Fragmentation of Android, or the race for innovation?

A few weeks ago I was able to talk with the father of Android Andy Rubin. Andy is a very smart person who managed to work on projects at Apple, General Magic, WebTV and Danger before Android started. We managed to discuss a lot of things, and especially spent time on the topic of fragmentation of Android. Some time ago, I described my view on the fragmentation of Android as a platform that can be compared to the appearance of a lot of Linux desktop distros, and the potential OS capability will turn into a pile of devices with specific modifications from manufacturers that have nothing to do with each other. I spent a lot of time thinking about our conversation with Andy, which resulted in repeated rewriting of this column.

To date, there are at least five different versions of devices with Android. In order to differentiate devices on the market, manufacturers often resort to a strong customization of the interface, which in turn makes it difficult to migrate to new versions of Android several times. New releases of devices and firmware updates become obsolete within a few weeks. For example, at the time of the release of Google, the Nexus One could launch a series of interesting applications, such as Google Earth, while at the same time a fairly new Droid could not afford it, since it worked on Android 2.0, and not 2.1. Tablet device manufacturers are forced to come up with a variety of replacements of the Android Market, as Google prohibits installing the Market on devices of this kind.

During our conversation, Andy named several classic symptoms of platform fragmentation. First, the old API refuses to work on new OS releases. Secondly, different versions of the Android Market offer a different set of applications, which in turn leads to a loss of platform homogeneity. These two facts are true for both desktop versions of Linux and Android.


')
Andy's point of view is quite simple. The situation with old Android devices that cannot be upgraded to new OS versions or do not support new applications is no different from the situation from iPhone 2007, which will not be updated to OS 4.0. This is not fragmentation, it is moral aging. Based on this, the moral obsolescence of devices is now at times faster than ever. The main reason for all this is the high speed with which Google creates innovations. And they are not going to stop there.

Does this agility affect Google partners in a negative way? Of course. The only difference is that Google believes that their own partner model is currently fundamentally different from any other. None of the vendors does not pay a cent, and therefore the relationship between the partners is built in a completely different way, unlike the situation when the manufacturer licenses the OS. In the case of Microsoft, each vendor must pay a certain royalty in order to be part of the Windows Mobile ecosystem. Thus, all vendors are considered equal, which is actually a bad idea. Some suppliers of WinMo-devices are developing really great phones, at the same time, most others produce mediocre crafts that expose the platform in a negative light. Not all vendors can maintain a given pace, and Microsoft is forced to delay key releases, thereby hindering the development of the latest hardware.

Google has a completely different opinion on this. Android is not a summer camp for suppliers. Google treats all vendors as equals, but will not slow down in pursuit of innovations in favor of weak players. By constantly raising the bar for hardware and software requirements, Google maintains its pace of innovation, and thus clearly differentiates devices on the market. Releasing Nexus One, Google didn’t strive to beat sales records. The company pursued another goal - to raise the iron bar of Android devices to a new level. As you know: if you want to do well, do it yourself.

What is the end result? The high rate of innovation, which is not going to slow down, raising the stakes to a very high level. Thus, what could be represented by market fragmentation is actually the result of a shorter innovation cycle. Older devices quit the game much faster than before. However, this is the price paid by all in order to introduce new innovations in the market as soon as possible. Why don't tablet PC makers have access to the Android Market? Google’s argument is simple: devices of this kind, which are incompatible with the platform’s current hardware standards, can very quickly lead to fragmentation. Keep up the good work, but don’t try to jump higher than your head, Google tells them.

I probably agree with the fact that Android is not a fragmented platform. At least in the classical sense, but in practice the result remains the same. Devices become obsolete in a matter of months, and the best partners of Google do not keep up with the weekly platform releases. Even worse, users feel as if on the front line: there is a dizzying number of devices on the market that are considered obsolete at the time of purchase, since their platform is no longer relevant. Which in turn makes users postpone the purchase or buy a competitor device.

All the fault of the open nature of Android. Google does not control in any way exactly how vendors manage Android, but all the time it raises the level of pace and vision for the development prospects of the platform. In the end, Google’s partners and consumers of their products will determine whether this is acceptable to the software platform or not.

From translator

Of course, the innovations that Google introduced at the last Google IO are pleasing to the eye, but what is their price? We pay this price with you, as well as device manufacturers. Having got involved in a game called Android, vendors receive not only all the benefits of Android, but also a huge amount of risk. Playing on the side of Google, manufacturers become directly dependent on the company, as well as on users, thus becoming a hostage to the current situation. After all, the risk is not only that completely fresh devices automatically become outdated when a new version of Android (Moto Droid, HTC Desire, HTC Legend) is released. Manufacturers also risk losing customer loyalty, as the development cycles of Google and end-vendors do not match, and the huge Google / Android marketing flywheel works at full power. Thus, consumers form false expectations from the manufacturer, which ultimately turn out to be negative (owners of HTC Hero, HTC Tattoo, Samsung Galaxy know what I mean).

What is the way out of this situation? Over time, the race of innovation will surely stop, or move to the level of Tablet devices. Will manufacturers release Android devices as fast as they do now? Or will they switch to the business model of Apple releasing one model of devices each year, and the main earnings will be related services? All these questions remain open, only one thing is clear. Any manufacturer will try to crush the entire infrastructure for themselves. The first sign was Samsung Bada, HTC is also developing its own alternative to Android / Bada. Time will tell what this will take, but Google needs to take action, otherwise the platform will lose the confidence of users and manufacturers.