work it would take or because the hardware is just two low end. This is especially true with games and a reason why I think iOS/WP7 will be the leading mobile gaming platforms in a couple of years.
A lot of people think that Android Market will suddenly become the best once Android's market share inevitably over runs iOS; and I personally think it wont because of fragmentation. I don't think people understand just how expensive it is to develop and design an app that is of the top ~10% iOS quality -- it's in the 100's of thousands. Supporting Android is just that much more difficult for developers. Then there's the fact that a lot of the increasing market share is coming from low end phones which: 1) will probably suffer the worse from the fragmentation problem (incompatibilities with apps), and 2) would most likely not even invest into many paid apps anyway.
Beejis said:
One example of many if you google...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/entelligence-will-android-fragmentation-destroy-the-platform/
Yeah I'm not smart enough to know if this would effect our phones or not, but who really knows as of right now? Why doesn't Android just do what MS did and make a standard for what the manufacturers need to build in order for it to be up to par for Android (for once MS did something right in that regard IMO). Is that what Honeycomb is suppose to accomplish, a minimal spec sheet for manufacturers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel did it, M$ did it, AMD did it, Nvidia did it and Apple is doing it now. The reason we use Android is so that Corporations don't MAKE us do it. Also, companies like M$, Intel and Nvidia have been pulled into court for things like this. In the end, they "open" back up, because thats what people want.
Brutal-Force said:
Intel did it, M$ did it, AMD did it, Nvidia did it and Apple is doing it now. The reason we use Android is so that Corporations don't MAKE us do it. Also, companies like M$, Intel and Nvidia have been pulled into court for things like this. In the end, they "open" back up, because thats what people want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People want open? Really? People just want good phones.
Best example....
Most people upgrade their phones every two years. So it won't really matter so long in those two years we get at least one upgrade.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
novanosis85 said:
Best example....
Most people upgrade their phones every two years. So it won't really matter so long in those two years we get at least one upgrade.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you'd be okay rocking a 1.6 phone right now and for maybe another year?
This may have been an issue a year ago but if you check this link:
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html
you can see that 77% of android devices are 2.1 and 2.2. Newer versions of the OS will hopefully decouple software updates from the actual service carrier and phone manufacturer, increasing this percentage even further.
Google makes available many guides for deploying your application and being able to support across all versions. Also, the sdk easily allows you to target the newest version and features while still maintaining portability to older OS versions.
Basically, unless you are developing some crazy cutting edge application then 'fragmentation' is not an issue, hardware or software. Using that as a dividing factor with regards to gauging the success of the operating system is by now a stretch from the truth.
elegantai said:
This may have been an issue a year ago but if you check this link:
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html
you can see that 77% of android devices are 2.1 and 2.2. Newer versions of the OS will hopefully decouple software updates from the actual service carrier and phone manufacturer, increasing this percentage even further.
Google makes available many guides for deploying your application and being able to support across all versions. Also, the sdk easily allows you to target the newest version and features while still maintaining portability to older OS versions.
Basically, unless you are developing some crazy cutting edge application then 'fragmentation' is not an issue, hardware or software. Using that as a dividing factor with regards to gauging the success of the operating system is by now a stretch from the truth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd argue that the large share of 2.1/2.2 devices is due to the fact that Android has finally gotten popular and sales of current devices has really picked up. So a majority of phones are currently newer 2.x devices. Lets see how this is once 2.3 is released and OEMs fail to keep them up to date just as how it has been in the past.
That is one possibility, but if you look at the bottom of that page there is a stacked line graph representing the historical distribution over the past 6 months.
If you look at version 2.1 and compare its slope to 1.5/1.6 you can see that the older versions follow the same slope as the 2.1 slope, meaning that 2.1 phones were actually replacing physical phones running 1.5 and 1.6.
If you look at when 2.2 takes a steep upward slope you will not notice the same pattern of 2.1 and older following the slope of 2.2, which tells me that more people upgraded from 2.1 to 2.2.
So if this pattern holds, then hopefully it means phone manufactures are starting to realize the importance of providing newer operating systems for their devices. But as you said, we will see!
It's fragmented, but people wouldn't care if all the apps worked across all versions. That's really the only problem.
The average person does not care how many mflops their device scores in linpack or what their quadrant score is, they just want to play Angry Birds, and their phone they bought last year can't, and they aren't able to upgrade yet.
clamknuckle said:
The average person does not care how many mflops their device scores in linpack or what their quadrant score is, they just want to play Angry Birds, and their phone they bought last year can't, and they aren't able to upgrade yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
10char.
Hello Everyone!
Let me start off by reaching out to the XDA Administrative staff. I would like to thank you for keeping this awesome place in operation. Without you, and the XDA community, I'm not sure Android development would be as vibrant. Also, if this thread is in the wrong location, please shift it to where you would like it.
I am an Android user, not a developer, and I feel the future of the Android OS is not headed where I want it to. I'm writing this post to see if anyone has any further thoughts on the matter.
Google is marketing Android as an Open Source OS. You are able to download the source, modify it as you wish, and then build it. If you are running a vanilla build of Android (i.e. Nexus S) you are able to alter your experience as you see fit. The issue I foresee isn't the fragmentation of the Android versions (which is still debated as an issue), but rather the fragmentation of the user experience.
When an end-user purchases a handset from most major carriers, they receive an Android device. Between different handsets, and carriers, the features that are available to a single user can vary exponentially (i.e. the inability to install APK files, bypassing the market, on AT&T devices). This device is still based on Android, but is it still Android?
I have no problem with manufacturers adding their own code to the Android system, as long as the core functionality is kept the same. When you begin to alter the basic functionality of the system, at what point is it no longer Android? Linux Mint is derived from Ubuntu, but it is no longer Ubuntu. The system is a derivative of Ubuntu. If the base of the OS is going to be altered drastically (by manufacturer or by request of carrier) it needs to be known that the device is not Android.
As I am most familiar with HTC Android devices, I will use HTC SenseUI as an example (although, as I think about this more it may not be the best example). The core functionality of the HTC devices is similar, but not entirely the same. Most of the default applications (Browser, Contacts, Dialer) have been altered to what HTC feels is more atheistically pleasing. However, these features are additions. They are not removing functionality from the device.
With my HTC Evo (by default) there are core functionalities removed. Without rooting my device, I am unable to tether via WiFi. Even when rooting, if I want to keep the 4G experience, I need to install a third party application to tether instead of simply using the functionality that was supposed to be built in to Android. Why? Sprint has decided to bake their own hotspot functionality into the core of the OS. Yet to use it, I am required to pay an extra $30 fee on top of my [i/unlimited[/i] data plan. I am not knocking Sprint, here. As long as I have used their service, I’ve had nothing but stellar performance and the price point is perfect.
I feel with this core functionality removed, my Evo is no longer Android. It’s simply Android-based, an Android derived OS. The problem with these manufacturers, and their Android-derived operating system, is the lack-luster experience the consumers get with the product.
I started my Android experience on an HTC CDMA Hero. It took me eight months to get any major software upgrades (The device ran Android 1.5 from factory). Why? Because it was taking so long for manufacturers to bake their Features into the OS. If I was not a techie, I feel this experience would have pushed me away from the Android platform. I fear this fragmentation that is occurring could be the downfall of the Android platform.
I want to be able to buy a device. I want to be running the newest version of Android. If I do not like the ROM that came on the phone, I want to be able to change that. But I do not want to purchase a phone with all of this baked in garbage, or aesthetic features that require me to wait long periods of times for my device to be upgraded to the newest version of Android. And, I hope that I am not the only person to feel this way.
So here is my idea, pending input from the Android community of course: An open letter, with a petition, to all members of the OHA requesting for Android devices to be Android! Unadulterated Android OS from Google (With minor modifications to ensure specific hardware is working properly). Requesting that we are given access to the entire device, that we paid for, without having to exploit the operating system to obtain the ability to modify it as we see fit. If a manufacturer, or carrier, does not wish to comply with this, they will not be able to market the device as being Android. Rather, the device is based on Android.
Honestly, I’m not sure what I am looking to accomplish. Maybe, just so they know we are just as interested in Android as they are. And that we want nothing but for Android to succeed. Or maybe, that we support Android being open source, but not being heavily modified to the point where it’s a bastardized.
What do you think?
Tim, I support you in your belief that carriers, not manufacturers, are taking the wrong turn by messing with the full functionality that people pay a hefty price to OWN!
Do we truly OWN what we paid for, or are paying for? I don't believe so, for example, the SAMSUNG Vibrant t959, aka the Samsung Galaxy S i9000, same phone but the carriers decided to have certain features removed from the phone, not be MADE without these features, the FM radio HW and the FFC. Many people know these features were REMOVED, due to the leftover molding and other " skeletons"! Would anyone want to have a carrier when they know that they don't want there customers to have the FULLEST experience, like it was meant to be?
Sent from my HTC MyDesireHD 4G!
I would also like to share with you that MANUFACTURERS creating these "skins", I'm going to use HTC Sense for my example, is actually NOT a bad thing at all!
HTC Sense has opened a huge amount of rich content and functionality to there users immensely! HTC Hub, HTC Locations for example! All these add ons are very useful to users and does NOT restrict the full functionality but yet BOOSTS its functionality!
Unfortunately though, carriers decide to take these hearty and supreme names and totally rip it apart by taking away functionality, features, and the most...a good user experience! For example, my phone..the HTC MyTouch 4G aka the HTC Glacier. I received it with something called Sense on it, but any owner knows that is NOT Sense! That is not HTC Sense! After burying myself in the bowels of my new phone, I now have a HTC Desire HD Rom on it that will stay on it until I get the new HTC Sense 2.3 update! The full HTC Sense is a good thing and I strongly believe its worth waiting for!
Sent from my HTC Glacier
I agree, but believe Android is a growing mobile OS. If Google did not push their mobile OS (and let manufactures do what they want). Android probably would not have last against the competition. Its all a survival of the fittest situation. Some people are going to make use of their phones others aren't. Too bad bloatware has been the success for some Android phones. Glad someone else noticed this. Thank you for your thread.
The fact that Android is open source will inevitably have benefits and downfalls.
Benefits being that carriers and manufacturers can add cool stuff. Downfalls being that they can remove good or add awful stuff.
However Google can't have double standards. If it's open source, it's open source, for better or for worse.
An advantage of OEMs participating is that more parties are contributing to coding for android. More innovative ideas are potentially contributed.
For techies this is particularly awesome as we can port awesome features that perhaps weren't designed for our phone and disable lame restrictions. By this way we potentially can have all software benefits of more than one company brand etc.
Being an ordinary consumer in this context can suck.
Tim, while I understand your frustration (trust me, I've felt similar over the past few months), I don't fully agree.
The heart of Android is that it is Open. Open Source is a part of the openness that envelops Android, but what is meant by "Android is open" is so much more. OEM's skinning their devices is part of it; carriers stuffing devices full of their crapware is part of it; heck, even manufacturers/carriers limiting devices' use in one form or another is technically part of it. I think that Google's model with Android is that people can use in whatever way they see fit (except, you know, literally stealing it and claiming that they made and own it) and adapting it to be the OS that they want. Android gives people the freedom to do with it what they like.
I think that Google hopes that carriers, OEMs and everyone else will use it for the better and add to the functionality and maybe even contribute to the Open Source project and thus to the greater Android community and the vision thereof. Sadly, it is not always the case and then you get situations where a carrier or an OEM will limit a device in some way for a quick buck (your example of tethering on the EVO being a good one). I think that what AT&T did/does on their Android devices is as a final product a good example of what Android is not intended to be, but their actions are, technically, still in the spirit of Android.
The way I see Android, it is about the freedom to do whatever you like. Android is then also more for the thinking person as there are literally hundreds of devices to choose from and each one has strengths and weaknesses when compared to the rest. You as a user need to consider what it is that you want from your device and then select the device that is the most suited to your needs.
I want to be able to buy a device. I want to be running the newest version of Android. If I do not like the ROM that came on the phone, I want to be able to change that. But I do not want to purchase a phone with all of this baked in garbage, or aesthetic features that require me to wait long periods of times for my device to be upgraded to the newest version of Android. And, I hope that I am not the only person to feel this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are not the only person that feels that way, I feel the same, which is why I've decided to get myself a Nexus S. It's tricky to get it to this country, but it'll be worth it. I realise that you're on Sprint which means that a Nexus device won't work, correct? A better petition IMO, would be to petition Google to release CDMA versions of their devices.
Sorry to say, but 4G is not derived from android. The phone itself will always support it, harware wise. So, what are you saying? /: Who are you complaining to? ROM chefs for not managing to make the 4G fully functional?
totally agree with you
he is complaining about gimped devices being marketed as android devices. to sum up what i think his messages is; a device should not be called an android device if it is not fully capable of all it's natively supported features, wireless tether, root access etc. but rather should be called android based device.
Good idea but never going to happen. This is driving me away from this platform...
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I'm curious as to what functionality we can get by simply rooting. I'm not seeing the huge deal I may be missing something so I'm asking
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
To me, they should just change the launcher and add their own apps in (NOT replacing) and not touch other stuffs already. If totally not changing the OS makes them look alike. To me, thinking about Windows phone 7 in the future. Imagine seeing so many people holding a phone that has the totally same UI, its like seeing a Sony Ericsson X10 and a HTC Desire totally same except that the casing is different.
Technically, the fact that its open source is supposed to help the majority of OEMs, and in turnfilter down to end users as price cuts/ feature enhancements.
But premium features are premium features. You want some kind of 4g? You wont be getting it from end users at xda - it will come from manufacturers who build the radios and APIs into the device.
Android is a very modular os... if you want something all you have to do is a bit of research and buy the device that fits you best. If you go with one of the other systems you will simply have less choice. That is why android is cool.
aint gonna happen guys, doesnt make good business sense to make a device that does everything, why sell one model when you can sell two!
you can pick up any device out there and say, "wouldnt it be cool if it had VGA out or HD camera or x y z", they wont do it, and the same goes for the OS as well.
Open source has an inherant flaw, and that is its fragmentation, everyone believes it should be going in a direction they would like (including yourself). at the moment its not suffered as much as its desktop cousins probably because of its market place keeping one common aspect through all devices but give it time and you will be right, it will lose its "android" identification
If you want an alternative and a device that keeps its personality then get an Iphone or a new WP7 device at least until they crack that wide open too. Its a bit ironic really that WM may well suck but its very customizable and has been consistant throughout the ages
evo4gnw said:
he is complaining about gimped devices being marketed as android devices. to sum up what i think his messages is; a device should not be called an android device if it is not fully capable of all it's natively supported features, wireless tether, root access etc. but rather should be called android based device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But that's just the thing isn't it? Android can probably support ANYTHING. But because of that, you aren't supposed to release hardware that isn't as flexible? That to me.. is just looney.
Hi XDA-Samsung Users,
I've been a member of XDA since Jan last year. I went from owning a Nexus One to a Samsung Galaxy S i9000. The reason for the change was for the better specs and superior hardware of the Samsung Galaxy.
The phone is an incredible piece of machinery, but is severely hampered by the modifications that Samsung makes to the Android OS. I admit that the codec support within TouchWiz is impressive, but too much of the core framework of the phone is inefficient and sluggish.
Even using the latest release of unofficial firmware Samsung, Android 2.2.1 (JPY), there is still the occasional hang and the missing RAM (which is there somewhere, but not for user applications).
Samsung is mostly to blame, but there is also a quality control element that Google should be responsible for.
I have prepared an open letter that I sent to Android via Google Press and then forwarded on to Samsung for their reference. This were all through publicly available channels so will have to filter through customer service centers and the like.
I'm not expecting much, Google appears to use Amazon's customer service approach, "No customer service is good customer service".
But would like to post it here to hopefully get it out into the wilderness.
I tweeted it here http://twitter.com/#!/ibproud/status/27528781828722688
and would appreciate if you agreed with the content to retweet it. Hopefully it should give it a bit more weight.
It would be interesting to get the communities feedback on how mature they believe Android is.
Do they need to keep trying to make everyone happy or can they start to use the weight of their OS to get manufacturers to align the user experience?
Dear Android Team,
I am writing this letter to air my frustrations and to hopefully get some peace of mind that your strategy for Android will resolve some of the main issues plaguing the platform.
I have now been with Android for over 12 months. I used to be an iPhone user, but couldn’t stand the walled garden that Apple put me in. I couldn’t download directly to the phone, replace the messaging app or sync wirelessly. I went to Android because I wanted the freedom to use my phone more as a desktop replacement than as a phone/mp3 player.
When I joined the Android family (January 2010), I started with the Google Nexus One. I was so keen to get into the Android community I didn’t even wait for it to be on sale in Australia to get it, thus I hit eBay and bought it outright.
I was very pleased with the platform but could still see a few rough edges around the Operating System. It had the usability I was looking for but was lacking the polish I had grown use to with Apple. There was good news on the horizon with an Éclair update that would give the already beautiful phone a nudge in the right direction. As I was in Australia and the phone wasn’t here yet, I had to push the update through myself, after seeing how easy this was and getting the feeling of being a little phone hacker, I was hooked, I started preaching Android to the masses. Australia is still building momentum for the platform and it’s taking some time. Most of the major carriers stock between 4-6 Android devices, most of which are low end or outdated in the overseas markets.
I follow all the key players in the industry through Twitter and have a majority of Google News trackers picking up articles with android related words. I have also now converted my Wife to Android (HTC Desire Z, also not available in Aus) and I picked up the Samsung Galaxy S and gave my sister the Nexus One. The problem I face now is that I’ve run out of money and can’t go out and buy a new Android phone just to be up to date with the latest Android OS (Gingerbread), this would also be the case for most consumers. The Nexus S is so similar to my current hardware that I must be able to leverage the extra performance from the update.
But alas, we reach the major problem with the platform. Fragmentation. I’m not referring to the Fragmentation of the various app stores and apps available based on different OS versions but more to the Fragmentation of the OS based on the custom skins and manufacturer update cycles. The open platform that is closed at 2 levels, Manufactures and Carriers. I will continue to buy my phones outright as it gives me the freedom and flexibility to upgrade my plans as better ones become available. This always guarantees that I’m free from the bloatware that is preloaded on most Carrier bought phones and free from 1 of the barriers to the true AOSP experience. The next barrier is one that is running rampant in the interwebs rumour mill at the moment and that’s manufacturer updates and in my case I refer to Samsung.
Samsung Galaxy S phones come loaded with Android 2.1, most of them internationally are running Android 2.2 and just recently as select group of the devices is getting Android 2.2.1. This is now a month after Android 2.3 was released. For Samsung I would consider this largely negligent, considering they had the opportunity to work with Google to build a Google Experience Phone (Nexus S). The specs of this phone are so similar to the Galaxy range that a port shouldn’t be too difficult. I understand that there are a lot of constraints and dependencies in the development cycle that could cause delays as well as manufacturers agendas (mostly in unit sales). It is great that Samsung have sold so many devices globally but at a cost of the user experience as well as potential damages to long term retention.
I understand the Open nature of Android and the push to encourage manufacturers to put there own spin on the platform, but Android is getting bigger and more mature, it doesn’t need to be High school girl bending to the whims and peer pressure from the carriers and manufacturers.
There are a team of Devs in Germany who are working to port CyanogenMod 7 (Gingerbread) to Galaxy S i9000, but these guys have now spent over four months just trying to get through Samsungs drivers. The team didn’t start just to customise the phone but to actually make the phone work properly, I of course refer to the RFS lag issue and Samsungs modification to the framework that slowed it down. The goal of the team is to maximise the potential of the hardware and operating system.
It would be great to see some muscle from Google thrown into the mix, there doesn’t need to be requirements dictated, but maybe ethics encouraged.
There seems to be a few options here:
- Encourage device manufacturers to share their drivers, if it is too sensitive to share at least work with the community to help them do it themselves.
- Start to break down the way the platform is customised so that way the manufactures (Samsung/HTC/Motorola) skin the platform can sit a layer above the core code, thus be a quick implementation/customisation to get their skins working.
- Get each manufacturer to offer the AOSP experience to advanced users. This can be done through an agreement between the user and manufacture that states this will void the warranty and have its own terms and conditions.
- This last one is a long stretch, but how about taking all the manufacturers drivers into a repository, the way Windows do updates. When a new Android version is developed the drivers can be updated or incorporated and be packaged out through the Android SDK.
I may be completely off the mark. I’m not a developer and couldn’t pretend to know what effort is involved at any stage of the process, from building Android to rolling it out into the latest and greatest phone. The one thing I am though is an End User, a person that wants my phone to do more, to get close to being a desktop replacement.
Maybe I’m also being a bit idealistic.
I hope the Android platform continues to flourish and for it to become the Windows of the mobile era.
Sincerely,
Irwin Proud
E: [email protected]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's really an excellent summary. Consider there're even more black sheeps out there. For example Sony Ericcson which ones recently made a statement like Android is their favourite Smartphone OS and left Symbian in Nokias hands.
But we found also the good ones like HTC, which every Manufacturer should have HTC as its Paragon concerning Android Software Development.
Great write-up; I agree 100%
I agree with your post fully, and concur that the Windows Phone 7 model for OS updates is more efficient, and strikes a happy medium between iOS and Android's approach to upgrades. However it is also more restrictive in terms of handset hardware limitations
I suppose the idea is that customers should vote with their wallets and buy from companies with good software and firmware support. The problem with that is a majority of phone users (android or otherwise) are technically savvy enough to take such support into consideration when looking at the latest and greatest fancy phone in a store. We could all buy the Nexus One or Nexus S only, but this too is restrictive to the customer as other phones offer more/different features
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
What Google should do?
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please allow me to politely disagree. Google can do a lot about this and they have done this also. When I say they have done this - I am talking about not having Market application on Android OSes which come on non-phone hardware.
Google should put similar restrictions for loosley coupled skins, upgradable drivers. I had been giving this a lot of thought lately. I will sum up my thoughts with above letter as above:-
i) Device manufacturer skinning - Google should mandate that it should be just another APK within AOSP and users should be given a choice to turn it off.
ii) Device Drivers - Google should mandate there should be a better way of installing device drivers - similar to what we have in MS Windows (MS Windows is an excellent model of how hardware device should be handled - this lead to the exponential growth Windows is enjoying now).
iii) Android OS Update - If Google can achieve the above two, then the choice to upgrade the OS should be at user discretion. Of course, Google should mandate that there is OTA availble as an option. And obviously this OTA would be served by Google, not by device manufacturers. This would also free up time, effort and cash spent by device manufacturers in upgrading the OS.
So this is in the best of interest of everybody.
These restrictions if put in place, would free us all from this phenomena of running outdated OS.
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Thank you so far for the feedback.
poundesville said:
my 2 cents worth:
I agree on your points - but I'd skip the first few paragraphs if I were the one who write the letter. Other than that, thank you for making the effort.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Remember most members of XDA would be a cut above the average user. The reason this letter was written the way it was, was to demonstrate that I am a typical end user. Although I would consider myself leaning slightly to the more advanced side I wrote the letter based on a very general experience of the platform, an experience a lot of consumers would go through.
Toss3 said:
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this letter? Google has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that samsung don't want to update their phones. In these type of situations it's just better to vote with your wallet and buy another manufacturer's phone next time and let Samsung know why you don't want to use their phones in the future.
Writing letters like these is just a waste of time imho.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What am I trying to achieve with this letter?
I really don’t know, but it helps to just get the thoughts out there.
With approximately 300,000 activations daily, I don’t think Android sees the true reflection of how their platform is received.
When the Galaxy range of phones was released in the US, they would have been seen as the closest thing to an iPhone that non-AT&T customers could get. So sales and activations shouldn’t be seen as the indicator of clever consumers or consumers wanting an open platform, but of consumers who wanted an iPhone but for the various reasons didn’t want to go with AT&T.
Remember: The international Samsung Galaxy is the only Android phone I know of that looks more like an iPhone than any other phone.
What I would really like to see is, that annually google will release a major version of Android. So V1, V2, V3, etc…. the mobile manufacturers commit to any minor or incremental updates per major version. So if Google says they are releasing Android 2.4 then they are saying to the manufacturer that this version will also work on any phone that currently supports v2.1 to v2.3.
As more and more people move to smartphones and tablets, more and more will we see hackers, spammers, botnets and so on attempt to access our devices. If we can’t have the latest updates that close any open holes then our phones become a huge liability.
Pierreken said:
Not sure what ti say on this one. It's true that Samsung has failed on some levels, however I must say that this is the first phone that has allowed me to get to know so much about the internals of the Android OS.
Modifying kernels, ROM's, reading about different file-systems etc... it's not a thing for the common user but I expect the people on this forum to be interested in such things.
Ok, if Samsung had done it right, we may have discussed these things anyway but it would've drawn less attention as people would not be looking for solutions to their problems.
But of course we have to strive to quality for everyone and this letter may just open some people's eyes at both Google and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really sure if Samsung has failed as such, but have put too much focus on unit sales rather than quality control and great user experience. They started releasing different iterations and modifications to the same phone without considering that each minor tweak to the hardware would mean more resources to develop updates and maintain each device.
I also agree that without Samsung I would know very little about linux filesystems, kernel and custom roms, but shouldn't all of these be more to push the phone above it's limits and not to just get it working properly?
There's nothing wrong with knowing the advanced stuff, however it shouldn't be a necessity.
The problem ironically is that Android is open source. I agree wit the letter above, but I can;t see how you can stop manufacturers doing what they want.
Also the Drivers being proprietary isn't going to change and device manufacturers aren't going to suddenly start releasing their closed driver sources.
Agreed Google should stand up and restrict the Skins to a single APK that can be removed, this would stop all the associated problems with HTC and Samsung skinning too deep in to the OS that it becomes impossible to remove it. The problem with that is, then any manufacturers APK will be installable on any phone. Which is something we know they don't want.
We already know Androids biggest downfall and so does Google. Fragmentation.
I believe once Google has the strong position they want and users demand Android when they buy a new phone, they will start to put their foot down and try to enforce standardisation across Manufacturers, but until they get to what they feel is that point, we're stuck.
Anyway much luck with the letter, I hope someone who matters get's to see it.
Logicalstep
Windows 8 will move to UEFI replacing the ageing BIOS, other modern OS's uses UEFI including the ARM version of the OS.
Is it possible to develop UEFI boot loader for the XOOM , it would be very cool if this is possible.
In fact I am waiting for the first Win8 ARM to leak .. and it will be very cool to test it in a real tablet
Thanks for the tidbit, there was nothing about UEFI in the mainstream blogs, but Goog search dug it up.
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/news/2075486/windows-dont-choose-tablet-desktop
As a geek, I'm more interested in the plumbings than the GUI stuff. One item of interest to me is whether Win8 will be available in discrete form, ie as a standalone retail version that can be installed on any compatible device, or only in device-bound form (ie OEM version). Its value would be greatly enhanced if it's in a standalone, installable version.
That's what I don't like about Android at present. It's actually less "portable" than Windows, since every device needs to have its own "ROM," which means you're dependent on the vendor's whims (or friendly hackers) for updates. It's rather byzantine, a lot like the CP/M ills of old, where each manufacturer had its own proprietary version.
With respect to the introduced Win8 GUI, I noted that the integration of the tile-based Metro UI into the traditional mouse/KB UI isn't very elegant, aesthetically speaking. To be fair, it's not an easy task, and MS didn't have the luxury of time. WP7's Metro + Win7 UI was the obvious route, and unsurprisingly that's the route they took. I'm interested in how the touch UI translate to the mouse/KB interface, and vice versa.
BTW, I think the x86 version of Win8 will get the most attention, since backward compatibility with existing Win/Lin apps is intact. Unless Oak Trail turns out to be a real dog, Intel will have its moment in the sun.
e.mote said:
That's what I don't like about Android at present. It's actually less "portable" than Windows, since every device needs to have its own "ROM," which means you're dependent on the vendor's whims (or friendly hackers) for updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lolwut?
Windows has exactly the same problem if you want to run it on different hardware, it's just hidden to the end user because Micosoft bundles everything into an inocuous looking package.
Windows also has the luxury of running on very narrowly scope/defined hardware that they have had deep influence in designing.
>Windows has exactly the same problem if you want to run it on different hardware
Hardware for Windows have their own abstraction layer in the form of a BIOS/UEFI. Windows binaries are universal across devices. Hardware is generally interfaced through user-installable drivers.
These don't (yet) exist for Android, where each device has its own specifically-compiled binaries. Since vendors have their tweaks to the source code, no two droid devices are the same. It's a nightmare for both users and devs. Hence the fragmentation outcry.
Take this forum as a microcosm. HC 3.1 is out, but users can't upgrade to it until the vendors get around to updating their vendor-specific (and region-specific) firmware. Contrast this to a Win service pack.
Windows sucks in many ways, but the one factor in its dominance is that if you buy a Win app, you can be reasonably certain that it will run on most any PC. If you buy a peripheral, you can be reasonably certain that it can be installed on most any PC.
It's a bit unfair since Android is still in its diapers. Hey, it just got USB host in 3.1. Then again, ain't no such thing as "fair" competition. Android will have to grow up in a hurry.
Pundits like to harp on the iOS-vs-Android angle. The reality is that Apple will always be a niche player because of its closed-ecosys philosophy. No single company, no matter how great, can create enough choice for the majority of user wants. The real fight will be between Android and Windows.
Personally, I'm cheering on Linux, which can coattail Windows' standardization onto the new tablet platform. Lin never had a real chance of uprooting Win on the desktop, or as we've seen, even on netbooks. Win was too entrenched. Tabs will be a fresh new opportunity for Linux, and we'll see if Ubuntu & Co can take advantage.
i read somewhere that w8 has the potential of outselling android in the future.. what do you all think?
I think it is very probable that it will do better then android as google has not done very well at least compared to apple in the tablet area. wp8 is touch focused and is a very good OS and google and apple should be very worried.
leftspeaker2000 said:
wp8 is touch focused and is a very good OS and google and apple should be very worried.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think your on to something ere
All 3 companies are very good at stealing each others ideas so I doubt any of them will suffer much from Windows 8. Fundamentaly all 3 do the same job, so it comes down too personal preference, with that I should say Mac fans wont buy Windows 8 and nor will Android Fans or visa versa. Windows 8 simply allows Microsoft to play with the other boys in the Tablet field. I don't believe its the killer blow that will knock the others out of the ring.
I don't think it's going to do better than android, but it's going to gobble up a large portion of the market. WindowsPhone 8 is going to have support for MicroSD cards, native code and multi core processors, which all point to it being better than both iOS and Android. I'm honestly considering skipping the SGS3 and waiting for a Windows Phone "Apollo" phone instead.
WP7 is already the fastest OS of the three, and with support for even faster and better hardware, it's going to be just lightning quick.
Exciting times ahead!
m0nkf1sh said:
All 3 companies are very good at stealing each others ideas so I doubt any of them will suffer much from Windows 8. Fundamentaly all 3 do the same job, so it comes down too personal preference, with that I should say Mac fans wont buy Windows 8 and nor will Android Fans or visa versa. Windows 8 simply allows Microsoft to play with the other boys in the Tablet field. I don't believe its the killer blow that will knock the others out of the ring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't agree so much with this. I'm a Mac and I own an Android phone.
I guess it is down to appreciating the software engineering side of things.
I love how my Mac "just works", however do not appreciate the way iOS devices seem to only be designed for children who need the restrictions and wouldn't do much else than play games, read, learn, etc.
I also appreciate Android devices for the freedom and endless opportunities.
Windows 8... It is pretty cool, however, I'd rather not a tablet that is prone to PC viruses AND locked to only the one OS. Apple are also guilty with the whole "locked to one OS" philosophy.
Then again, the Linux kernel is my preference over the bloated one from Microsoft.
Leigh Kennedy said:
I don't agree so much with this. I'm a Mac and I own an Android phone.
I guess it is down to appreciating the software engineering side of things.
I love how my Mac "just works", however do not appreciate the way iOS devices seem to only be designed for children who need the restrictions and wouldn't do much else than play games, read, learn, etc.
I also appreciate Android devices for the freedom and endless opportunities.
Windows 8... It is pretty cool, however, I'd rather not a tablet that is prone to PC viruses AND locked to only the one OS. Apple are also guilty with the whole "locked to one OS" philosophy.
Then again, the Linux kernel is my preference over the bloated one from Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be nice to stop insulting people who prefer efficiency more than complexity. It's getting old.
I think the Microsoft strategy is starting to show itself and I with with in 18 months there will be more METRO devices than Android and even IOS...
I expect Microsoft to virtually give Windows 8 away for Free or at least very cheaply. This is because of the huge potential to make money from the APP STORE so they don`t need to charge much for the OS itself.
Now Windows 7 sold 400 Million Licences as of July 2011 so by Windows 8 release in say Oct 2012 there could be 600 Million Windows 7 PC`s in use...
If only 50% upgrade to a Windows 8 within six months you could be talking about 300 Million customers for METRO APPS a year from now. That is even before any new PC`s or Tablets are sold.
This could even impact the smartphone sales numbers going forward as Windows Phone 8 is likely to be very similar to Windows 8 thus increasing it`s awareness and familiarity to the average person.
With a potential market of 300 Million + customers ...I expect METRO APPS to look better and be more feature rich than Android and IOS APPS, I think this will help drive the sales of Windows 8 tablet hardware.
A year from now Android will be finished in the tablet game and Apple will have big big competition!!
jerome snail said:
It would be nice to stop insulting people who prefer efficiency more than complexity. It's getting old.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uh... Okay then.
Definitely nowhere near what I was intending to do.
Unless you were trying to troll.
I was only expressing my opinion. If you don't like it then ignore. The whole fanboy thing is getting old.
Future is full of uncertainty, no body had ever thought that Nokia vl have to compete with other companies for selling dr product, there was time when N series was consider as kind of huge status but now we have only two major OS iOS n Android outrunning symbian. So just wait n watch how win8 gets ported to phones n tablets.
Will Windows have something like Rosetta to support millions of existing programs on ARM? no.
I said programs, not apps because most people want Windows as they have a need to run Windows programs. That is why Linux and even Macs are limited in growth. And these programs are huge and hard to port due by developers due to libraries dependencies. Moreover, some of these program are specific for an industry/product and weren't updated for years, but people still need to use them. That is why Vista failed and people still use vulnerable XP, even when Windows 7 is out.
But do people need to have Windows to run apps? No. There is thousands of apps for Android and iPad. And I don't think that number of Metro apps will be greater than for Android at launch. So why anyone would want Windows on arm instead of iPad/Android?
Well android is still an os for mobilephones... It's not made for tablets. W8 will be good on a tablet so i think you are right..
borjeboy said:
Well android is still an os for mobilephones... It's not made for tablets. W8 will be good on a tablet so i think you are right..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android on a tablet works quite well though.
Yes, I do look forward to seeing how Windows 8 would work, however, the UEFI is what I don't agree with.
Sent from my HTC Velocity 4G using XDA Premium
The whole "locking the device to only one OS" is why I won't buy an iPad...
Sent from my HTC Velocity 4G using XDA Premium
Leigh Kennedy said:
Then again, the Linux kernel is my preference over the bloated one from Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NT kernel is bloated
I think whoever gets the first mid-range tablet out at the right price point will win. This is total opinion, but my gut tells me the magic number for price is the $200-$300 dollar range for a mass market tablet. Saw glimpses of this during the HP Touchpad fire sale and the Kindle Fire before the user complaints of the device started coming in.
This needs to be a full featured tablet and not the ones that feel watered down that are currently offered at this price range. I think Android has the advantage but w8 could do well if they can offer something that is less clunky and can really nail the backward compatibility of x86 programs.