Saving Android From a Second-Rate Future

http://www.wired.com/business/2012/09/reviews-column-saving-android/

by joshus • 14 years ago

36 50 14 years ago

mtgx• 14 years ago

As an Android users I agree with the article. The very least Google could do is get Motorola to use the "stock" Android. They really shouldn't care what the other manufacturers think about it. First off, they aren't using stock Android anyway, so why would they be upset about it? And second, they seem to be very willing to adopt a very "stock" WP8 OS on their phones, so again I see no reason for them to get mad over Google using stock Android on Motorola devices. Now, the hard part seems to be actually convincing Google to do this.

martey• 14 years ago

One of the weirdest things about this article is the fact it does not mention wireless carriers once. If Motorola makes phones with stock Android, but no carriers decide to carry it in their stores and on their websites, it is no different from a Nexus phones.

Former Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha previously suggested that phone skinning and customization was heavily driven by wireless carriers, as well as phone manufacturers: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/10/2697939/motorolas-sanjay-j...

drivebyacct23• 14 years ago

Has anyone seen the Motorola phones they're criticizing? The DROID line is really, really good. The newer DROID releases have a Blur that is even more minimal than the already very-minimal recent Blur. When I watched the demo of the RAZR I (with Intel), I was floored at how clean Blur was and how close to stock it was.

Turns out, the RAZR M that's available like, everywhere, is also the same way. Huge screen, smallest bezel I've ever seen, same form as the iPhone 5.

I was a lot, lot, lot more worried about Android a year or two ago. A year or two ago Blur was god damn awful. And irremovable. And there were NO phones on the market that offered an updated experience or an unlocked bootloader. Today, we have the Nexus line. We have Motorola and Samsung offering "Developer" edition phones that we can load our own OS onto.

tl;dr Android customization has been reigned in, though likely because of consumers buying in patterns and HTC/Moto/Samsung realizing that fewer and cleaner modifications in Android allow them to perform updates faster.

(also, I think Google would do themselves a favor in more than one way by accepting T-Mobile Theme Chooser into Android proper so that Motorola/HTC/Samsung could use that to provide visual differentiation instead of brewing their own theming jars.

dougmccune• 14 years ago

it's also not just about the skin being bad, it's about quickly getting updates. That's the bigger problem IMO. Both the phone manufacturer and the carriers seem to hold up updates, sometimes indefinitely. More important than getting TouchWiz/Blur/Whatever off the phone is getting the latest Android bits on the phone. If the manufacturers pushed their skin updates as quickly as Google can push release-ready Android updates I wouldn't care as much (although the recent Samsung security issue still gives us plenty of reasons to hate these customizations anyway)

drivebyacct23• 14 years ago

I understand this frustration as a developer, but users don't seem to care, or else Nexus would be selling like hot-cakes. More to the point, as Android slows release cycles and focuses on things like "Project Butter", having the absolute latest becomes less important.

I mean, you're right and I do NOT want to be making excuses for the version fragmentation out there when Apple does such a better job with updates (granted, it's much easier for them).

eropple• 14 years ago

It wasn't a Droid, but I took back the Motorola Atrix HD I got from AT&T the day I got it because of the Motorola crap on it--thin as it is. Because, honestly, it's still terrible. Some people might not care that things are changed just for the sake of changing them (the back/home/task-switch buttons are changed very slightly, for no good reason). I do. Because they don't know how to make it better in the process of doing it. Blur makes it worse, and it might be only slightly worse, but it is worse.

I realize I'm in a minority compared to all purchasers, but I full-stop refuse to buy an Android phone (or tablet) that isn't stock.

ZeroGravitas• 14 years ago

Once they get the manufacturers to stop using different launchers and dialers, then they'll also have to stop users from selecting different apps for each intent to preserve the purity of Android as Matias and Andy intended it. Or they could just not bother and let people buy whatever phone they like and install whatever they want on it.

Is TouchWiz Angry Birds really that different from MotoBlur Angry Birds or CyanogenMod Angry Birds?

talmand9• 14 years ago

I don't get it, is he complaining about the Android OS or the UI skins that manufacturers choose to install on their devices?

Does this mean that if I apply a custom theme to my Windows7 install it is no longer "true" Windows7?

Older phones not getting Jelly Bean is a silly complaint at this point, can't we get past this?

I just really don't get these type of articles, I can only assume they are link bait since they rarely make any sense. Then there's the entertaining comments as people argue over their phones as if it matters somehow in their lives.

And here I am commenting on it, argh, the cycle never ends!

Is this guy trying to convince me of something? What's the point of this article?

At least the author justified his stance by describing the devices he's purchased. This has become the tech industries "I'm not racist because I have black friends" statement that is starting to appear in so many places now.

protomyth2• 14 years ago

"Older phones not getting Jelly Bean is a silly complaint at this point, can't we get past this?"

I would imagine we can get it past it when every phone capable of running the newest Android version is allowed to upgrade to the newest Android version. Until then, it is an issue for developers who want to use the latest APIs.

talmand9• 14 years ago

I can't necessarily disagree, when it comes to developers. Just curious, what are these latest and greatest APIs that's preventing developers from producing quality apps because they don't exist on older phones? Is it because of security and/or functional updates to the OS or is it truly app APIs that some apps just can't exist without?

wmf2• 14 years ago

If someone else applied a non-removable custom theme to your Windows7 install it is certainly no longer "true" Windows7. The power relationship matters.

talmand9• 14 years ago

So at that point apps that worked in my "true" Windows7 would no longer work in this new non-removable custom theme version of Windows7? Because that's my threshold of whether it would be Windows or not.

twism5• 14 years ago

It's really just not a skin. Ex. There are buttons in the notifications tray for turning off and on services on the phone. The launcher is a totally different app that is not as performant as the stock.

talmand9• 14 years ago

So, in most cases it's added functionality that some people will like and some people will not. What's the problem with that? How is it no longer Android at that point?

bitwize• 14 years ago

Older phones not getting Jelly Bean is a silly complaint at this point, can't we get past this?

Not when older iPhones get the latest iOS release as soon as it's available.

talmand9• 14 years ago

Why is it a factor that older iPhones can possibly get the latest version of iOS when we're talking about Android? That's comparing one company with one line of phones that they heavily control the ecosystem. A proper comparison would be how the Nexus line does in terms of upgrades. Which Apple probably still wins, but so what? It's a silly complaint because the people who buy the phones don't care.

My complaint is centered around the silliness of this whole farce about "this phone is superior because of A, B, and C while that phone SUCKS because the company once made a phone that looked just like my superior phone so therefore they can never make a decent phone in the future and I won't buy a phone from that company (nor should anyone) just like I won't buy a Ford truck because I had one that broke down on me forty years ago!" kind of crap that passes for a discussion on the matter.

These things are almost to the "battery dead? throw it away" stage so can we get past this which is superior crap? They are all wonderful devices and they all serve their owners quite well even though some do things that others do not. There are better things to debate the pros and cons over.

anigbrowl2• 14 years ago

Android is second-rate because it's only in Jellybean that they've conquered the latency issues. People are using Android devices for passive consumption, rarely for any kind of content creation, because virtually all the content creators are and content creation software are already on iPad and have given up on Android, in much the same way that musicians almost exclusively used Macs for 10 years because nobody took audio seriously on the PC. That was OK because PCs had many other uses, but since tablets are more lifestyle than business devices, ceding all the early-adopter and tastemaker types to Apple was a huge mistake on Google's part.

Fragmentation is not that big of an issue among the Android users and developers I know. A craptastic multimedia stack was a much bigger negative.

I say this from a household with 4 Android devices and no Apple ones, incidentally.

mchusma• 14 years ago

I run a startup, we do iOS and android development. I switched from iOS to android last year with the galaxy nexus, now back to the iPhone 5. I can tell you we spend a ton of time dealing with fragmentation. Here is the issue. It takes you something like 2x the front end time to test on some devices (40 or so, which we own some and use services and friends for others). After you finish and release, you get about 10x the support request for all kinds of random devices, and it is nearly impossible to debug without the device. Fragmentation is huge part of the effort in android. As a user, I found many of my favorite apps didn't work. I had to use my old iPhone 4 for music, as Spotify didn't work for bout the first 6 months I had my phone.

anigbrowl2• 14 years ago

Totally - I only know a small subset of developers, and that was low on their list of complaints.

Zigurd2• 14 years ago

The article contains a common error:

"Every iPhone comes with iOS exactly as Steve Jobs intended, which means developers know precisely what they’re getting."

On Android, that's not the problem. All Androids, as uglified by OEM add-ons as they might be, are highly compatible with applications. All Androids running the same API level of Android, even the Kindle Fire, run all the applications that use those APIs. There are optional APIs that some apps depend on, but those dependencies are also completely unrelated to OEM customization of Android.

The problem is that "customized" Androids are hard to upgrade. That means that, while all the iPhones that can run iOS 6 will be running iOS 6, there are many many models of Android devices that will never be upgraded to Jelly Bean. And that reduces the value of a lot of the Android installed base relative to Apple products in the field.

elcogote• 14 years ago

>The problem is that "customized" Androids are hard to upgrade.

Why are they so hard to upgrade?

FrojoS• 14 years ago

Because after 6 months the supplier forgets they soled you the phone and doesn't release any more updates. You might be able to update by rooting the phone, but most people can't get bothered.

I've been once burned by HTC (Wildfire). One update after 3 months and that was it. Still runs Android 2.x. with countless major bugs, like 'when you click on one SMS message, it opens a completely different one'.

Is Samsung better in terms of update policy? Otherwise I will probably go with an iPhone this time.

moreati• 14 years ago

Hard for an end user if no official OTA upgrade is offered.

Apple is in sole control of which iPhones (et al) iOS upgrades published and when. They generally do so for several years after a model is announced, and every device can download the newer version on the same day. Even the 3GS got a cut down iOS 6.

For an Android device the decision is made by a combination of the manufacturer and (for phones) the operator. A device typically gets 1 or maybe 2 official upgrades beyond what it was sold with, maybe months after Google announced that version. Some get no official updates.

There's CyanogenMod etc. for those of us with the know how/confidence, but most people shouldn't/won't do that.

Zigurd2• 14 years ago

Running a customized Android means that the OEM, has taken on the responsibility of upgrading. In the case of phones, the carrier may have their own software load and so they, too, now sit on the critical path to an upgrade.

radley4• 14 years ago

It was more difficult to go from 2.x to 4.0. In between was 3.0 which is essentially a tablet-only showcase OS - it didn't work on phones. That made 2011-2012 seem like an eternity for devices to get back into the upgrade cycle. And by the time devices could be upgraded it was clear most of them weren't powerful enough to make the leap.

It's very different now. If you buy a standard Android smart phone (not a low end / small screen device) it will be much faster and easier to receive updates.

tmzt• 14 years ago

Because the OEMs and carriers see them as integrated products and not as systems running an open kernel and open windowing environment. They don't see any point in separating the two, defining a clear interface specification between them, and upgrading the system software to match the hardware. If they did that they could release an update to the userland system that matches the kernel-land and lower level radio and hardware interfaces. Every android device could run an upstream-derived (and tracking) kernel and core system layer, with the binary graphics drivers and other closed components released on a schedule. Android, as delivered by Google for the Nexus series could run on every device.

radley4• 14 years ago

The author seems to be stuck in 2011 when device UIs were rough, behind the curve, and the promise of a pure Android device would save the platform. The "second rate" Galaxy S3 is now massively outselling the Nexus and is the only Android device to outsell iPhones last summer.

twism5• 14 years ago

It's just marketing. IMO, the GSIII is not a bad device, but pure nexus with Jelly Bean from google (hspda+ version, not the verzion nexus which should not be called a nexus device) is the best android (or any mobile OS) experience.

radley4• 14 years ago

That's just opinion. I have 2 stock JB Nexus devices and yetprefer to use my GS3. If the sims were the same size I would use both since JB has the better voice stuff right now.

My point is numbers don't lie. The author laments the GS3 as second rate yet it's clearly the most in-demand device. The author is either deluded, had writers block (and dredged up an old premise), or hoped this might be a popular new link-bait topic.

tensafefrogs• 14 years ago

Google doesn't care if android is a "second-rate" OS. Google makes money from people using google. More smart phones = good for google, regardless of the OS the phone runs. Android has been hugely successful in getting phone carriers away from their antiquated systems (remember life before the iPhone?).

Yes, the iPhone is massively successful, but there's billions of people in the world who will never own one, and that's the market that Android is capturing so well. And to do that, they don't need to be perfect.

mirkules• 14 years ago

Yes! People often lose sight of what is Google's goal compared to what is Apple's goal. The bulk of Apple's profit is in iDevices (hardware) and services (iTunes, AppStore, etc).

Google's core business is ads. They sell ads by getting as many people to use their services as possible. More devices running any Android directly translates into more money from ads, and I think this article entirely misses this point.

blinkingled2• 14 years ago

1) True Android is the one that runs Android apps - difference in glow or purity not counted. They run, it's Android.

2) You cannot force your definitions of Android on people to get them to buy "the one true Android". People buy what they like. They like the S3 better than the Nexus. Talk about different priorities. S3 is starting to get the Jelly Bean update too.

3) There is something called emphasis in good designs. Android was designed to let people have choice. It was designed such that Samsung can ship TouchWiz and users can effortlessly install $ANOTHER_LAUNCHER to get the experience they want on the same phone.

4) Developers have dealt with complexity arising from diverse devices before. It is not a big deal. If you are crying about testing effort you aren't doing it right. If you care about reaching to 50% and growing number of Android users you are just going to have to do it right and invest in testing your app on most phones by releasing timed betas or buying your own dozen of phones. Remember it's been done before, done right and done by god knows how many developers that have good apps in the Play Store.

5) You can't crib about higher maintenance costs if you buy a big house. You similarly can't crib about differences in Android skins if you bought into a diverse ecosystem. Good news is you have a choice - care about purity, updates etc. - get the Nexus. Care about bleeding edge hardware, 2GB RAM, quad core CPU - get the S3. Care about iPhone-esque build quality - there is One X. As long as there is something I like there is no problem. If I don't like something in iPhone land - I have no recourse. That's their emphasis in design - less choice.

Android is working as designed - sure there are those upgrade issues that can be made better - but for the most part it is not the normal users who are complaining. As long as they can get things done with their Gingerbread phone they are happy. The next one down the line will get them a Jelly Bean phone that can still run the stuff they bought.

twism5• 14 years ago

Android isn't just about apps. From utilities like Google Now, to aesthetics like resizable widgets. The android experience isn't waiting for your carrier to update your phone when folks with nexus devices are getting updates a couple of days after the update is announced. S3 might be getting updates but I doubt US owners will see one this year.

Why can't we get iPhone-esque build quality of the One X with regular updates and purity of the nexus?

I say manufactures should leave the customizations to the users, focus on hardware, and getting timely updates to the phone.

blinkingled2• 14 years ago

How do you think Google should do what you are asking it to do? Remember Microsoft is trying and going nowhere - their upgrades are still a fiasco - despite having a limited set of devices. It is simply not possible for Google to update those hundreds of SKUs out there to the latest version, all at once. The only way they could do that is by limiting hardware choices. People don't seem to like that.

There are rumors that Google will have as many as 5 manufacturers build a Nexus line that they will sell like they do the Galaxy Nexus today. May be that's as close as we will ever get to regular updates for a variety of hardware.

programminggeek• 14 years ago

Android was designed, I believe I read somewhere, to be the most carrier and OEM friendly OS possible for smartphones. It was meant to be skinned, loaded up with software by OEM's ad carriers, but still to act as a kind of compatibility layer between devices.

That alone solves the dev problem with Java ME that you would potentially need to do hundreds of separate builds for different devices and so on. With Android you have one version for all devices.

From that perspective, Android has gone beyond Google's wildest expectations and it solved at a basic level many of the Java ME problems, but that's not even close to the same goal that Apple had when they made the iPhone.

Why are people surprised that a system that was designed from day one to be what it is today isn't the same as iOS?

headShrinker3• 14 years ago

"It was meant to be skinned, loaded up with software by OEM's ad carriers, but still to act as a kind of compatibility layer between devices."

You are right, but this is definitely not understood by the masses or even tech-savvy users. iOS was built to separate the phone OS from the carrier, Android is some a bridge between carrier iterated phone OS and compatibility between the bunch.

Saving Android From a Second-Rate Future

Related Stories