Google Android — a Universe of Incompatible Devices 636
snydeq writes "Galen Gruman writes about the dark side of the recent flood of Android smartphones: versions run amok. 'That flood of options should be a good thing — but it's not. In fact, it's a self-destruction derby in action, as phones come out with different versions of the Android OS, with no clear upgrade strategy for either the operating system or the applications users have installed, and with inconsistent deployment of core features. In short, the Android platform is turning out not to be a platform at all, but merely a starting point for a universe of incompatible devices,' Gruman writes. 'This mess leaves developers and users in an unstable position, as each new Android device adds another variation and compatibility question.' In the end, Google's naive approach to open sourcing Android may in fact be precipitating this free-for-all — one that might ultimately turn off both end-users and developers alike."
As reader donberryman points out, you can even put Android onto some Windows Mobile phones, now.
Just like desktop linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really a "problem"
my honda engine does not fit in that ford chassis
J2ME again (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like what happened with J2ME. Everyone buggered off and did their own thing with it making it a real arse for developers. For a mobile platform to be useful for developers it really should be standardized in basic capabilities (CPU, memory, libraries and screen sizes).
Oh no! It's InfoWorld! (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like they haven't learned anything from the Windows 7 memory FUD scandal.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
The same problem, and the same strength.
Centralized has some advantages over decentralized, and some disadvantages. If linux were just RedHat, it could never have become Ubuntu. On the other hand, it's frustrating when even copy/paste doesn't always work :)
tradegy... strife... and fired please (Score:5, Insightful)
If I remember right, pundits were predicting the death of android because google was releasing the Nexus One.
Next, Android was going to flail and explode because evil Google wasn't bothering to spend time pushing irrelavent patches all the main Kernel tree (yes, because I want a phone's security model on my desktop linux please).
Now, horors of horors, a _very very very small_ percentage of applications don't work everywhere. I predict complete failure as a platform. No operating system platform in the world has experienced this and managed to suceeed.
I couldn't stand to RTFA; does the author of the article own an Android device? I do, and it's a v1.5 (Samsung Moment). In a few months, it'll be upgraded to v2.1. Till then, I've downloaded exactly _one_ application that isn't compatibile with 1.5. Time to sing about tradgedy, strife and whatever analyst wrote this getting fired.
Growing pains, not worsethan older phones (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's rules on Android are important, because Google has reached a fork in the road.
Google might do the former now (to spur adoption) and the latter later, once everyone is using the OS. It's tough to say, because if Google tries to tighten control too early, they'll lose their support, while if they're too late, people may have already given up on developing for the platform.
Re:no upgrades?? (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is true to some extent, does your phone have Android 2.1? Unless you hacked it, the answer is no. So it does small incremental upgrades, but there hasn't been a major version upgrade pushed this way, which is what this article is talking about. There are phones currently being sold with at least 3 version of android (1.6, 2.0. and 2.1), with no current upgrade path to get to the next major version.
This is the big problem with WinMobile phones, and will be a huge issue for Android phones unless they get an upgrade path out there. If the phone can take it, there is no reason not to allow them to upgrade to the newest version of the OS.
Say what you want about Apple (Score:1, Insightful)
But at least there's a very controlled and limited number of different configurations for their hardware.
From a programmer point of view, Android is a total mess (a LOT of different screen resolutions, completely different input methods and layouts, etc).
Carrier Footdragging (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.
Hey - let's not stop there. This is essentially the same problem that desktop Windows has.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm a little confused by this post. From the sounds of it I could download a "Motorola Droid" application and it would not work on the "Google Nexis One" as the don't share the same core libs.
But I had a Windows Mobile 5 device, I now have a Windows 6 device and a friend has the Windows Mobile 6.5 device. A Windows Mobile application work work happily on all three devices.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is. You just go to the "app store" and click on the application you want to install.
The system sorts out the relevant details.
Or I could type "apt-get install kdenlive".
If you are into binaries and want to "get fancy" then you can have a self contained tarball that has everything it needs very much in the style of OpenStep.
One wonders if this Android hysteria is as unfounded as the FUD about different Linuxen being incompatable with each other.
Re:Mod Parent Down (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think what the OP means is that an app developed on one release of one distro is not guaranteed to work on any version of any other distro, or even any other version of the same distro.
This isn't about machines talking to one another, it's about software dependency resolution (or lack thereof).
No. A phone is not a phone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm tired of hearing this bullshit, especially on Slashdot and supposed technology sites.
"The most important thing is that it makes calls. After all, it's a phone."
Anyone who cares most about "making calls" is living in the last century. I almost don't give a shit if my phone makes calls via the phone network. It's more important to me that it can Skype via WiFi. It's more important to me that it can check my email, run a Web browser, check my bank accounts, post to my blog, view what's in my Dropbox on the go, take notes, and manage my calendar and to-do lists.
It is a "phone" only because that name was grandfathered in over several generations. In fact, the "phone" is the LEAST important part of these mobile devices for me. The most important are data accessibility, ease of backing up/upgrades, and the features of built-in applications and installable apps vis-a-vis the network and network service/information providers of various types.
Re:Maybe not a crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because code like that is so pleasant to work with.
if (hasCompassV2()) { // do something; // do soemthing slightly different // do painful work around // fake it up using the other thing // do something nasty //damn it, just draw a non-working icon
} else if (hasCompassV1()) {
} else if (hasOldBrokenCompass()) {
} else if (hasOtherThing()) {
} else if (hackTestForPropertyX()) {
} else {
}
And of course now whenever you change something you have to test it on a dozen variants to make sure you didn't break any.
And then of course you find one that hasCompassV2() us true, but has a something broken/different so you need to special case that one out to...
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except a Win32 binary will Just Work, pretty much anywhere, on any version since NT4/2000. Look at Putty for a great example. The fact that Android has fragmented this badly in just two years on the market is deeply troubling.
Google's own approach: fork-and-extend (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's own approach is to fork everything they use... Sure, they make their changes available, but, apparently, don't try very hard to just stick to the original versions of whatever they pick.
The more famous of recent examples are the forks in Chrome [lwn.net]. The changes, that Google made to their own versions, are substantial enough for their forks to be incompatible with the stock versions in too many cases. Was that really necessary?.. Google thinks, it was, but I am not convinced by their argument [neugierig.org]. At all...
Hard to blame the device-makers for taking a particular snapshot of Android OS, forking it, and not wanting to retest everything for an upgrade six months later...
I always liked Sun's position, prohibiting forks of Java by the very license — for this exact reason. You may think, you need to fix this burning bug with "the fierce urgency of now", but, by creating your own slightly-incompatible fork, you are doing more harm than good. (Such local forks are only excusable, when the upstream project is dead or almost dead...)
Too many programmers, too few software engineers...
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
And how do apps get in the app store? I would assume they will need to test against these varying OS versions and "tweaks" to ensure that they will indeed run in different end-user environments, and if so, that means developers now have to test against a myriad of targets.
It's like the well-known Java adage: "Write once, test everywhere."
TFA is a troll (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA: "Who wants to commit to a two-year cell contract for an Android phone when it's not clear if a better version will be out next month or if the operating system and apps you put on your Android device will be supported in the future?"
There's no guarantee that palm will ever fix it's frustrating SMTP/TLS implementation to match the RFC , or that Apple won't force every developer to DRM everything that enters the iPhone. I'm also not guaranteed that I'll ever be spyware free on Windows, or that Microsoft won't shut down my PC because they think it's pirated.
The article is just the same opportunistic FUD against Open Source that went around in the mid 90s. Next thing coming out of InfoWorld will be an article written by someone from the Yankee Group declaring android is infringing on copyrights. Go ahead and drink the kool-aid if you want folks. The only thing your doing is limiting your own choices down the road.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
> What the hell is kdenlive?
Once again the willfully ignorant Mac users demonstrate how they fixate on the WRONG details.
It doesn't really matter what kdenlive is. That's not the point.
The point is that you only need to name your app. The rest of the details are sorted out for you.
This is in stark contrast to a Mac where you will first download your app and then be told to manually sort out dependencies.
Mac "ease of use" is just a myth. Once you do anything remotely interesting with the system it quickly breaks down. It's great as an appliance if you don't alter anything or try to venture off the reservation and try to do anything "strange". Once you do that then all bets are off. If it weren't for the ghastly security record of Microsoft, you would be better off with Windows.
Re:J2ME again (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem comes in when you code a beautiful app for the above, that guy with an Android phone without the trackball (which your app requires) gets pissy and complains when he can't find your app in the marketplace. You don't have this problem when there's only one or two hardware revisions that are nearly identical. But you do get it when you have lots of hardware revs.
Either that, or you're a lazy/unethical dev and will let your app run on any Android phone even if it doesn't have the necessary features, because that's more money for you. I expect that this is the real problem; the developers don't want to put in the effort to learn the new features and to test across multiple hardware types. This is/can be a problem currently. A slightly more strict review process wouldn't hurt.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, in a pinch I can use a friggin' Windows XP video driver in Windows 7, which I needed to do to get 3D to work on a Dell C610 - that's a Pentium III running Windows 7. As easy as it is to knock Windows for its faults, that's pretty damn good compatability.
Now, go on the Linux Kernel Mailing List and suggest that the Linux kernel maintain a consistent binary API and see what happens...
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
I (proud Nexus One owner) would still take Android over Iphone or Windows phones
something empowering about having more freedom and choice than these 2 locked down and bastardized "platforms" where now i cant even download an app with boobies in it!
Yes, because it's so hard to download a 512KB file and run it to jailbreak an iPhone........
You shouldn't need to jailbreak. That is the whole point...
Re: - Turn off users? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try at a red herring, but you fail.
But,
First off, it is Windows, not "Windows PC". You see Linux is an OPERATING SYSTEM and Windows is an OPERATING SYSTEM. The "average Windows PC" is a whole computer system. If you want to compare Linux to something, you should compare it to another operating system.
Second, Windows has one official set of core components that are used over 95% of users. Linux, on the other hand, does not have standard locations or components. It has interchangeable window managers and desktop environments, each with its own API. Try installing a semi-light weight system with, say, WindowMaker as your WM. Don't install any part of GNOME or KDE. Then, start installing application such as Nautilus, or Konqueror, or Evolution. What will it say you need to do? Yet, that is not a problem on Windows, now is it? And with Android, it is worse because an application written for Android 2.1 may use OS features not available in 1.6 and there is no way to upgrade from 1.6 to 2.1 for almost every Android device with the exception of hacking the device which most users don't have the skills to do.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the typical trait found on the Internet today. You find a command line for a Windows problem and people hail it as the second coming awesome/easy solution but look at a command line fix for things in Linux and instantly jump on the "ZOMG! Linux has to use the command line!" bandwagon.
Re:No. A phone is not a phone. (Score:1, Insightful)
Get a netbook then... the primary function for my phone is to make and receive phone calls.
Re:This is EXACTLY why I don't have an andoid phon (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you think AT&T is evil, compared to Verizon?
Let me tell you, for 3 of the last 4 years, we had phones in my house from both companies. Verizon because my Mother-in law thought she'd be nice, and commit my wife and I to a 2 year contract on a phone so she and my wife could take for free (not that i could not already call her free on VoIP, so really she bought my wife a gift to save herself money at our expense). I had AT&T provided by the office, and later got an iPhone.
Let me clue you in on some of the discrepancies between these 2 companies I've experienced:
1) Verizon has a data plan cap on their unlimited plan, and RIDICULOUS overage charges. AT&T has a "soft cap" at 5GB, has no overage charges, and has not disconnected or throttled a single known customer for exceeding the cap (even given the network strain).
2) Verizon doubled its termination fees recently, on devices AT&T also sells with the same subsidies. AT&T has mode no move to change, and the FCC and FTC are crawling up Verizon's back over the policy.
3) Verizon's adds are all about those great multitasking devices, but they fail to mention in any literature or media that those devices come strictly limited to voice and data use independently, meaning you can't use GPS and take a call at the same time, or be on a call and look something up, a CORE FEATURE of those platforms.
4) Verizon embeds custom firmware in 3rd party devices, disabling advertised hardware features so they can charge for their own services. For example, on most of their camera phones (including all of them from Motorola I'm aware of), have the ability to sync with a PC over both a cable and bluetooth, but Verizon hacked the firmware to explicitly forbid this, in favor of a fee based service to "send yourself" images through their network at $0.29 each, and they didn't even bother to take the "PC sync cable sold separately" line off their OWN BOX (not Moto's box, completely Verizon's branded box). After we lodged a complaint with tech support, and after repeated, and repeated failed call backs, we finally were told Verizon would never sell that cable, but oops, you've had that device over 14 days now, so you can't return it without a huge contract penalty...
5) Billing for the next full utilized minute. You make a call for 30 seconds, 2 minutes are charged...
6) No ability what so ever to disable text messaging on any phone that supports it on Verizon. AT&T offers both a filtering service for a fee as well as a similar service at no charge if you get inundated with too many unsolicited texts, and you can also simply outright have text disabled completely.
7) Strict 2 year handset replacement policy. After 2 years, the new phone is only (up to) $200 off, not $400 off like a new iPhone, and you're still locked into a 2 year renewal anyway. New subscribers get a better deal than existing ones.
8) automatic contract renewal for a variety of things: Add a new line to an existing contract, even with a pre-existing phone, resets to 2 years, even if you were more than a year in on the existing line, changing plans extends contracts in many cases, replace a broken phone mid way through by any means other than their own (deductible incurring) additional warranty extends the contract, etc.
9) no rollover minutes.
10) extra charge for using ActiveSync or BES, even to YOUR OWN SERVERS, which have NOTHING to do with Verizon other than using their data channel.
I can go on.
AT&T may be a tad dishonest in it's ads (questionably), but so are all the others. AT&T's up front pricing is the same or lower than Verizon's across the board. Their network issues have nothing to do with their network, but with available FCC frequency and they readily admit that (btw, Verizon and Sprint are having the SAME issues, you just don't hear about it as much since they're not iPhone-hater targets). AT&T may be a hotly hated company, and they certainly have their share of issues I can't defend them for, but they're practically SAINTS compared to how Verizon treats their customers. Don't even get me started on Fios...
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Someone writes an app to take advantage of Droid hardware or uses the newest Android API.
- Someone complains that that app won't work on their G1.
2. Someone writes a game to take advantage of the latest DirectX11 video card.
- I complain that that game won't work on my old DirectX8 Video card.
3. Someone writes an application that uses .NET3
- Why can't I run it in Windows 2000?
See?
Re:No. A phone is not a phone. (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, the person you quoted is correct.
Being on a "supposed technological site," one would think we'd all know the difference between a cellphone, smartphone and a PDA.
For a cellphone, the most important thing _is_ that it sends/receives phone calls. It is a phone because it is a phone. It is not a PC. Our android phones are smartphones; cellphones that have PDA capabilities. They are cellphones first, PDA's second.
If you do not care for making phone calls through your carrier...then you are using the wrong device, as you are trading functionality for the cellphone capabilities..Not to mention paying for services you don't want, as you apparently almost don't give a shit if it makes calls through the carrier's network.
They do make little mini computers with both wifi and Cellular Data hookup, so you can place your skype calls anywhere.
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never encountered an open source desktop linux application that would not run on any desktop linux distribution.
Have you ever encountered a closed-source linux application that could be thrown at an arbitrary linux distribution? No? How about an arbitrary version of a single distribution?
Re:TFA is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple prefers (and fight VIGOROUSLY for) DRM free content. The ONLY content DRM's on the Apple store is content the PROVIDER INSISTS is encrypted, not just by Apple, but by EVERY SINGLE METHOD OF LEGALLY GETTING IT. Apple is largely considered an industry leader in the DRM free content battle you moron.
This is not UFD against open source, it;s a valid argument that Android is suffering user confusion and disappointment because Google didn't explicitly require a reference platform, application certification process, and forward compatibility requirements. Yes, there are a lot of tools available to devs to assist with the compatibility issues, but its on the devs to actually USE those tools, and very few choose to (or even know how).
I KNOW that when iPhone 4 comes out, all apps i have on the iPhone now will either work, or require a minor patch that I'll get for free guaranteed. I know this because if the app isn't supported on the latest release, apple pulls it from the store, cutting that dev off from all future revenue on the app if they don't fix it, and updates are always free. I also know there's extremely good documentation coming out of apple to the devs about explicitly what they can and can't code for, which APIs are scheduled for depreciation, and which APIs replace existing functionality over time. They've been doing that with OS X successfully for nearly 10 years, and with Sysem X previously. in contracts, Web OS, Android, and Windows devs really have no clue what's going on until the SDK hits the street (on launch day, not months before release), and you're lucky to get any real documentation or guidance at all, let alone dev support.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is essentially the same problem that desktop linux has.
Not only that, it also strengthens Microsoft Windows and to a lesser extent Apple OSX.
The end user is not interested in making choices or freedom from restrictions. They want something that will consistently allow them to do whatever it is that they do.
This basic need is the reason McDonald's has such a large presence in the US food service market.
It's not the number of stores supporting their bottom line.
It's not that they provide fine dining.
It's not the taste or quality of their products.
It's not even the price.
It is simply that the user of the service knows with better than 98% certainty WHAT the experience will be. The user knows the food, the prices, the environment, before they even pull into the parking lot.
The reason I don't try the small unknown diner three blocks from the interstate when traveling through a town I'm unfamiliar with is that there are too many variables (including what kind of neighborhood am I getting into) that must align for me to have a positive experience. If I am seeking food adventures I will have done some homework and will also be prepared for a possibly disappointing meal/check/service event. If I'm traveling for non pleasure reasons I want to keep going, not go on safari along the way.
Desktop Linux is not just that unknown diner, I also have to know someone who has been there just to find the parking lot (speaking as a regular retail computer user). I'm probably going to have to cook for myself, and impose on someone for help. If I want my cheeseburger, I don't want to have to learn meat packing first. I don't want to have to cast an iron griddle on which I can cook. Linus gave me a cow, Stallman donated the iron for utensils (I though about reversing that but I get this metal image of RMS as an herbivore), so I could do it all myself. But Apple has a Big Mac and Microsoft has the Whooper any way I want it.
If Android goes the fragmentation route of Linux it can only be good news for the major players.
Consistency sells, and it garners referral sales.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
> This is laughably incorrect, and really comes across as twitter-like zealotry
Nope. Just someone that actually has a Mac or three and isn't a member of the cult.
The idea that MacOS will magically banish all of your problems forever is just mindless nonsense.
The main problem is that 1.5 even STILL EXISTS (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the REAL problem with Android right now: over the past 9 months or so, Android has advanced from 1.5 to 1.6, 2.0.x, and 2.1. Each of those advances added lots of desirable new capabilities. The problem is, roughly half the Android owners in North America were sold brand new phones last fall that came with Android 1.5... months after 1.6 was mainstream, barely a month before 2.0.x arrived with the Droid, and less than 3 months before 2.1 arrived in January. Of course, we've (almost) all been promised 2.1... sometime in the first half of 2010.
Speaking on behalf of Sprint Hero owners, we didn't even get positive confirmation that it was shipping with 1.5 instead of 1.6 until literally a few days before they arrived at Best Buy, and even then it was taken for granted by pretty much everyone that we'd have 1.6 on our phones by Thanksgiving. Of course, at that point, 2.0.x and the Droid were barely even credible rumors, especially given the fact that 1.6 was only a few months old at the time, and the way Google, Motorola & Verizon managed to keep 2.0 practically a state secret until the day before the Droid hit stores. I'll freely admit I was absolutely *livid* when I found out the Nexus One (with 2.1) was coming out less than 2 weeks after Christmas, before my own 1.5-crippled phone had its 3-month anniversary. And even now, HTC is still being coy about when we're going to finally get to have 2.1, besides vaguely repeating that it'll be sometime before July 1.
This really, really sucks. Seriously. Imagine you'd just gone out and spent a thousand bucks on a brand new laptop running Windows 3.1 a couple of months after Windows 95 hit the streets. You wanted Win95 too, but your ISP only allowed you to use that specific laptop sold with Windows 3.1... and it was widely understood by everyone (besides your ISP and the laptop's maker) that you could upgrade to Win95 on your own, anyway. Except after buying it, you discovered that the manufacturer locked it down to prevent you from booting from a Win95 installation disc. Then, after you finally managed to hack around that limitation, you discovered that none of its hardware drivers would work under Win95... not even in Win32s compatibility mode. But wait, it gets better...
A month later, amidst rumors that didn't become confirmed until literally days before release, a new, incompatible laptop with Windows 2000 came out... and your own laptop's manufacturer released a press release saying, "Good news! Since it's already obsolete, we're skipping Windows 95, and going straight to Windows 2000! You'll get to have it NEXT YEAR." A month later, yet another new laptop, equally-incompatible, with a substantially faster CPU, more ram, a much larger hard drive, and better display came out running XP... and the same day, Microsoft announced XP's arrival on MSDN. Oh, your laptop's maker sent out another press release... forget Win2k, it's going to be XP instead. At least they didn't push back the release date yet again, but in the meantime you're still hobbling along with Windows 3.1. Half the software that comes out can't be installed at all, and half the software that CAN crashes the moment you try launching it, because you're still running an ancient version of Windows.
Google & the Android team made things worse than they had to be by designing the new APIs as a core part of the OS, instead of a user-installable upgrade. If the gestures library and Bluetooth API were installable under 1.5 as shared libraries, instead of locked away in the kernel (which can't be easily upgraded without at least the non-interference, if not the actual cooperation, of the manufacturer), the distinction between 1.5 and 2.0 would *almost* be academic. The best any of us can do right now is to install a hacked-up 1.5 kernel that's had some band-aids to sort of run 2.0 apps, but it's kind of like the programs that came out around 1995 that tried to make Windows 3.11 look more like Windows 95... or the programs that stripped down Windows 98's Explorer to use Windows 95's l
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, I am aware that every OS has versions, and some are incompatible, but the whole point of the article is that there are so many versions of Android it is harder to keep track. There are devices currently shipping that have Android 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 and 2.,1 with no unified strategy to get everyone on the same playing field.
Compared the iPhone, which has had several OS releases, everyone gets the opportunity to install the new software at the same time. Again, I realize that original iPhone owners don't get the benefits of hardware GPS and 3G/3GS only apps, but the control Apple has, irregardless of philosophical objections, allows them to have a fairly static platform for which to develop.
Overall I think the Android platform has a lot going for it, but if I have to keep buying a new phone every year to stay on top of the software updates or wait for custom ROMs, I will eventually get tired and move to something else.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem with computers of any variety is that they require software to run. So as soon as you've purchased some computing hardware you have a 'problem' to deal with. No matter what choice you make for an OS, you now have a multitude of problems. Oh, so you want applications too? Now you have a larger list of problems.
I fail to see how looking at any small group of that now large list of problems constitutes anything more than complaining that you bought a computing device and it needs effort to maintain it. If it's really a big problem for the user, they can sit home and wait for their rotary dial phone to ring.
For phone manufacturers, making all those problems invisible is a profit thing. For computer software makers, making all those problems invisible is the holy grail. Even if they become invisible, they still exist, and will eventually come to haunt you. Well, until someone manages to stuff a 'mind reading' function into applications.
Galen Gruman is biased (Score:3, Insightful)
Galen Gruman is the author of the Mac OS X Snow Leopard Bible [amazon.com], so it's a good bet he is biased towards Apple and against Android.
I have owned several Android devices and I haven't had significant compatibility problems. Some software takes a little while to get updated to the latest version of Android, but that's pretty much it.
Re:Galen Gruman is biased (Score:2, Insightful)
> I have owned several Android devices and I haven't had significant compatibility problems.
> Some software takes a little while to get updated to the latest version of Android, but that's pretty much it.
The problem isn't inability to run old apps on new phones... it's the current inability of a substantial plurality of Android phones that aren't even SIX MONTHS OLD to run more and more apps that come out daily. Google is totally focused on forward compatibility, and has complete disregard for any semblance of backwards compatibility.
Disregard for backwards compatibility is tolerable, if not "OK", in the desktop Linux world, because you can upgrade your distro daily to the latest bleeding-edge code if you want to. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of Android phone owners don't have that freedom. The bootloaders are locked, the hardware is treated like a trade secret, and the few brave souls who manage to root and reflash without their carrier, manufacturer, and Google's blessing are exiled from the commercial software universe and aren't allowed to run apps they purchased & paid for since their ROM is unsigned, unblessed, and regarded as tainted by Google's AppStore.
Don't even get me started on the fact that Google didn't even release the API, let alone the source, to 2.1 until AFTER the Nexus One hit the streets. God forbid, some brave souls might have gotten it to "sort of" work on their unblessed, rooted phones a week before the N1 arrived. Ditto, for 2.0 and the Droid.
IMHO, Google's day of harsh reckoning is going to arrive in a couple of months with Android 2.5 and the CDMA "Nexus Two". If Google tries to release the CDMA Nexus Two with Android 2.5 and give Verizon a month of 2.5-exclusivity before releasing it (let alone the source) as an upgrade for the GSM Nexus One, Google WILL regret it when everyone who bought an Android phone over the past year hits their next upgrade anniversary and bails.
Up to now, they've been able to deflect most of the blame for being evil on the handset makers and carriers. If they turn around and do the same thing to THEIR customers (after reminding everyone over and over that they bought GOOGLE Nexus One phones, and are GOOGLE's customers), their credibility and goodwill will be shot to hell, and CNN's lead story will be the mob of angry Nexus One owners protesting in the GooglePlex parking lot.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a sec - did you just list 3 versions of Windows?
Yes, I did. Please list all distros of Linux and we'll compare the size of the lists shall we?
It doesn't matter how many versions exist. All it matters is that I'm using the version supported. In that regard, Linux is Linux just as much as Windows is Windows.
Well you brought it up, not me.
Re:Just like desktop linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Android is a lot closer to Windows than Linux in this regard. Windows has to run on different screens, with different processors and peripherals made by all sorts of different people, and it really needs to "just work" most of the time, since average users are generally driving things. It's the same with Android. This is really just Mac vs Windows all over again, with iPhone being the Mac, and Android being Windows. Like Macs, the iPhone will be more stable and "just work" more often, and like Windows, Android will find itself in lower cost hardware, and probably a lot more handsets in the end.
BTW, I keep reading rants about all the different handsets Android has to work with, and I've had two myself (G1 and Nexus One). Pretty much, the popular apps just work, so I don't know what the hubbub is all about. The poster's rant about the various cell phone vendors not upgrading their version of Android is valid. Does it surprise anyone that most cell-phone manufacturers continue to be huge dorks? If you buy directly from either Apple or Google, I think you'll find that you are able to run the latest OS. If you buy from the guys who invented 2-year contracts to sucker you for more money and vendor-locking of cell phones... well, then you'll get what you deserve.