Android Fragmentation Study

[Tekka]

While browsing TechCrunch I found an article with charts on the fragmentation issue and Android. I must say I'm def shocked at the lack of support for OS updates on older and not so older phones. Here's the story with chart.
Charted: Android Fragmentation | TechCrunch

 

[kharrigan]

The original article is here:

the understatement: Android Orphans: Visualizing a Sad History of Support

While the point is valid - Android phones are in need of more timely support for firmware by manufacturers (except the Nexus, of course). The article does say:

It appears to be a widely held viewpoint that there’s no incentive for smartphone manufacturers to update the OS: because manufacturers don’t make any money after the hardware sale, they want you to buy another phone as soon as possible.

While I don't know if this is in fact the case, if it is then the manufacturers are penny-wise (by saving costs associated with updating their phones) and pound-foolish (by turning off customers to buying replacement phones due to poor experience).

This may ultimately be the Achilles Heel of the Android phone platform if this model continues. However if we, as consumers, accept the dependency on phone manufacturers and carriers for updated phone software, we deserve the results that we see.

Of course, the answer may be as simple as running CyanogenMod...

 

[phonejunky]

I guess when you buy an android phone you just need to know it probably won't be on par with the other devices after your one year mark is met unless its a nexus device.

 

[kharrigan]

It could also mean that you're happy with the phone - as is - and simply have no desire (or way) to update...

 

[Crispy]

This is a big problem with Android and its by design. Andy Rubin flat out said he doesn't care about this.

 

[Officerpolabear]

They should have like a handful of Google Employees for each manufacturer that helps them with updates so they can chug them out faster and just leave the top devs to make updates for the Nexus line.

 

[kharrigan]

IMHO the problem is the UI customizations done by the manufacturers and carriers. History now proves that no one is willing to pay for it - to make them OR to buy them. I say focus that effort on a startup splash screen and a default theme instead of UI/UX customizations.

Their competition is the Nexus, not Apple.

 

[Officerpolabear]

IMHO the problem is the UI customizations done by the manufacturers and carriers. History now proves that no one is willing to pay for it - to make them OR to buy them. I say focus that effort on a startup splash screen and a default theme instead of UI/UX customizations.

Their competition is the Nexus, not Apple.

I hope ICS changes that as it looks very nice. Honeycomb barely had any custom UI's, let's hope ICS doesn't get any either. At the moment, I can't think of anything to improve upon the UI of ICS except maybe the ability of remapping the software buttons without root.

 

[kharrigan]

The AC Editorial on this is a good read. It clarifies the actual problem that the original chart tries to summarize.

The original article states that the problem with Android phones is the level of support that manufacturers and carriers is lacking because it costs money to do so and there's no direct benefit to them. The AC editorial states that the problem is dilution - Android phones simply exist at multiple customer tiers and the middle and lower tiers should not need updates.

I think that they're both right and they're both wrong. THE problem, IMHO, is that Google, manufacturers, and carriers do not set customer expectations when marketing phones. This is the one (and only) area where Apple has a clear advantage.

The newest iPhone is a premium product and is marketed as such. Older iPhones are marketed as a lower tier product. Since no one in the Android world markets products as well, customers and media assume that ALL new Android phones are premium products and should have the same support. We know that this is not the case; Android phones are released directly to all tiers - which unfortunately cheapens all prior product. When you compound that the media and users feel like they should have the same user experience as the iPhone, then the perception of being a lesser product propagates.

Android phones should use classes to differentiate based on tiers. The "Android" tier should be the premium tier. Other names should be used for the middle and lower tiers - if manufacturers decide to even pursue that business at all. For example, if there were a "Mecha" tier for the middle tier and "Robot" for the lower tier, customers (and media) could be educated on what to expect.

Expectations are the problem. With Apple being the only company setting them, Android will always be in the shadow

 

[mostlyDigital]

Providers want to modify the UI for brand differentiation. It follows that a more modular approach to dropping in a new UI and shell would speed (and decrease costs) of bringing upgrades to market.

An alternative would be greater user selection of Nexus phones. Manufacturers would then have little incentive to modify vanilla Android.

If timely updates are a high priority for you I suggest that your next Android is a Nexus.

 

[Raptor]

Providers want to modify the UI for brand differentiation. It follows that a more modular approach to dropping in a new UI and shell would speed (and decrease costs) of bringing upgrades to market.

An alternative would be greater user selection of Nexus phones. Manufacturers would then have little incentive to modify vanilla Android.

If timely updates are a high priority for you I suggest that your next Android is a Nexus.

I don't think it's just the carriers that push this crap -- I think the manufacturers are looking for a piece of the crapware game as well. The crapware provides a return to the carriers and, I believe, the makers by:

1. The crapware providers (Facebook, etc.) want more users and will pay for the "chance" to get them that preloading there crap provides.

2. When you use the crapware the carriers can see what you're doing and gain a marketing value from this data.

3. Some crapware requires a one-time or on-going charge for its use.

4. etc...............................


I don't see how Android gets past this because there is little reason for the carriers and makers to eiliminate the crapware because it would just be cutting there profit -- how do they benefit when the crapware is reduced or eliminated.


The question I have is if you buy the phone outright without carrier incentive price reduction how much crapware does it come with. Maybe we need to keep a running table of the crapload that each phone has from the various carriers...


Brian

 

[MBeattie]

Hey guys,

Here's an article in wrote for my own blog in response to this whole fragmentation issue, would love your thoughts and opinions.

Blogger Michael Degusta has put together an incredibly indepth piece on Android OS updates.

Tracking update cycles for 18 Android handsets released up until mid 2010, Degusta paints a grim picture for consumers who purchase a device assuming Google and OEMs will keep their investment up to date throughout the 2 year contract they've signed. Click here for the full article.

Done reading Michaels piece? Good, now here's why I believe the whole Android fragmentation issue is really a non issue.

Ice Cream Sandwich

Each point made in the article and elsewhere regarding fragmentation are valid and should be addressed. What's never mentioned though is that the issue has already been addressed. Google introduced Ice Cream Sandwich as the OS that'll bring all devices together under one unified Android umbrella.

At the moment there's several versions of the Android OS for phones and one build specific to tablets. When ICS is released, manufacturers will have one build to apply across all of their hardware.

Many consider having multiple versions of the same operating system spread out across numerous handsets to be a nuisance. This may be true but these same people complain that other platforms are starting to feel dated, companies like RIM are being criticized for a lack of innovation while Android is getting bashed now for being too aggressive. Does that make sense? If Google stopped working after Cupcake you wouldn't be here reading either article. It seems that the very thing that makes Android so great is also what everyone's complaining about, Choice!

Options, options, options

Everyone loves to compare Android with the rest of the mobile industry. That's fine when your talking about specs and features. It becomes unfair when you start talking about this whole fragmentation/update issues though. Other companies such as Apple and RIM have it easy when compared to Google. They operate under one roof, their hardware and software are produced in house. Google on the other hand has to work with a vast network of OEMs to get their software onto others hardware. Even with the comfort of in house production, RIM is taking a beating from tech Bloggers who bash the Canadian giant for putting out the same phone featuring the same software over and over. I personally feel RIM has a formula that works and they're loyal to that design while other will conform to whatever makes the most money. However, if this notion of BlackBerry being stuck in the past is true are we better off with RIM who can't seem to give us anything but the same boring product year after year or do we hop on board with Android where we can find a form factor to suit any and all of our needs but may need to come to terms with waiting on a software update?

While we're talking software, how different is BlackBerry OS 5 from BlackBerry OS 4? Here's a company that is "supposedly" doing nothing but recycling hardware yet can't seem to put together a revolutionary version of their software either. At least we're getting some forward momentum out of Google with each new version of Android.

Without a handful of builds out there, we'd be looking at the very same Android OS that shipped with the G1 three years ago. Without a vast array of handsets to choose from we'd still be using the G1 right now and fragmentation wouldn't be an issue whatsoever. One phone, one piece of locked down software. Is that what we Android users want out of our smartphone experience? Nope! Obviously those who criticize the platform aren't owners or they'd realize the issues Android does have are a trade off we're willing to make in order to have both hardware and software freedom. This freedom is another reason why fragmentation exists,

Manufacturer applied User Interfaces

I'm all about the Vanilla Android experience on the Nexus line of handsets. My fianc? on the other hand loves what sense has to offer on her HTC Incredible. Having the choice between MotoBlur, TouchWiz and all the rest are what makes Android so popular. It's also one of the main reasons why updates take as long as they do to become available after it's released. Companies like HTC need to make their software compatible with each new OS release. They could certainly make the process a bit more formal and streamlined but again, Google recently announced plans for a structured update process where manufacturers will agree to push out updates in a timely manner for a certain period of time after a devices release. Like Mr.Degusta though, I agree that hardware limitations is a poor excuse for updates not being made available since developers usually find a way to port the latest build onto a device said to be too old. The fact remains though, I am not a developer nor a manufacturer so I honestly don't know what it takes to get someone's software working on someone else's hardware. This brings me to my next point

Who are we and who are we talking to?

As I read posts about these sort of issues I often wonder who exactly the writer is and who they think they're speaking to. Articles such as the one you've just read talking about Android fragmentation and how it affects the average consumer will probably never be read by the average consumer. Most "average" consumers purchase an Android phone because they have the idea that it's the cool platform that has a bunch of cool features and a large app catalog. They'll also call it a DROID without knowing or caring to know that DROID is simply a moniker for Verizons lineup of Android devices with no connection to Android products on other networks.

The word fragmentation means nothing to the average consumer who purchased a device running HTC Sense or one of the other 3rd party UIs and would never be able to visually differentiate GingerBread from Froyo anyway. Plus, as pointed out in the article by Mr.Degusta, most handsets do receive security patches even if they don't get updated to the latest version of Android. Anyone who thinks the average customer is being cheated when theyre year old phone isn't updated to Googles latest iteration of Android probably isn't the Average consumer themselves.

If it's not the average consumer who these editorials are written for then they've got to be aimed at the enthusiasts. If that's the case and we're to assume the enthusiast is worried about official OS updates, we're probably wrong again. If your an Android Blogger your audience is most likely made up of power users. Power users have probably never held onto their phone for the duration of a 2 year contract. They're not really concerned with making sure the phone they buy today will get updates down the road since that road is usually only a few months long anyway. They'll also have a favorite developer whose ROM gets flashed onto their device anyway, usually eliminating the ability to receive official updates altogether. Let's not forget the Nexus either which is available to anyone truly concerned about owning a device that's going to stay current throughout it's entire life cycle.

Can't we all just get along

It's a great time to be a smartphone owner, we've got so many wonderful products to choose from but must also remember that there's never going to be a single device or platform that works for everyone.

I personally went from being a die hard BlackBerry users to an Android faithful in a relatively short period of time. The BlackBerry Bold 9000 will always hold the honors of being my all time favorite handsets. After finally getting it in my hands I spent every spare moment of my day on CrackBerry.com and a few others trying to master the OS. Once I knew the software inside and out I began customizing the actual phone with aftermarket parts and accessories. To this day no phone has been able to capture my attention such as my first BlackBerry. That being said, after owning a few more RIM products I started to get bored by the overall experience and made the switch to Android.

Enter the HTC Hero which was certainly a breath of fresh air but I wasn't able to enjoy my new toy because I kept comparing every last detail of this new operating system to BlackBerry. After weighing my options I determined Androids potential was worth my time and so I jumped in with both feet. AndroidAdvanced.com is nothing more than an outlet to share my love and growing knowledge/interest in the Android ecosystem. I know that it'll never be a money maker or anything too serious but it keeps me busy and hopefully will gain a decent following once complete.

As someone who loves to tinker and obsorb as much information on my hobbies as possible, Android is priceless to me. I can spend an entire weekend tweaking my phone, wake up on Monday and start all over again. Fragmentation just proves to me that Android is a constant work in progress for both myself and Google.

That's my opinion on the issue, I also want to be sure this is not misinterpreted. The piece by Michael Degusta was amazingly indepth and sheds informative light on real issues. I simply feel the measures being taken to correct those issues are equally as important.

In the end, having the freedom to choose a phone that works best for you on the network that's going to offer the best service in your neck of the woods is something to celebrate, not argue about.

 

[johncihak]

I was a Droid owner for 2 years. I saw the the software just getting more and more unstable - witness the original GB releases for the DX and DX2. I struggled with phones that randomly rebooted several times a day. I thought of switching to Verizons latest and greatest phones but they were still on Froyo. The TB is Finally getting GB now that ICS is rolling out?! ICS is just creating more fragmentation because most phones wont be updated to it until 2012.

Now here's the thing. Google says any phone running GB can run ICS. But, many will be stuck on GB because they have to run the gaunlet of the manufacturer and then the carrier to get an update. The result will be many phones that can run ICS that will not get the update. This is what is causing so much fragmentation and frustration, and why people point out that iphones don't go obsolete as fast. Android has turned into a ghetto.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk

 

[kharrigan]

The result will be many phones that can run ICS that will not get the update. This is what is causing so much fragmentation and frustration, and why people point out that iphones don't go obsolete as fast. Android has turned into a ghetto.

That perception - if propagated - will kill Android. I estimate that if this "fragmentation" issue isn't fixed by 11/2012, then Android will start to slide into oblivion. Right now, we all think Google is addressing this issue with ICS.

Time will tell.