Let's ignore the heroic lengths Microsoft went to ensure compatibility between Windows versions.
You're wrong, anyway.
The cell phone industry is nothing like the PC industry. Whenever you find yourself using a PC analogy to explain some part of Android it means you're getting it completely wrong because it demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of how companies like RIM, Nokia, and Samsung have come to dominate the cell phone industry over the years.
Of course fragmentation is not a problem for the cell phone industry. Fragmentation is a crucial property of the cell phone industry. Samsung became the largest smartphone manufacturer in the world by providing a large, fragmented, outdated array of devices to the carriers.
How could Android fragmentation possibly be a problem for Samsung or the carriers?
The industry has never been about providing up-to-date software. The older your software, the faster you'll update your phone and sign a new 2-year contract.
However, fragmentation is a big problem for people like you and me, who think the smartphone industry should be more like the PC industry, and it's a problem for Google and anyone else who wants to compete with Apple on Apple's terms.
It's worth pointing out that this comparison isn't the same. You could, in 2002, run the latest version of Office on all of their operating systems. With Android, there are situations where even Google's own software (see Chrome on Android) only runs on the absolute latest version.
Further, in 2002, all the big name vendors were generally shipping Windows XP on their machines. With Android, vendors are still shipping devices with 2.3. It's still a good OS, but it has to be frustrating as a non-tech user to understand why your brand new Android device can't run software released last week.
Both ICS and iOS 5 were released at about the same time, iOS 5 is now the majority OS for iOS devices. On the other hand, ICS is available on about minuscule percentage of Android devices.
Software written for ICS won't work on the vast majority of devices and there is little incentive to write for ICS (which will keep hurting Android tablets).
Developers can start taking advantage of iOS 5 APIs today and incentive is growing. At this rate, iOS 6 will be the majority OS on iOS before ICS gets that title for Android.
That's how smart developers always operated. I remember when Id's Quake 1 first appeared ... I could play it on a 2 year old Pentium processor on MS-DOS 6.22, even though Windows 95 was capturing the headlights.
You can start taking advantage of ICS APIs today. It's more work because you have to test and workaround older versions too, but the thing that differentiates Android from other frameworks is that it was built with degradation in mind.
But no, that was clearly not Frasier's point at all. "With Android [...] even Google's own software [...] only runs on the absolute latest version." is a complaint that recent software isn't backwards compatible. And that's just wrong.
Whereas Android users are lucky if they're still getting updates and security patches after 10 months.
For the same reason, Android fragmentation is a non-issue.
No, this did not made the Window ecosystem "fragmented" in the sense that Android is. Windows always had excellent backwards and forward compatibility, which meant you could develop for XP and still run on Vista and vice versa. You just couldn't take advantage of the latest and greatest APIs, but most apps used the classic APIs anyway --you still had access to the whole of the OS and hardware across all Windows versions, even with a custom built C API or MFC.
On Android devices you are cutoff from using tons of features if you can't deploy to the latest versions. And you have to walk a very fine line to make it compatible with all versions/form factors, and mostly cut corners.
For the same reason, Android fragmentation is a non-issue.
A, the classic "lalalala, fingers in the ears" argument.
As to backward compatibility, just like on Windows, it is the developers' responsibility to ensure he refrains from using APIs that are too recent. For example, if you write a Windows Direct3D 10 game, it won't run on XP because this API is only available on Vista and up. Same thing for Android: select the right API level when developing your app! http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/api-levels.html How is Windows better/different than Android in this respect?
I speak from experience. I have developed on both Windows and Android, contrary to most people in this thread.
which meant you could develop for XP and still
run on Vista and vice versa
You should really go and read The Old New Thing, as it's really enlightening: http://amzn.to/wW0Okn
You distinguish between security updates and OS updates. I'm not aware of any difference, an update is an update. I've never seen an OTA update that wasn't a point release. How are these deployed differently?
How is this bad? Do you realize that 4 months ago, 2.3 was the very latest Android version available for phones? Its successor, 4.0, was barely released in Nov 2011 (3.0 was for tablets only). A few months delay is perfectly understandable because vendors need time to customize, build, test, ship, and clear inventory levels of devices running the previous Android version.
> You could, in 2002, run the latest version of Office on all of their operating systems.
This statement does not prove that forward/backward compatibility is easy in Windows. How much time did Microsoft waste into making Office run flawlessly across a wide range of Windows versions? With an application the size of Office (30M lines of code), it is almost certain that it has hundreds, if not thousands, of workarounds for limitations or bugs affecting the oldest Windows versions that Office needed to support.
The difference between Windows and Android is that even if Microsoft finished XP in 2000, they waited until all the manufacturers put it on new hardware to release it. Google doesn't do that. They release it as soon as it's ready, and then manufacturers have to put it on hardware. It's just a matter of perception of who has it "faster".
But I suppose Google could do the same - finish Android 5.0 this spring, and then only release it in winter with a bunch of manufacturers at once.
As for Chrome, this is really an exception, and I don't think you can point any other example where an app only works on Android 4.0. This happened because Android 4.0 is a pretty big overhaul, and Google didn't want to bother with the legacy, when they know that within a year 50% of Android devices will have the 4.0 version. They just wanted to take advantage of all the new API's and not have to find workarounds for the other versions. It's kind of like Microsoft not wanting to make IE9 work on XP anymore, because it's a much different version than Vista and 7.
Is the XP timeline an idle speculation on your part(as seems to happen with your posts about MS) or do you have references to back that up? You couldn't be wronger.
Microsoft regularly shares builds with OEMs so that they can start optimizing their hardware and even publishes beta versions to the public so even small developers can start making their software compatible.
What do we get with Android? For something that's supposed to be open source, the source gets thrown over a wall at release. One OEM does get a head start at the expense of others though.
Microsoft just released Windows 8 developer and consumer previews, did Google do that with ICS?
>It's kind of like Microsoft not wanting to make IE9 work on XP anymore, because it's a much different version than Vista and 7.
IE8 came up almost 10 years after XP. Not to mention that Vista and Windows 7 were on atleast 40% of mahines then and selling on almost 100% of machines. With ICS the numbers are 1%.
However, I don't really think the criticisms about Android fragmentation amount to nothing but beating around the "market share" bush. I think that, believe it or not, folks who are criticizing Android mean what they're saying. With all due respect to Groucho, sometimes a complaint that the Android platform's combination of failure to deliver software updates to existing users and lack of a decent wall around the garden raises serious security and privacy concerns is just a complaint that the Android platform's combination of failure to deliver software updates to existing users and lack of a decent wall around the garden raises serious security and privacy concerns.
Surely the actual problem is the carriers/manufacturers?
They could also have made it easier on the manufacturers to do upgrades (ie. giving out continuous updates during development instead of just a source dump at launch time).
He's saying that for his purposes Android is not up to snuff, and then lays out the reasons -- fragmentation was one of them.
There can be an discussions about topics besides market domination. Such as what sucks about Android and how it could be better. An "endless parade" of such discussions doesn't prove that people don't understand what wins a market at all.
1) Top rated review for Path for Android: http://cl.ly/1P082D1L2D1k1O0i3K0J
Right, I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Windows had tremendous hardware variety, but it never han the inconsistency - even in the same version of the os - that android has.
Stockholm Syndrome?
I really cannot fathom why a consumer, assuming they have no stock in the platform outside their own purchase should be so concerned about something as trivial as market share.
Were the platform in danger of disappearing due to low market share (WebOS) I'd understand that but puffing up your chest because the OS on your smartphone has the best market share seems very strange to me. It's really not a feature of the device.
One important difference, of course, is that most local sports teams care about their fans.
Sorry, but the 'Android is dominating' meme took a sever credibility shock with the last round of Android handset manufacturer profit slides. But you know, they'll make it up in volume. Or something.
"In other words, Apple’s way of getting you to buy a new phone is to make you really happy with your current one, whereas apparently Android phone makers think they can get you to buy a new phone by making you really unhappy with your current one."
85% is good enough to have someone buy your crap, but it's not enough to make them loyal to your crap.
>85% is good enough to have someone buy your crap,
>but it's not enough to make them loyal to your crap.
A big battle is afoot. Act like it. Stop pretending that one side wears white and the other wears black. I always hated Microsoft's products (aging myself: I used OS/2), but they understood the game that was afoot. I'm not anti-Apple. I'm anti-blinders and so many of my friends who use Apple products seem to employ them...
To their credit and only in limited ways are Apple finally acknowledging that network effects are important. But they're doing so in a world quite different than the one in which Microsoft thrived. As I said, I hated Microsoft's strategies, so I hope Apple will not emulate them too closely.
EDIT: I appreciate the lack of downvotes... I was hesitant to write such an opinionated bit, but was frustrated.
I also upvoted you, even though I don't think you're quite correct. I personally don't believe that "hackers (...) think that phones are like simple breakfast cereals". Not that I'm a "hacker" or anything, but most of us HN-ers know how difficult is to "make things just work". Apple does that, ie "making things just work".
And, trust me, I'm not an Apple fanboy. I use a Windows 7 machine for development at work, all my websites are hosted on Ubuntu, and the only Apple products I own are my laptop and my phone.
I know it's only anecdotal, but until yesterday I was the very happy owner of an iPhone 3 (not even 3GS). Everything had been working just fine for the last 2 years, apart from a slightly decreased battery-life and Facebook's native app suddenly not working anymore, which was the moment when I realized that maybe it was time for an upgrade. What did I do then? I went straight into the store and bought an iPhone 4, because that way I knew for a fact that for the next 2-3 years I would have no problems in using my phone. I have no such guarantee from Android phones, even though most of them are similarly priced.
However, this is actually an interesting point about Android. While you might not get updates, you can be reasonably certain that it isn't going to break: if an update is going to run horribly on a device and carriers/manufacturers only update a few devices, you're probably safe. In contrast, on iOS, Apple uses code signing to actually enforce usage of the latest release — you simply cannot downgrade.
For example, I have a very cheap Android phone. It's not the best, but it does a good job. But lately I've noticed that some of the apps are running much slower now after some recent updates - Maps, Twitter, Angry Birds and esp Facebook.
All these need to work in harmony to get the best overall experience, but at the same time work well for the lowest common denominator (me in this case!)
> A Price Observation All of the even slightly cheaper phones are much worse than the iPhone when it comes to OS support, but it’s interesting to note that most of the phones on this list were actually not cheaper than the iPhone when they were released
The chart really doesn't quote pricing correctly. I'd prefer if he just used the un-subsidized cost. The subsidized costs are meaningless as different carriers charge radically different amounts. I bought a Sprint HTC Hero in Fall 2009. He claims it was a mere $20 cheaper than the iPhone; in reality I was paying at least $15 less per month than an ATT customer with an equivalent plan. Over the contract, that's $380 cheaper.
That's like saying your new LG TV is $400 dollars cheaper than your last Samsung TV, because you -also- switched your Comcast plan to pay less monthly.
That's not a fair comparison.
This is about deployment in schools, nothing else.
market share is useless if your users are not spending money.
Android is in the same position as Nokia 10 yrs ago. And we all know how much Nokia profited from their enormous market share.
Android phones are smartphones that fall apart after two years. Google doesn't care if these get replaced as long as people view ads, vendors know they can sell another device to the same person two years later. Both sides benefit from market share.
And people don't understand that wining a market means nothing and it can even be a race to the bottom, it's wining the profitable part of the market that matters.
But, you say, that's just so horrible! Welcome to reality, where markets are never dominated by perfection and fairy tales. You don't have to like it, you can rail against it the rest of your life, and fight the good fight; and Android will continue to dominate, and it will have absolutely nothing to do with issues related to fragmentation.
Was this written in 2001 or something? It's like the PC continues to dominate but the industry is dying for profit margin, the cool kids have all moved to OS X and/or Linux (go to any university campus or programming conference), and all the majority of the money and mindshare go to the ecosystem that's not PC based...
By that metric IIS is whomping Apache and Nginx. But you don't see that discussed around here. Only the metric that suits people's affiliations and biases seem to really matter here.
Because what other metric is Android winning? Apple captures the lionshare of the entire industry's profits. HTC and Moto are barely breaking even on Android devices.
Google can't even get users past 2.3, no one is using 4.0, and they're already on track to have 5.0 out in what, three months?
Some "domination". I wish I understand what metrics people used to determine these things.
I guess it comes down to "activations". Which, when you get down to it, is a rather poor indicator of platform strength.
Using activations as a metric is bad.
"India is dominating America because they have far more human activations (births) than America!"
There's a good analogy as to why 'activations' do not tell a complete story.
Please reply with what other metrics people use when saying that Android "dominates". I'd honestly love to know. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a mirror of rose-tinted Apple fanboys, it's Android fanboyism.
I would suggest that for the most part people buy an iDevice because that is specifically what they want, and for the most part most people buy Android devices because the handsets are cheap or are being pushed by the salesman.
You also ignored the rest of his post which detailed other problems with Android and the Android ecosystem.
85% good enough, is more than enough to win a market if you have substantial other advantages in your favor.
Windows has always suffered fragmentation, and has rarely been better than 85% good enough. Circa 2002 they had '95, 98, ME, and XP spread across over half a billion units. With further varied patch configurations and service packs. The total global varied combinations are in the hundreds in that context.
But, you say, that's just so horrible! Welcome to reality, where markets are never dominated by perfection and fairy tales. You don't have to like it, you can rail against it the rest of your life, and fight the good fight; and Android will continue to dominate, and it will have absolutely nothing to do with issues related to fragmentation.