Eric Schmidt Doesn't Think Android Is Fragmented

adeelarshad82 writes "Eric Schmidt took issue with the idea that the Android mobile operating system is fragmented, arguing that it's a differentiation between devices rather than a fragmentation. The difference, as he explains it, is that differentiation means manufacturers have a choice, they're going to compete on their view of innovation, and try to convince consumers that their innovation is better than somebody elses whereas fragmentation is quite the opposite. Not surprisingly, some company analysts beg to differ, pointing out the ever increasing incompatibilities between OS and apps across different Android devices and other problems with Android."

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[hedwards]

There is no fragmentation problem with Android. It's always been something that Apple fanbois have used to attack Android for being less homogenous. The fact though is that Google provides the tools for developers to handle the variations in screen size and such and in practice developers don't seem to be having too much trouble with the fragmentation issue.

True early on some features wouldn't be supported on older versions of Android, but the same is true with iOS, Apple adds new features and doesn't necessarily port them to old iPhones.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[Missing.Matter]

Only on price though. Android runs terribly on low end smartphones and don't even have the full feature set of a top of the line android phone. Further, they're likely to be abandonded, perpetually running an outdated version of android until you ditch it. With the iPhone, even buying last gen you're getting most of the features of the top of the line. The WP7 Samsung Flash costs .99 on AT&T and offers the same exact user experince as a top of the line WP7 phone. So why is anyone ever choosing low end android phones? Because 1) the carriers are pushing them since they know they don't have to provide expensive upgradde support and will rope customers in for another contract since the phone will never be updated and 2) there's a lot of buzz around "Android" and people think even the low end phones will deliver the same experience, when what they get is a slow, feature-barren, "smart phone" that was abandonded by the manufacturer the second it shipped.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[fightinfilipino]

i just picked up a Samsung Galaxy S2 skyrocket and a 32gb minisd card for a grand total of US$200. that's a total of 42gb in storage space (the phone has 10gb internal storage), along with a very fast dual core processor and, more important, actual 4g LTE capability.

in comparison, Apple's 32gb nonexpandable iPhone 4s is $100 more, has a weaker processor, and is stuck with 3g speed.

i don't consider myself a full android fanboy, but based on these facts alone, you can get MUCH better android devices for far cheaper than a handicapped iPhone.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[neokushan]

I know plenty of the "general public" who aren't geeky but love Android phones. I know even more that love phones which happen to be Android phones, all former iPhone owners.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[bonch]

There is no fragmentation problem with Android. It's always been something that Apple fanbois have used to attack Android for being less homogenous.

Is that so [imgur.com]? Then maybe you can explain to the Galaxy S and Tab buyers why they won't be getting Ice Cream Sandwich.

The fact though is that Google provides the tools for developers to handle the variations in screen size and such and in practice developers don't seem to be having too much trouble with the fragmentation issue.

Third-party developer support for Android declined by a third in 2011 [flurry.com].

True early on some features wouldn't be supported on older versions of Android, but the same is true with iOS, Apple adds new features and doesn't necessarily port them to old iPhones.

While not every feature gets back ported, the 2.5-year-old iPhone 3GS can run the latest version of iOS. The problem is that carriers aren't interested in doing support; they want to sell new phone models every six months.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[wzinc]

Nope, it's free for iTMS purchases and $25/yr for all else. I've never been anywhere AT&T didn't have a good signal, or I can just hit the cache button if I'm going on a plane. As for the EULA, never happened and couldn't care less. I don't do illegal music, so I have nothing to hide. The only reason Apple would change anything in a negative way is if the music industry forced them, such the old limits to five devices or ten burns of a playlist. Apple has been fighting for the consumer for a long time.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[edmicman]

Pretty much any Google app is better on Android. The way I've viewed it, when recommending phones to people, is that it depends on which non-phone camp you're in. I don't use iTunes, my email is Gmail, news reader is Google News, etc. My music is mostly from Amazon and stored in a folder structure but any major player is able to read the tags. And I've been dabbling in Google Music lately anyway. So Android gives me the best Google experience. The Google+ app is always going to get Android updates and features first, as is most any other app by Google. And like you mentioned, Google maps navigation is top notch. However, if someone has their life in iTunes and would love to have that seamlessly carry over to their phone. I'll tell them they might prefer the iPhone. For what it's worth, my wife just upgraded from a BB Storm 2 to an iPhone 4S. It was hardly a seamless upgrade and she spent the first few days complaining about how much of a pain it was to set up the new phone and make it do what she wanted. She even said at one point that it was easier to set up the BB than the iPhone! Ultimately I don't think there's that much of a difference anymore either. Both are a phone with a button and a bunch of app icons. Both get you on the web. Both have Facebook. However I've yet to still see anything really that the iPhone does better than my Galaxy Nexus.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[Sancho]

I'm not the AC to whom you replied, but I did the same thing s/he did. Had an iPhone, switched to Android, and switched to a 4s as soon as my contract was up.

The reasons for moving to Android were openness and ability to side-load. It turned out, these weren't that big a deal.

First of all, ideologically, Android isn't really open for me. It's open in the same way that Tivo is open. Parts are based on Linux, other parts are new. Some of it is available to me, some of it isn't. But what matters (to me) is that I can't just download the source, compile it, and end up with a working build. At BEST, with a lot of work, I can get something on my phone which resembles the original (minus e.g. Google's apps, which are half of the reason to get an Android phone to begin with.) At worst, the phone has a locked bootloader, and you can't put a new ROM on there.
If my two choices are both effectively closed, then the openness of the platform is irrelevant.

I also found that I never cared to sideload. It wasn't difficult to do--I just never had a reason to. And all of the apps I had on my phone would have gone through the Apple App Store approval process--I wasn't doing anything really off the wall. So I had no need to sideload.

Then there's the issue of upgradeability. I figure that my Android phone would have been vulnerable to known exploits for about 1/4 of the contract. That's due to the carrier/manufacturer failing to update in a timely manner. The build process is fairly onerous, so I wasn't going to do it myself. Going with Cyanogen, I got updates faster. But I don't want to have to do that. Apple updates very old hardware to new OSs. Their time-to-fix vulnerabilities isn't much (if any) worse than Cyanogen.

So at the end of the day, I had to decide based on features. Both Android and iOS do what I want them to, but iOS does it cleaner and smoother.

Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers

[Sancho]

First it was the fact that different devices existed though they were generally running the same Android version. Everyone complained "oh, fragmentation." Jobs and company went out and told the world you can't build a high quality product if you don't control the entire market vertically. That was fragmentation.

I never heard that definition, so I can't really speak to that. I'll say that it doesn't make any damned sense, unless hardware vastly differed. Then you're having to optimize to particular amounts of RAM or processor speeds. The iPhone has had this particular issue ever since the 3G was released, of course.

Of course many developers came out and said it wasn't really a problem. You simply target a lower API level and develop from that.

Weellll, yes, but that's part of the fragmentation. There's the nice, shiny, easy-to-use APIs, but you can't use them if you want to target all devices. That right there is the definitive fragmentation that most people mean when they use the word.

Nevermind that iOS has similar fragmentation issues. The screen on an iphone 3gs is not the same resolution as an iphone 4 which is not the same as an ipad. Fragmentation?

Most people, when referring to Android fragmentation, are referring to phones. Tablets didn't even run the same OS until very recently (except for a few that ran older OS.)

Apple segmented their app store into iPad and iPhone sections, and while you can run the phone apps on the tablet, it's clearly not the optimal use.

As for the 3gs vs the 4's resolution, it's an even multiple, which means that the phone can use scaling to abstract 99% of problems away.

Now you say, "OMG, you can buy a phone with an old version of android!" Well no shit. The idea wasn't to pigeon hole everyone into something.

Yup. Android lets you buy a new phone with existing, in-the-wild exploits. Awesome!

But the point of the whole discussion is fragmentation, and lots of different OS versions is just that. Either devs write for the older OS or they leave it behind.

For example let's talk about Siri. Siri is perfectly capable of running on EXISTING iphone 4 devices. It was shown to be possible by some hackers. Hell, Siri itself was running on iphone 3gs when Siri was an independent company. Then Apple came in and bought Siri, dropped the Siri app from the app store, and re-released it as part of iOS 5 and RESTRICTED it to iphone 4s. How is that not fragmentation? How is that not FORCED product obsolescence?

If an APIs existed which took advantage of Siri, that would be the fragmentation that everyone talks about.