Google tightens its grip

[Bateluer]

http://www.droid-life.com/2011/03/3...igns-time-to-start-controlling-fragmentation/

A report out of BusinessWeek has caused quite the stir in the mobile world today, and has to do with a subject that Android enthusiasts talk quite a bit about, and that’s fragmentation. According a variety of “sources” from within the industry, Google has really started to enforce “non-fragmentation clauses”, giving the Android team the final say on how much can be tweaked on their stock code. They may even be playing favorites with certain manufacturers that are willing to quickly abide by the rules they’ve set, which essentially means that a “common denominator” must be reached, before the green light on customization will be given. So what does all that really mean?

 

[AstroManLuca]

How does putting tighter restrictions on carrier- or manufacturer-specific changes to Android deal with fragmentation? It doesn't do anything to stop them from releasing a phone with outdated software and then never updating it. Ask any Galaxy S owner who is stuck on either 2.1 or 2.2 and may never get 2.3. It's not like Samsung would release updates faster if the Galaxy S phones were running stock Android.

 

[Bateluer]

It's not like Samsung would release updates faster if the Galaxy S phones were running stock Android.

Perhaps not, but they wouldn't have to waste time trying to get new Android versions to play nice with their custom junkware. There's nothing Google can do about lazy manufacturers, though they can push more advertising towards their competitors.

 

[pm]

Maybe I haven't paying enough attention but I thought that the term fragmentation referred to hardware - like some handsets having one screen resolution, another having another resolution, etc. Is it typical to use fragmentation to refer to manufacturer software tweaks?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Maybe I haven't paying enough attention but I thought that the term fragmentation referred to hardware - like some handsets having one screen resolution, another having another resolution, etc. Is it typical to use fragmentation to refer to manufacturer software tweaks?

Funny, I thought fragmentation referred to how there are so many different versions of Android in use right now. 1.5 and 1.6 on really old devices, 2.1 on several devices, 2.2 on some, and 2.3 on a few as well.

So does fragmentation mean different hardware configurations, different software versions, or different custom manufacturer/carrier software?

 

[Bateluer]

Maybe I haven't paying enough attention but I thought that the term fragmentation referred to hardware - like some handsets having one screen resolution, another having another resolution, etc. Is it typical to use fragmentation to refer to manufacturer software tweaks?

Fragmentation encompasses both, though I've always took it to be more a software aspect more than variations in hardware.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

This is something Android needs. A unifying force to create a common narrative.

Right now you buy an Android phone and don't know exactly what you are getting, and the experience is vastly different from device to device. In order to maintain and increase market share Android needs to get a way to say "when you buy an Android phone, this is what you can expect" and be carrier and manufacturer agnostic. With and iPhone you know EXACTLY what you will get, and whatever your friend(s) have will be exactly what you have.

Android is not as easy. I say I have an Android phone, and my friend goes out and buys a low end Android device (or hell even the Galaxy S as an example) and can have an entirely different experience than I have with mine. Perfect example, today my friend goes "hey how do I delete a word from the dictionary?" I tell him how to do it based off my phone, and he goes "I can't do that." We have different phones, and there are very different experiences for them.

I hope Google brings the reigns in on it so that there is more unity between all Android devices.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I still can't fathom why people buy a phone with a certain feature-set and complain that they don't get a free upgrade in a timely manner.
You're getting an upgrade for free.

 

[Dulanic]

How does putting tighter restrictions on carrier- or manufacturer-specific changes to Android deal with fragmentation? It doesn't do anything to stop them from releasing a phone with outdated software and then never updating it. Ask any Galaxy S owner who is stuck on either 2.1 or 2.2 and may never get 2.3. It's not like Samsung would release updates faster if the Galaxy S phones were running stock Android.

I like how 2.1 became 2.1 and 2.2? How is having 2.2 being stuck? There are very few phones with 2.3. I believe having 2.2 is a good thing and is not being "stuck".

 

[dguy6789]

Fragmentation has never been an issue to me. It's no different than going to Best Buy and buying a new PC or Laptop. They all come with different software and settings and hardware.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I still can't fathom why people buy a phone with a certain feature-set and complain that they don't get a free upgrade in a timely manner.
You're getting an upgrade for free.

A lot of people have phones like the Fascinate, which was released with 2.1 and Samsung have promised to bring 2.2 but haven't delivered. And 2.2 is an outdated version of Android that was released nearly a year ago.

You're so hung up on people complaining about free things or being entitled that you're missing the actual reasons:

- 2.1 is out of date, even 2.2 is out of date but less so
- Samsung said they would be providing updates and for many people they haven't delivered
- Many other phones have 2.2 updates including several other Galaxy S variants
- Being strung along is annoying; updates are perpetually a month away

I almost wish phone manufacturers would just quit even saying they'd provide updates. Be up front and say that the phone's software will never change. But of course it works better to lead people on because if a company says they won't upgrade, a lot of people won't buy from them.

A lot of people would also be willing to pay for firmware updates, like they once did with the iPhone. Give people the choice between paying for an update or never getting an update, many would rather pay $5 or $10 to get newer software. But they don't have that option.

 

[Glitchny]

A lot of people have phones like the Fascinate, which was released with 2.1 and Samsung have promised to bring 2.2 but haven't delivered. And 2.2 is an outdated version of Android that was released nearly a year ago.

You're so hung up on people complaining about free things or being entitled that you're missing the actual reasons:

- 2.1 is out of date, even 2.2 is out of date but less so
- Samsung said they would be providing updates and for many people they haven't delivered
- Many other phones have 2.2 updates including several other Galaxy S variants
- Being strung along is annoying; updates are perpetually a month away

I almost wish phone manufacturers would just quit even saying they'd provide updates. Be up front and say that the phone's software will never change. But of course it works better to lead people on because if a company says they won't upgrade, a lot of people won't buy from them.

A lot of people would also be willing to pay for firmware updates, like they once did with the iPhone. Give people the choice between paying for an update or never getting an update, many would rather pay $5 or $10 to get newer software. But they don't have that option.

Meh, of all the people I know at work who have Android phones, I'm the only one who even knows about the update issues. None of them care about updates, they bought the phone for what it had, not what it is "getting" later on. Usually when they get an update they ask me what it changed because they really don't care.

It's funny to me because they are all software engineers, and none of them care what version of Android they are on, so I doubt the general masses even know/care when they should get updates.

 

[TheStu]

I think that part of the issue is that HTC doesn't necessarily want people to buy Android phones, they want them to buy HTC phones. Which is why they tried to get HTC Sense onto WinMoPho7, and had it on WinMo6. The same applies for Samsung and everyone else.

Google however, wants people to buy Android, they don't care who makes them.

A lot of people would also be willing to pay for firmware updates, like they once did with the iPhone. Give people the choice between paying for an update or never getting an update, many would rather pay $5 or $10 to get newer software. But they don't have that option.

People have never had to pay for updates on the iPhone. The iPod Touch, yes, but not the iPhone. They are accounted for differently in Apple's books.

 

[smartpatrol]

I still can't fathom why people buy a phone with a certain feature-set and complain that they don't get a free upgrade in a timely manner.
You're getting an upgrade for free.

What I can't fathom is how anybody puts up with the whole Android updage situation.

You're buying a phone with a 2 year contract. It's perfectly reasonable to expect to get updates to the OS. Imagine if you bought a Windows computer and you couldn't get Service Pack 1 until several months later when your PC's OEM decides to bless you with it (and if your PC is ancient, e.g. over 6 months old, you may never get it at all).

It's an update to a free OS. Your phone is perfectly capable of running it. Google releases it for free. Yet the OEMs and carriers actively prevent you from installing it yourself, so they can cram it full of their own crapware first.

It's about time Google did something about these OEMs/carriers crapping all over the Android OS. Android is on fire right now, so hopefully Google are in a position to make demands.

 

[dguy6789]

What I can't fathom is how anybody puts up with the whole Android updage situation.

You're buying a phone with a 2 year contract. It's perfectly reasonable to expect to get updates to the OS. Imagine if you bought a Windows computer and you couldn't get Service Pack 1 until several months later when your PC's OEM decides to bless you with it (and if your PC is ancient, e.g. over 6 months old, you may never get it at all).

It's an update to a free OS. Your phone is perfectly capable of running it. Google releases it for free. Yet the OEMs and carriers actively prevent you from installing it yourself, so they can cram it full of their own crapware first.

It's about time Google did something about these OEMs/carriers crapping all over the Android OS. Android is on fire right now, so hopefully Google are in a position to make demands.

Ever heard of QC? Do you know what tends to happen when a company releases a not heavily tested software update to extremely large numbers of people?

 

[s44]

I say I have an Android phone, and my friend goes out and buys a low end Android device (or hell even the Galaxy S as an example) and can have an entirely different experience than I have with mine. Perfect example, today my friend goes "hey how do I delete a word from the dictionary?" I tell him how to do it based off my phone, and he goes "I can't do that." We have different phones, and there are very different experiences for them.

Really? Just make them use the same keyboard and launcher as you.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Ever heard of QC? Do you know what tends to happen when a company releases a not heavily tested software update to extremely large numbers of people?

What happens? They release a x.x.1 update increment to fix the problem within 14 days.

Like Google does to their Nexus phones. Or like Apple does to their firmwares on... multiple devices at once.

There is no excuse. QC or not, there are bugs that can't be caught unless someone runs into it, in which case, it's faster to release a buggy software, hear people whine about it, know what it is, and go fix it in your next iteration.

Unless 1000 QC guys somehow work faster at finding bugs than 1m users.

 

[s44]

Ever heard of QC? Do you know what tends to happen when a company releases a not heavily tested software update to extremely large numbers of people?

This is why the manufacturers should just leak betas to community devs immediately.

Free testers -- and basically the entire "we aren't getting updates fast enough" crowd!

 

[simonizor]

What happens? They release a x.x.1 update increment to fix the problem within 14 days.

Like Google does to their Nexus phones. Or like Apple does to their firmwares on... multiple devices at once.

There is no excuse. QC or not, there are bugs that can't be caught unless someone runs into it, in which case, it's faster to release a buggy software, hear people whine about it, know what it is, and go fix it in your next iteration.

Unless 1000 QC guys somehow work faster at finding bugs than 1m users.

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the people that you asked would rather have a stable phone than one with many bugs because the software was rushed. Rushing software could lead to many unforeseen consequences, even as extreme as the phone not working at all until a new update is released. No one is going to want to deal with bugs like that; they just want their phone to do what it's supposed to do and not deal with things fucking up.

 

[YoungGun21]

The problem with delayed updates usually isn't bugs. It is carriers and manufacturers adding in proprietary shit that takes forever for them to get right. They also want to time it right to the market for them, not just release it immediately.

My next phone is going to be something like the Nexus One or Nexus S, something that gets updates from Google and will always have awesome development. Too bad I still have at least another year from now to wait.

 

[runawayprisoner]

I'm pretty sure that 99% of the people that you asked would rather have a stable phone than one with many bugs because the software was rushed. Rushing software could lead to many unforeseen consequences, even as extreme as the phone not working at all until a new update is released. No one is going to want to deal with bugs like that; they just want their phone to do what it's supposed to do and not deal with things fucking up.

Indeed. However, look at it this way: it's a .1 update. These are people who have been working on this software for months as their one and only task outside of breathing and living. You'd think they would be able to squash at least one bug and add something new in without breaking something else.

If there are bugs, they should be minor enough. It's a team working together, not just one guy patching codes by cut and paste in his grandmother's basement. These people do it for a living, and I'm sure they don't want to be outed by having some silly line of code messing up their profession.

 

[mosco]

Andy Rubin Quote:

the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

oh wait.... Seriously though, has anyone actually read the article(the actual article from business week)? Pretty interesting stuff. Let companies put all their chips in the Android basket by pretending to be open, and then tighten things up to force them to do what you want.

 

[zerocool84]

This is something Android needs. A unifying force to create a common narrative.

Right now you buy an Android phone and don't know exactly what you are getting, and the experience is vastly different from device to device. In order to maintain and increase market share Android needs to get a way to say "when you buy an Android phone, this is what you can expect" and be carrier and manufacturer agnostic. With and iPhone you know EXACTLY what you will get, and whatever your friend(s) have will be exactly what you have.

Android is not as easy. I say I have an Android phone, and my friend goes out and buys a low end Android device (or hell even the Galaxy S as an example) and can have an entirely different experience than I have with mine. Perfect example, today my friend goes "hey how do I delete a word from the dictionary?" I tell him how to do it based off my phone, and he goes "I can't do that." We have different phones, and there are very different experiences for them.

I hope Google brings the reigns in on it so that there is more unity between all Android devices.

That's part of the Android appeal. You can get the type of phone you want. Not everyone wants the exact same phone with the exact same experience. Yet again, what people say on these boards is obviously not what the average consumers does or wants. Android is obviously doing fine in marketshare, it's the others that have to change to increase their marketshare. You already get a similar experience across phones, get an HTC phone and you get Sense, get a Samsung phone and you get Touchwiz, get a Motorola phone and you get Blur. People for some reason think phones have to be a certain way but they don't. There's obviously more than enough room for everyone to be different.

This article has only to do with money and them controlling what's going on their phones like Bing and Facebook. Here's from the Engadget article of this:

Things have gotten so heated, in fact, that complaints have apparently been made to the US Department of Justice. They may have something to do with allegations of Google holding back Verizon handsets with Microsoft's Bing on board, ostensibly in an effort to trip up its biggest search competitor. Another major dissatisfaction expressed by those working with Android code is that Google needs an advance preview of what is being done in order to give it the green light -- which, as noted by a pair of sources familiar with Facebook's Android customization efforts, isn't sitting well with people at all. Google and Facebook are direct competitors in the online space and it's easily apparent how much one stands to gain from knowing the other's plans early.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control-of-android-insisting-licensees-abide/

 

[Mopetar]

Google should just release the code and be done with it. If someone wants to make a crappy 3.0 phone/tablet, that's their own business. If they can't get 3.0, they're just going to make a crappy 2.2/2.3 phone/tablet that doesn't help Google out either.

The best thing the could do is to require some board/body to certify a device before it can use the Android brand. That should cut down on the brand confusion and make everyone more happy.

 

[theeedude]

Maybe they should just open source previous version when they release a new one. That way they have first mover advantage, and the bastardizers are a step behind.