Eric Schmidt Doesn't Think Android Is Fragmented 431
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."
Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:3, Interesting)
Manufacturers competing on their "view of innovation"--which apparently means junkware like TouchWiz--is precisely what is fragmenting the platform. Schmidt seems to believe that by reframing it with a feel-good word like innovation, he can successfully claim that it's somehow the opposite of fragmentation. The differentiation and and in-fighting between manufacturers and devices is the fragmentation. Nothing he stated refutes the claim that the platform is fragmented; he's just describing the fragmentation in a different way.
NPD now says that iOS has officially closed the gap with Android in U.S. marketshare [gigaom.com] since the release of the iPhone 4S, so these issues are having a real effect on the platform. According to NPD's report, 150 Android handsets can't beat three old iPhone models. What's happening here is that Android phones catered to techies and budget buyers, but with the iPhone 3GS now free on contract, Apple now has budget buyers covered--and there are way more of them than there are techies.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I'm just finishing up my first Android app. It's a simple app, yet several times I've already needed to use reflection to dig around in undocumented APIs or roll my own version of a class included in the framework because of differences between the API versions. I have also found that it is difficult to add functionality to framework classes because Google makes many of the methods either private or final.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just finishing up my first Android app. It's a simple app, yet several times I've already needed to use reflection to dig around in undocumented APIs or roll my own version of a class included in the framework because of differences between the API versions. I have also found that it is difficult to add functionality to framework classes because Google makes many of the methods either private or final.
Good luck with that app. Yes, unfortunately many Java developers think that good encapsulation means making a lot of stuff private or final. Actually what it often means is that the code is not fit for re-use, you end up re-writing code to do the same stuff that in a more open way and use that. IMHO if you are a Java developer that automatically defaults to private and final methods, forces the use of singletons or factories instead of trying to make POJO JavaBeans which can then be used as singletons (or as ordinary objects, as the need arises) then you ought to consider yourself an orthodox developer that is probably not like by anyone forced to re-use your code.
Part of the problem is the attempt of Java library writers to try and protect the user from themselves. I used to do this but after using so many other libraries over the years I now think this is misguided. Now I try and make POJOs and POJO services whereever I can and make sure I properly Javadoc what needs to happen and also check the preconditions and arguments of all method calls. IMHO I find that in later stages of a project I have access to all sorts of information I need, rather than having to continually go back and publish formerly private methods due to inflexible and closed interfaces. A little bit of encapsulation is good (avoid non-final public members for sure) but that does not mean encapsulating yourself into a straightjacket is good either
Sorry for getting a bit off-topic there, but I hear your pain with the currently 'orthodox' way that Google close their framework off. If there are any Java devs reading out there - keep it POJO if you can and unless you have an extremely good reason for using a private method you should make it public (which also helps unit testing too). And ffs write *meaningful* Javadoc about what can and can't cause usage of the class to fail (eg. preconditions, what argument values are invalid etc).
Re: (Score:3)
unless you have an extremely good reason for using a private method you should make it public (which also helps unit testing too). And ffs write *meaningful* Javadoc about what can and can't cause usage of the class to fail (eg. preconditions, what argument values are invalid etc).
The second part of this is precisely the first part cannot always be done. If you make a method public, it becomes a part of your contract - you have to document it, do full argument validation (because who knows what will be passed to it by third party code?), and you'll have to keep it around in future versions of your API for backwards compatibility.
Making things public is not free. In fact, it can be very expensive, depending on your back-compat requirements. Consequently, if you're making a public plat
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are not documenting and validating the input methods of your methods (regardless of whether they are public or private) then you are making a colossal mistake. How do you know when the maintainer who comes after you is going to refactor the class; answer: you don't. If you are not validating your inputs and thinking out the overall object state when you first write the method just because you're too lazy to then no wonder people like myself are forced to re-invent the code people like you write. I *hate* re-implementing code that other people have done, but it turns out that people that don't design for re-use by others (that is, hide methods that are required to extend functionality while maintaining invariant conditions) are the majority and mistake the contrived examples given in textbooks (showing you how to hide *critical* methods) as examples take this as what should be done for *all* classes.
You are welcome to think I'm full of it. Like I said, I used to think as you do, but with a lot more experience of using other's code I realized how unfriendly this is for third-party devs trying to use your code (who will need to re-use it in ways you never thought of - thanks to their particular requirements). For example, just try extending JavaMail to allow to arbitrarily muck around with MIME mail parts and nest them as you see fit. Turns out the methods you need to do that are all implemented but hidden away, yet looking at the source (thank goodness I had access to it - not always the case) there was no good reason for hiding it away that I could see, apart from it being 'orthodoxy' (which means the author never thought about it too hard, as they probably never had to try using his own code while trying not to access the source, as a user would try to do). In the end I had to wastefully re-write a chunk of Javamail for the clients use. This kind of crap is why 'Not Invented Here' is so prevalent - because orthodox Java development as promoted by the textbooks and circuit speakers goes too far so as to make encapsulation a straightjacket. Some encapsulation is good, but too much is worse than too little, if you know what you are doing (as most professional Java devs do these days - which is why it is so frustrating). Basically I see the excessive hiding of information as an unhelpful 'denial of service' by the author - maybe because they are too damned lazy to document the method, validate its inputs, or test it in isolation (of course getter/setters [accessors/mutators] don't need this level of work), and it sucks when I have to re-implement what they did just because they unnecessarily closed off a few very helpful methods. I'd bet you money that if you've been developing for a while you've had this yourself. One last thing, when developing a class I believe you should always be thinking of how the class could be used in a stand-alone fashion (as any Java Bean can be) without the rest of the machinery of your particular application. The corollary is that the smaller the dependencies (example, choose JRE standard classes like java.util.logging over third party libraries) the easier it is for other people to use. Most Java developers don't try to minimize their library dependencies and think whether each library contributes enough to justify the extra weight, but they should. This is why some small Java programs come with hundreds of extra JAR libraries, some of which have very tenuous utility for the application (and sometimes a single class is used from a library, which brings in a raft of other libraries, when a simple implementation of the simple class would have saved the dependency mire).
I understand what you are saying. I just happen to disagree that methods should be hidden by default. With proper documentation and unit test examples for client developers to follow (you do unit test, don't you?) then trying to 'protect the developer from themselves by hiding functionality' becomes unnecessary - which gives the client more freedom to use more of your classes, and therefore the client
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple adds new features and doesn't necessarily port them to old iPhones.
Apple is pretty good about updating their product line to the current OS. True, you're not going to update your original iPhone to iOS5. But you're not going to buy a brand new last gen iPhone 4 or even iPhone 3GS with iOS 3. Same with Windows Phones, they all currently run the latest release of WP7, even if you buy a last gen samsung focus from. However, in the Android world you can buy a brand new Android phone with an OS 2 versions out of date, and that phone will never be upgraded. THAT is the problem. We're not talking about 4 year old phones not getting the latest release. We're talking about brand new phones that are out of date, out of the box. This isn't a fairy tale.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wow shocking, Apple gained sales market share right after releasing a brand new super-hyped phone and lowering their old prices! Android is doomed! DOOOOMED, I tell you!
Anyways, fragmentation is good for the market. Allows for true competition and drives features. The newest Android phones are far and away more featureful than any iPhone, plus you can choose from any carrier and any range of features you want. I would have liked Google to encourage manufacturers to release more updates to their phones so people didn't get stuck on 2.1 or whatnot, but the fact that most Android programs work on most Android devices is nothing short of amazing when you think about the vast array of different hardware they can contain.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyways, fragmentation is good for the market.
Then why are all the fandroids screaming that the market is fragmented?
Re: (Score:2)
I still remember this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA1I6MUOKkU [youtube.com]
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument that Schmidt is making - manufacturers need to be able to differentiate their products. Android allows them to do this without sacrificing interoperability on the scale that Apple/RIM/MS sacrifice it.
You - bonch/Overly-Critical-Guy - live in a closed bubble where all you can see is "Apple good, Android bad". You have blinders on your eyes. Please either take them off or stop posting.
Android is fragmentation enabler (Score:3)
Android actually reduces fragmentation. Could you imagine what would happen without Android? Every phone manufacturer would have its own completely different OS.
This is backwards in two ways:
1) Android is acting as an ENABLER. That is the term that is used when someone acts in a capacity to encourage another to engage in a self-destructive behavior - as in letting cell phone companies keen to "leverage" the position as the carrier you are stuck with to force-feed you apps you do not want and brand the hell
Re: (Score:3)
Along the same li
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, once upon a time the iPhone WAS the market (I really dont see blackberry as a competitor to the iphone), so Android has convinced at least 50% of people who may otherwise have bought an iphone (in the absence of any other choice) to buy an android phone.
Some of those will switch back to iphone, or will choose iphone next because they disliked some of it...
but the fact is that android hasn't failed, and is still competing quite well in the market despite any fragmentation or whatever people want to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dumped my iPhone for an Android.
Clearly my use of a phone is too "geeky".
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
But per the usual misunderstanding on /. , the general public is not geeky. It does not use hacks or cracks, it does not sideload or use custom ROMs. Most don't even upgrade the SD card, or even know that you can.
The general public picks a phone up and evaluates it, if they evaluate it pre-purchase at all, based on a 1-5 minute poking around on the device. I think the iPhone wins these battles with the average, uninformed consumer because the graphical presentation is slick and the interface is intuitive to the non-techie.
Some people equate smartphone with iPhone. For those who don't, most of them will buy whatever gives them the cleanest presentation and seems easiest to use. Openness and Google and other geek-factors don't enter into it.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
And I have a few that went the other way - they had Android and decided they didn't like it and went to iPhone. One of them was a high-spec Android owner, the other had a crappy Android phone. One moved because he preferred iOS, the other (with the crappy handset) really doesn't like Apple but the device he had was beyond frustrating so he got a 4S.
I asked him why he didn't go for a Galaxy S II or similar and he said he was just fed up with how bad the experience was.
I also know people who bought Galaxy S's (esses?!) and love them.
I don't think it's necessary to be geeky to appreciate Android phones, but it certainly doesn't hurt given what I've seen while using them (and I've tried a whole gamut from really poor to really good).
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a problem with Android - there are a LOT of sub-par devices out there and people that start off at the low-end are often left with a bitter taste. At least with iOS, the devices are reasonably capable, even the older models. I dare say that the experience your friend with the crappy device had would have been much improved just by moving to a higher-specced android phone, but the important thing is that they're happy.
I'm going to be honest - I'm a big Android fan, but I am a geek through and through. I rooted my phone within a week of getting it and installed a custom ROM the next day - that alone was tonnes of fun for me and a plus to the Android experience. However, when family and friends ask which phone they should get, I'll never say "Get Android, it's da bomb!" partly because I know the reasons I like Android are reasons they'll hate it and also because I don't want yet another device to support. However, I will recommend devices that meet their needs and there's almost always an Android that fits in there, but I'll always say "Go into a store and play with it, ONLY get it if you like it". If anyone buys a phone just because its cheap or because people rave about it, yet end up not liking it, it's really their own fault for not trying before buying.
Re: (Score:3)
I tip my hat to you (and other following posts with a similar mindset), for giving advice logically, based on the user's needs and not your platform preference.
I'm a Mac user since the early 90s. I obviously prefer it and believe that on the whole OSX is better for general users. Whenever someone asks for buying advice, I am upfront with this, but based on their wants and needs (especially budget) I have no qualms saying a Mac might not be for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi there,
My name is neoKushan, but today I'll be standing in for reading comprehension.
Words come in all shapes and sizes, but what's magical about them is that their meaning can change depending on the context.
What is this magical "context" thing? Well, to put it simply, context is the other words that are near and around the words and phrases we're looking at. You can't read a sentence by just picking out a few choice words, you need to read all of the surrounding words to really understand what it means.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Interesting)
The target demographic for smartphones is geekier than the average public. Most geeks have smartphones, for example. Teenagers and young adults regularly defy the traditional concept of "too geeky" or requiring too much effort for the "average" person, and these same are also among the prime candidates for smart phones.
Nonetheless, "fragmentation" is a marketing term being bandied about by Apple apologists. It's an excuse to justify a technology monoculture that Apple has established in some corners of the market. Technology monoculture has invariably led to technology stagnation.
Rather than "fragmentation" being a bad thing, what's actually going on is "innovation," and that's a good thing. People didn't talk about desktop fragmentation in the PC era, people don't talk about console fragmentation when you need specialized controllers to interact with many of today's games.
This is survival of the fittest. My wife is a complete non-geek. She traded out her iPhone for Android and is eager to ditch her iPad. The sole reason being that she wants to consume content which requires Flash. She's not interested in assertions that her life would be better if only websites would ditch Flash, she's interested that her technology can't do the task she wants it to.
Technology monoculture is the real problem here. iOS suffers from it, while Android doesn't. Android should wear this term with a badge of pride; they are currently steadfastly half way between steps 2 and 3 (out of 4) in Gandhi's famous quote about winning. They were ignored (Android 1.x era), they were laughed at ("fragmentation"), now they're being fought (Apple v. Samsung for example). Only one more step to go.
Re: (Score:3)
who the hell started with the "wants to consume content which requires Flash" bullshit?
It's just "she wants to use flash" or "she wants flash to run on her tablet" or some other simpler english, pretty please!!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't? Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com] sees it differently:
Definition of CONSUME
transitive verb
1: to do away with completely : destroy (fire consumed several buildings)
2 a: to spend wastefully : squander
2 b: use up (writing consumed much of his time)
3 a: to eat or drink especially in great quantity (consumed several bags of pretzels)
3 b: to enjoy avidly : devour (mysteries, which she consumes for fun — E. R. Lipson)
4: to engage fully : engross (consumed with curiosity)
5: to utilize as a customer (consume goods an
Re: (Score:3)
-Mark Twain
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonetheless, "fragmentation" is a marketing term being bandied about by Apple apologists.
That's a dangerous assertion to make, and smacks of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la not listening".
Android has some absolutely stellar features and plus points but it also has downsides, and to just attempt to "shush" them by claiming it's just Apple apologists does nothing to help Android.
Fragmentation is a problem, and one created by one of the major benefits of Android - the wider selection of hardware that it will run on. iOS minimised the problem by limited the number of devices that developers need to target and test against, which gives you the benefit that apps in the store really only need a couple of branches: iPhone or iPad > Pick one of a few options regarding model. It has the downside of limited model selection compared to Android.
Don't get me wrong, I think Android is in the ascendency and everyone is the better for it (including iOS users), but ignoring constructive criticism is not a sensible way to go about things.
Your wife is also going to be disappointed with whatever tablet she gets if she wants to watch flash content, since Adobe pulled the plug on it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem is that what one article means with fragmentation is not the same as another article.
Quite a few see the various Sense, Blur and Touchwiz interfaces as fragmentation.
Others see the variation in Android versions as fragmentation.
And the last bunch see the actual variation in formfactors and hardware internals as a fragmentation.
The first kind can be a problem for those that try to make app interfaces that blend in with the phones existing interface.
The second will be a issue for all those
Re: (Score:3)
No, they didn't complain about fragmentation per-se in the Windows market, because regardless of the machine you bought, it ran pretty much the same software, and looked and behaved the same. But remember all the flak Microsoft took for it's multitude of slightly-different editions of Windows? Remember all the grousing about bloatware and crapware added by manufacturers?
That's what you're seeing with Android: it's got a bunch of slightly different editions, not all hardware supports all editions, and it
Re: (Score:3)
... then the term "monoculture" is meaningless as he's used it, and represents neither insightful commentary, nor incisive criticism. "All iOS devices run iOS, therefore it's a monoculture" is a reflexive redefinition of the term, apparently in an attempt to sound smart and "science-y". The current situation in the phone market is, in fact, the very opposite of a monoculture - it is a healthy, diverse ecosystem with many competing systems available, across a range of hardware. If something happened to in
Re: (Score:3)
You can make quite a bit of money from an underserved market even if it is small.
But if the effort is too big, or you have to limit yourself to a subset of an already tiny market, your profit is going to evaporate pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
" It does not use hacks or cracks, it does not sideload or use custom ROMs."
You can bet they use shitload of cracked software in Asian and Eastern European markets, no matter what device (PC/game console/smartphone). I don't think that in these places iOS is competitive with it's walled garden philosophy (i.e. they still want warranty).
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the general public is not geeky, but if their purchasing were primarily based on having a slick graphical presentation and intuitive UI, the new Windows Phone should be winning hands-down. Most of the general public, I'd posit, is heavily influenced by Apple's slick marketing, and a large number buy whatever the salesman at the retail store pushes (which is largely based on sales incentives or his own fanboyism), or what their friends and family recommend.
Re: (Score:3)
Openness and Google and other geek-factors don't enter into it.
On your planet, maybe. On my planet, every single person on the street knows Google, uses it, and generally respects it as a brand. And while openness may not be the first thing they think of when they get a phone, it quickly jumps in priority as soon as words like "how would you ever know if your phone is spying on you?" enter the conversation or "you can get so much more free stuff". Free? Deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
I paid $160 for my LG Optimus Slider from Virgin Mobile. For my use, the only thing that works poorly on it compared to an iPhone is NetFlix, which tends to have choppy video. However, it has a physical keyboard, which more than makes up for not being able to watch tiny movies in my opinion. I also find the Android interface to be somewhat more intuitive than IOS (at least in most cases). Also, everything I can't do on my Android phone, I can do on my $180 Nook Color. So for $340, I can do everything I would want with an iPhone and a whole lot more. Having it split between two devices is actually more convenient for me as I take the phone with me everywhere but I rarely use the Nook (mostly for Netflix and books) outside of home.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
My experience has been a little bit different, I used an Android phone for about 2 years and now use an iPhone. I can't name any app that is better on Android. Sometimes they are roughly equivalent, sometimes they aren't, but what is usually the case is that the iOS version is smooth graphically, opens/closes without fits and starts, doesn't creak when interrupted by calls or texts, etc etc.
A good example is the ESPN Scorecenter app. the iOS version is great. The android version is more simplistic graphically, it doesn't wipe or update as well... for me, sometimes it needed to be killed and restarted to update scores.It works well enough, it's just not as polished.
It's probably not the developers' fault, I think there is universal agreement that Android is much harder to develop for. This works itself out in app quality.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Insightful)
My experience has been a little bit different, I used an Android phone for about 2 years and now use an iPhone. I can't name any app that is better on Android....
Google maps. Navigation specifically. Voice navigation more specifically.
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
A key exception to thi
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I think last gen iPhone being nearly the same as the top of the line has more to do with single manufacture/single model than anything else. If you buy an iPhone you are buying a high end phone. if you continue to buy a high end Android phone you probably will get a similar experience.
But ... there is the love/hate with the fragmentation: you might get enough of what you want from a smart phone from a cheap Android. You aren't going to get the full experience but it might be close enough for what you want.
Re: (Score:3)
Only on price though. Android runs terribly on low end smartphones
I don't know about that. I have a Samsung Dart, which is pretty low-end, and it works fine with Android 2.3. I like it because it is small, thin, and inexpensive ($130 with no contract). It does not run everything. Flash player, for example, is not available from the Android market for this phone, presumably because it is not powerful enough to run it. I don't mind, I have other toys for watching video.
My brother-in-law has a much more sophisticated Android phone that "does everything" including 3D vide
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 fa
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:4, Funny)
Oh sorry, I was busy playing my superior games and using my wider selection of apps, to care that your phone has more numerical specs than mine. Geek bias.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet you will still run into choppiness and various performance issues with that faster processor. I have yet to see an Android system that runs as crisply and smoothly as an iPhone. It's probably due to all the things that can run in the background (crapware + whatever else), on top of the Linux kernel's questionable scheduler, which dogs desktop machines as well. And let's see if you're still running the latest Android firmware a year from know. Even iPhone 3GS's were instantly upgradable to iOS 5 the seco
Re: (Score:2)
frankly, i'm glad i saved a bit of coin for a device that is speedy and is customizable as all get out. my butt enjoys the extra comfort from all that cash padding, too :P
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Eric Schmidt, master of non-answers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
Better is a subjective term. Do people care about the hardware specs? People care about how a devices feels and operates, and sure, hardware enters into that. But comparing the iPhone hardware and Android hardware like all other things are equal is... disingenuous. I mean, if you want to play that game, the 4S has a much better GPU than the Galaxy
Re: (Score:2)
but let's look at this issue. slashdotters will likely generally disagree with you. i'd argue that most tech minded folks value specs as much as GUI/interface/"experience".
but what about the less tech-saavy user? well, the new Nexus, the new HTC phones, and other newer devices are offering high end mobile processors AND 4g speeds, which vastly improve software performance, which in turn improves the end user experience.
don't get me wrong,Google needs to ge
Re: (Score:3)
Does the same criticism not apply to the HTC/Samsung/etc which you're paying for over the life of the contract?
Would you not be paying the same monthly rate, whether you purchased the device outright or not?
From a certain point of view, if you're going to be paying the same monthly rate for 2 years of a data plan, you may as well be getting a free phone vs. nothing in return.
Re: (Score:2)
This might be a convenient niche in the market, but for most people it doesn't fit their buying habits. Most people in the US only use pre-paid providers if they don't meet credit requirements the major carriers offer. (Yes, many geeks use Virgin or Boost or whatever, but the majority of the clientele are not thus)
The average US cell customer walked into VZW/ATT/TMO/S 5 or 10 years ago and said, "I want a phone" and now is firmly ensconsed in the early-device-upgrade model of customer retention.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still not a free phone. Instead of being delighted that you're getting a "free phone" which you actually pay for, you should be upset that you can't get a discount for using your old phone. They are charging you for something you don't necessarily need.
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, it's more the regularity of the posts, the stock phrases and corporate memes, the timing (seconds after an article appears on the front page, but with perfect grammar, spelling and accurate links), the limited number of accounts that do this, but do it every. single. time.
Just playing with words (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
How is that different, and how is fragmentation quite the opposite? It's not. Fragmentation on Android is real problem. Of course Eric Schmidt is going to say it's not a problem, or that it doesn't even exist. Companies always deny problems. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Re:Just playing with words (Score:4, Insightful)
What's a problem exactly? How is that different than any other platform that has diverse hardware and different OS release levels applied to it?
It makes for some sensational rhetoric but seems to be less meaningful in practice.
I can't play the latest and greatest CPU/GPU crushing game on an ION but no one seems to think that's such a great tragedy.
Re:Just playing with words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's not going to have the same exact capabilities as the top of the line.
Re:Just playing with words (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the wordplay is correct. You could also say that the mobile market is fragmented between iOS and Android, yet we call that differentiation and innovation.
After all - we could create a government mandate that all computers have to be x86 based - that would've stopped a lot of fragmentation. Would it have created a better world?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just playing with words (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that Google provides developers with tools for managing that and I'm sure that there's a list of safe features to use as well. The typical people making a big deal out of fragmentation are Apple Fanbois that can't imagine how an OS could exist where all devices aren't identical.
I haven't personally found that I wanted to use an App that wasn't available for my particular handset but was for other Android handsets. I doubt very much that I'm alone, at least when it comes to folks that waited until the market got really going good.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Google provides developers with tools for managing that and I'm sure that there's a list of safe features to use as well. The typical people making a big deal out of fragmentation are Apple Fanbois that can't imagine how an OS could exist where all devices aren't identical.
I haven't personally found that I wanted to use an App that wasn't available for my particular handset but was for other Android handsets. I doubt very much that I'm alone, at least when it comes to folks that waited until the market got really going good.
I have found apps that don't work on my Android. But that's because when it was new it was one of the cheapest Android phones out there I believe. It was never ever intended to be a powerhouse and it was never going to stand toe to toe against the expensive, top of the line phones.
The fact that it was designed to be cheap is the only reason I have an Android phone now. And every time it manages to pull off 3D graphics or streaming high quality video my mind is blown. It's made by Huawei. It cost someth
Member of Executive Team... (Score:4, Funny)
Shocked (Score:4, Funny)
Totally shocked that the CEO of the company that licenses Android insists that it's not fragmented. Could we also get China's opinion on internet censorship or Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on Obama?
Re: (Score:2)
Eric Schmidt stepped down as Google CEO a year ago. His title now is "executive chairman," which is a little ambiguous.
Re:Shocked (Score:4, Funny)
What else would he say? (Score:2)
Eric Schmidt: the New Google Information Minister (Score:4, Insightful)
In the footsteps of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf comes Eric Schmidt:
"No, what you are seeing is not fragmentation, it's differentiation!"
"Google search plus your World is not favoring Google+ results - it's just reranking them more appropriately!"
Re: (Score:2)
And both statements are correct
Google search plus change the ranking based on the USERS CHOICE. You say, use my profile to make the result more relent to ME means removing things not likely to be relevant to you. And since its a clear choice there really isn't a problem with that feature as a feature. It may lead to an echo chambers effect, but that's a different discussion.
It's like you are complaining that when you enter cookie -baking it change the page ranking to remove baking.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you know, the fact that Twitter is trying to /charge/ them for the right to index those results, and they don't want to pay.
Android reduces fragmentation (Score:3, Interesting)
As I said in a previous discussion, Android reduces fragmentation.
The main fragmentation that interest developers is the one between platforms, not within a platform. If Apple and RIM both switched to Android, it would be much easier to develop for mobile devices. They add a lot of fragmentation by continuing to push their proprietary platform. Google actually removes fragmentation by giving away for free an OS that anyone can use. There would be much more fragmentation in the mobile world if HTC, Motorola, Sony, Samsung and LG all pushed their own OS like Apple and RIM are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point.
But it can still be argued that there exists some fragmentation and that most Android phones does not ship with Android Android but instead with a more or less heavily modified version of it.
It's like if computers came with HP Windows, or Dell Windows, oh wait, they do!
Re: (Score:2)
The standard OS functions and APIs are the same across all devices, and backwards compatible between versions.
What is "modified" is software like the launcher and the contact app. That only rarely impacts developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What is important for most of the users is that apps work on their device.
No one says Windows is fragmented even when its user base is split between Windows 7 XP and Vista. Most applications are compatible, so there isn't much of a problem.
Fragmentation is mostly just FUD that is pushed by Apple as far as the average user is concern. Power users complain about not having the latest version of Android, but I think that is a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that image is different if you do it for Windows? XP, Vista, 7, 64 bits, 32bits, no SP, SP1, SP2, soon Intel or ARM, cheap Intel video, expensive ATI/Nvidia. What I see is that the new generation of software developers are just a big pile of lazy developers that just want to test with the lastest release and only one manufacturer. That new generation will only be happy if there is only one device in the world and that device is the more expensive possible and everyone switch to it the same day of relea
And he is correct (Score:2)
Which is an unusually thing to say about Eric.
Manufacturers lying about ICS (Score:3)
How about calling the manufacturers LIARS. They committed to putting ICS on handsets and now are going back and saying "just kidding."
In my case the Moto Droid 3. Bought it after hearing Moto commit to putting ICS on their new handsets. Now they won't even talk about ICS and the Droid 3. Luckily Cyanogen has stepped up.
fragmentation not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Most apps work fine across all common Android versions; the only ones that don't are those that require functionality that just wasn't available on earlier devices. Most of the so-called "fragmentation" is things like manufacturer-specific apps and launchers. Those do exactly what Google says they do: they allow manufacturers to differentiate themselves from one another. That may not be a good thing (I prefer "pure" Android), but it isn't a problem.
I think a lot of the complaints from developers about fragmentation is complaints from iOS developers, who are used to an unusually rigid level of constraints across devices and have developed bad coding practices (like hard-coding coordinates and layouts etc.) because of it.
Re: (Score:3)
That may not be a good thing (I prefer "pure" Android), but it isn't a problem.
And the thing is, if you prefer "pure" Android (like you, and like me) Google produces an official reference phone in the Nexus line.
I understand there's issues in the US, where apparently certain handsets aren't allowed on certain telco networks, but that's really a problem with your telcos than with Android - why they are allowed to discriminate based on handset instead of simply on features is beyond me.
Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are afflicted with bad press, argue the semantics.
Since it's technical stuff, nobody but the geeks are going to understand, and nobody listens to the geeks.
It's not the apps, it's the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Most apps run well on every android version thanks to the design of API cross-compatibility (I have experienced this myself, being an early android developer).
However, I don't think you can avoid the fact that the OS itself is fragmented when your OS takes 6 months to a full year to be available on the majority of android handsets.
In addition, has Mr. Schmid had a look at this chart, put up by google themselves?
http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html [android.com]
It reads OS fragmentation all over it! And this is PRECISELY what pisses many (geek) users off, that they can't get the latest and greatest or that new phones come to market being outdated!
Re:It's not the apps, it's the OS (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows machines are heavily fragmented between Windows 7 XP and Vista. It will just get worst when Windows 8 comes out.
The problem isn't fragmentation. It is the lack of OS updates.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. As a developer, I've had very little problem with differences between devices. Sure there's a lot of variation in terms of screen resolutions and such, but the OS provides tools to deal with that. And the custom skins different vendors put on the UI really don't impact me much at all.
But it's really irritating that I still can't require anything later than Android 2.2 without excluding a large part of the potential market (and even at that I'm losing about 10% that are on 2.1 or earlier). The v
Different can be good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Verizon and Mr. Sprint think it's better, certainly for them, and since they're paying for 60% of your phone....
Also Mr. HTC and Mr. Samsung would probably stop selling Android phones if they didn't have the liberty to skin them, how are they supposed to make their phones look "better" than their competitors on the shelf at the AT&T store?
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon, Sprint, et. al. are most certainly NOT paying anything for your phone. They are merely fronting the money. You, the users, are paying it all back with more than enough profit.
What this arrangement does, however, is to make the phone companies Google's immediate customers. Users are somewhere in the background, with no voice at the deal-cutting table.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone who thinks the vendor's locked down version of android is better than the native os....
Most people don't know the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I know people who prefer the Sense skin over stock Android.
There are flaws with the stock versions of Android when it comes to ease of use. It is nice if you want customizations and freedom, but they don't always provide the best experience to the average user.
Re: (Score:2)
I never had a virus nor ever met anyone who had a virus on its mobile phone.
These companies are just trying to profit from uneducated users.
2 things this does (Score:2)
1 when viruses do show up these programs should deal with them
2 its also nifty for scanning files to be used on That Other OS computers since anything funky CAN'T go active but could be "seen"
Re:Fragmentation=Doom (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the mother of all failed analogies. All of the devices you mentioned are interoperable and standardized in very important ways. Why do you think all Ryobi batteries are interchangeable? Why do you think all cars have the same basic layout and conform to the laws of the land? Why do all tv sets have the same basic standardized ports and display the same basic standardized signal? Why does just about any thermostat work with just about any furnace?
As an iOS developer, Apple has made it really easy for me to write code once and I know I only have to test it on about 3 devices. From there I know my addressable market is hundreds of millions of devices.
As a consumer I have confidence that when I buy a new iPhone in 2 years, all the apps I pay for today will work in the future. I don't hesitate about making the investment because I know it can be long term. And I don't have to go setup my phone from scratch either.
Re: (Score:3)
well, make a html5 application with hardcoded coordinates.
and then complain when it doesn't look like it should on different devices, with different sized screens, some with kb some with trackball.
that's android fragmentation for you.
and only an idiot would release an ics-only app right now - unless it depends on some ICS specific api.
if you go with 2.2 things will work from friggin ziio's to fire's to samsungs to motos to lg's to sony-e's. perhaps even on that motos android watch.