Android News
Google defines “open,” fears Android fragmentation
December 22, 2009 | by Andrew Kameka
Android OS
Google believes that “open systems win,” referring to the innovation that sprouts from less-restrictive open-source projects. This was the crux of their argument for why companies should flock to Android.
Of course, nothing is truly open when money comes into play, and Jonathan Rosenberg, senior vice president of Product Management, has posted a lengthy blog post – manifesto would be more accurate – on the subject of open. Rosenberg has many thoughts on open that I’ll leave you to discover, but he made two comments worth highlighting:
[Open-source projects] are competitive and far more dynamic. In an open system, a competitive advantage doesn’t derive from locking in customers, but rather from understanding the fast-moving system better than anyone else and using that knowledge to generate better, more innovative products.
This happens in Android. While the OHA has many members developing Android products, it’s clear that innovative HTC and Motorola have sprinted to the head of the pack. They created the products that most interested consumers while Samsung has struggled to deliver a phone as compelling or popular as the Droid, DEXT/CLIQ or Hero.
Ironically, this is also something that Google doesn’t want to happen. The CLIQ and Hero are popular in part because of MotoBlur and Sense, two different flavors of Android that lead to compatibility issues. Meanwhile, the Droid is snatching up market share because it’s the only phone with Eclair.
When we open source our code we use standard, open Apache 2.0 licensing, which means we don’t control the code. Others can take our open source code, modify it, close it up and ship it as their own. Android is a classic example of this, as several OEMs have already taken the code and done great things with it. There are risks to this approach, however, as the software can fragment into different branches which don’t work well together (remember how Unix for workstations devolved into various flavors — Apollo, Sun, HP, etc.). This is something we are working hard to avoid with Android.
Google doesn’t want to see Android turn into another jumbled mess of competing flavors and fragmented versions of the OS. Well, it’s a little late for that Google. When you encourage one carrier and OEM to have exclusivity of a major overhaul of the OS for months, your concerns seem hollow. When you update the system and make changes that require developers to re-do their apps in order to be compatible, you have to anticipate that this will happen.
Android is young and growing quickly. Google seems to want to push it to run while carriers prefer to walk. How has Google not put pressure on TIM to update its customers for something beyond Android 1.1.? Has Google been proactive in helping/pushing Samsung and Sprint to get the Moment on Donut? If Rosenberg & Co. want to prevent further fragmentation, they better do something pretty innovative very soon.
This might a chief reason behind the Nexus One. Set some standards and put a few rules and recommendations in place. Put out the Android that Google has in mind.
Great article Andrew!
Google should require carrier customizations (such as Sense) to be open source as well. Sure, some parts of the OS have to be locked down to the carrier, but pretty graphics shouldn’t be phone rstricted. This is especially true when using an HTC phone with a different HTC customization (as example).
Google would be very smart to tell phone makers and carriers to hand over their drivers and specific requirements to them … then let Google put the OS together for them. Let Google handle the updates as well.
It will never happen, but we could hope anyway.
And if Google truly believes in open source, we wouldn’t have had Cyanogate. So hearing and reading this manifesto rings pretty hollow.
But it was the "pretty graphics" and the social networking slant of Sense that led me to purchase the Hero. Google can't tell manufacturers that any innovation they make must be shared with their competitors. They'll just stop using Android.
I think Google needs to encourage them to customize the user experience in a way that would not be effected by the version of Android running on the phone. They can encourage manufacturers to threat their customizations more like special app and widget packages then as new skins and themes. It may require an expanded or specialized (for manufacturers) SDK (I'm not a developer so I'm not sure I'm using the term correctly) but it would allow goggle to push Android updates to all phones without impacting the user experience companies like HTC offer its customers.
Part of the problem is due to HTC customising the Android kernel to make their changes. As Android becomes more stable and companies get used to frequent updates, hopefully this won't happen as much.
I really like the idea of customizations being a special app. The Market is already becoming carrier-dependent so that wouldn't be an issue idt. Sprint apps typically call home and can't be used on other carrier's phones (yes, I know a few can, but at least it shows that the technology is there to limit it). [message too long, splitting]
[continued] …
I guess my point about my initial post was I hate seeing the C&D orders starting to go out on a more frequent basis. A lot of us first grabbed the G1 because of open-source and the promise we could pretty much do anything we wanted. We were naive, of course. So much of Android gets customized with proprietary carrier customizations and they are hell bent on protecting every single thing … all the way down to the icons the choose! Just like the music labels tend to turn a blind eye to amateur remixes and mashups, perhaps the carriers should turn a blind eye when a theme designer lifts the graphics of one home replacement and completely builds it from scratch for another phone (making just enough changes to "make it their own"). Some will still consider that copyright infringement, and it is. But it's also the sincerest form of flattery, and it keeps those of us with 6 month old but perfectly good phones from buying the latest-greatest just to get a hot looking u.i.
I thought having the OHA is to enable communication and collaboration. Maybe they need some level of agreement/discussion on a regular basis to avoid fragmentation
This is laughable. Five versions, take away versions 1.1 and 2.0 as these are hardly used, this leaves just three. Three versions is barely fragmentation. Compare to Linux which has real fragmentation.
Three might still be too many but most device makers are rushing to ship the latest version anyway.
Open source tends to move fast, carriers and device makers just need to learn to keep up.
I think you're missing the issue though which is apps are a big part of Android's battle against the iPhone. Each has it's good/bad of course but for Apple, a bit "good" is that you're developing for the latest version of the OS versus 5 (sure, I see not counting 1.1 but not counting 2.0 & 2..1 isn't an option with the Droid/Nexus).
In Canada, customers of Rogers Wireless are being left behind with 1.5 on our HTC Dreams and Magics, and LG Eve. After a month of complaining all the way up to the office of the president, Rogers finally decided to blame HTC, claiming that HTC has no plans to release 1.6 for the Rogers phones.
I imagine the truth is closer to being something like; HTC customized 1.5 for Rogers, and now Rogers doesn't want to pay to have 1.6 customized, so that _techincally_ means that HTC has no plans to release an update (because perhaps Rogers won't pay for it).
http://www.iwantmyonepointsix.com