Android certainly has become a popular platform for smart devices. Its open source nature has inspired a multitude of gadgets, development by a variety of manufacturers, and it is sold by every major wireless carrier. No matter what Droid Does, the one knock on Android has been the issue of fragmentation.
What is fragmentation? In the case of Android, its a combination of Google’s unquenchable thirst for updates and device manufactures creating custom user interfaces which can never keep pace. This means an Android device is often at least one step behind Google’s Sesame Street alphabetical desert naming scheme. Sometimes the gap is even bigger.
Fragmentation in and of itself is normal. After all, Apple’s iPhone now has various versions of itself out in the wild. This is due to hardware architecture and four generations of the device being produced.
Once Froyo was released, aka Android 2.2, part of the speculation regarding the next Android update, aka Gingerbread, was that Google would be focusing on a method to curb fragmentation. Google has already implemented a strategy, moving some of its own default applications to the Android marketplace. This puts some of the functionality of what makes Android Android outside the need for manufacturers to keep pace. It is not a perfect solution because sometimes those application updates still require a certain version of the Android OS in order to function.
Google has also made it clear it will be slowing down its pace at some point. This will definitely benefit manufacturers and consumers both. The production of devices will be more capable of reflecting a generation of the Android OS long before there is buzz circulating the next new new thing.
Beyond this, the details are fuzzy at best. There is a rumor of Google designing a UI too fantastic to change, but i find this highly unlikely. Not that Google cannot produce a spectacular user interface, they did hire Palm’s Matias Duarte as the Android Experience Director. The question is whether manufacturers and carriers will give up their own thirst for brand distinction and other partnerships.
Samsung’s Fascinate for Verizon is a great example of why carriers and manufacturers will not give up their own flavors of Android. TouchWIZ, Samsung’s UI interface on top of Android, and Verizon’s deal with Microsoft to make Bing the phone’s default search and is what makes this phone distinct. Whether that is a good or bad distinction is up to the user. In the end it is about money and Microsoft is providing a lot of money for Verizon to put Bing on Verizon devices.
This will inherently cause confusion. Not everyone is watching the market and knowing what exactly every Android device is capable of. Buying a phone like the Samsung Fascinate will definitely lead to a different experience and a type of fragmentation which is not a normal progression derived from OS updates. Android is open source and there is not a lot Google can do about the choices of those adopting its platform.
On the horizon there looks to be even more separation from Android’s core. Both Verizon and Amazon.com have more than hinted at creating there own versions of the Android Marketplace. Blackweb 2.0 puts this into perspective nicely. With Marketplace options starting to pop up, this puts a bigger burden on app developers to cover more bases, jump through more hoops, just so other companies can figure out a way to get their pound of flesh.
The dilemma of fragmentation for Android is not just the natural progress of an update to the OS. At the root, Android is open source and its implementation will always reflect what is thought to be in the best interest of those who put it to use. While this might give consumers choice, their options are not likely to be spelt out entirely. This is especially true when a deal like the one between Verizon and Microsoft might mean training a sales team to promote devices supporting a lucrative deal over the best interest of the customer.
The end result means Android will never really be one cohesive operating system. It also means just as Android competes alongside other mobile devices, it will always be competing with itself. In the long run, it is probably a good thing. Although consumers are going to likely find themselves disappointed and mislead at times, those drawbacks will only underscore the need for carriers and manufacturers to realize what their consumers expect.
Android’s Fragmentation Dilemma
Android certainly has become a popular platform for smart devices. Its open source nature has inspired a multitude of gadgets, development by a variety of manufacturers, and it is sold by every major wireless carrier. No matter what Droid Does, the one knock on Android has been the issue of fragmentation.
What is fragmentation? In the case of Android, its a combination of Google’s unquenchable thirst for updates and device manufactures creating custom user interfaces which can never keep pace. This means an Android device is often at least one step behind Google’s Sesame Street alphabetical desert naming scheme. Sometimes the gap is even bigger.
Fragmentation in and of itself is normal. After all, Apple’s iPhone now has various versions of itself out in the wild. This is due to hardware architecture and four generations of the device being produced.
Once Froyo was released, aka Android 2.2, part of the speculation regarding the next Android update, aka Gingerbread, was that Google would be focusing on a method to curb fragmentation. Google has already implemented a strategy, moving some of its own default applications to the Android marketplace. This puts some of the functionality of what makes Android Android outside the need for manufacturers to keep pace. It is not a perfect solution because sometimes those application updates still require a certain version of the Android OS in order to function.
Google has also made it clear it will be slowing down its pace at some point. This will definitely benefit manufacturers and consumers both. The production of devices will be more capable of reflecting a generation of the Android OS long before there is buzz circulating the next new new thing.
Beyond this, the details are fuzzy at best. There is a rumor of Google designing a UI too fantastic to change, but i find this highly unlikely. Not that Google cannot produce a spectacular user interface, they did hire Palm’s Matias Duarte as the Android Experience Director. The question is whether manufacturers and carriers will give up their own thirst for brand distinction and other partnerships.
Samsung’s Fascinate for Verizon is a great example of why carriers and manufacturers will not give up their own flavors of Android. TouchWIZ, Samsung’s UI interface on top of Android, and Verizon’s deal with Microsoft to make Bing the phone’s default search and is what makes this phone distinct. Whether that is a good or bad distinction is up to the user. In the end it is about money and Microsoft is providing a lot of money for Verizon to put Bing on Verizon devices.
This will inherently cause confusion. Not everyone is watching the market and knowing what exactly every Android device is capable of. Buying a phone like the Samsung Fascinate will definitely lead to a different experience and a type of fragmentation which is not a normal progression derived from OS updates. Android is open source and there is not a lot Google can do about the choices of those adopting its platform.
On the horizon there looks to be even more separation from Android’s core. Both Verizon and Amazon.com have more than hinted at creating there own versions of the Android Marketplace. Blackweb 2.0 puts this into perspective nicely. With Marketplace options starting to pop up, this puts a bigger burden on app developers to cover more bases, jump through more hoops, just so other companies can figure out a way to get their pound of flesh.
The dilemma of fragmentation for Android is not just the natural progress of an update to the OS. At the root, Android is open source and its implementation will always reflect what is thought to be in the best interest of those who put it to use. While this might give consumers choice, their options are not likely to be spelt out entirely. This is especially true when a deal like the one between Verizon and Microsoft might mean training a sales team to promote devices supporting a lucrative deal over the best interest of the customer.
The end result means Android will never really be one cohesive operating system. It also means just as Android competes alongside other mobile devices, it will always be competing with itself. In the long run, it is probably a good thing. Although consumers are going to likely find themselves disappointed and mislead at times, those drawbacks will only underscore the need for carriers and manufacturers to realize what their consumers expect.