Yeah we'll see how this "feature" works out with Google's version of Android, Amazons version of Android, this Chinese version of Android, who ever else may attempt to fork Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
And the best part is the fragmentation is feature of Android, not its shortcoming.
Probably to derail a discussion of bad news for Google and Android. I suggest we all ignore it and continue talking about a news story that portends the most glaring example of Android platform fragmentation yet.
edit: Yep. Check out the posting history. Google apologist. I suggest everyone ignore and move on.
Android already suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual phone makers and carriers add their own proprietary layers of apps and look and feel packages such as Motorola's Motoblur and Samsung's Touchwiz.
I never quite understood this line of thinking. Isn't similar to saying that UNIX suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual PC makers add their own proprietary layers, like Apple's OSX?
My point is, why would a Motorola phone user care whether or not Samsung has a different look and feel, any more than an OSX user would care that TRIX has a different look and feel? They each started as UNIX.
I never quite understood this line of thinking. Isn't similar to saying that UNIX suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual PC makers add their own proprietary layers, like Apple's OSX?
My point is, why would a Motorola phone user care whether or not Samsung has a different look and feel, any more than an OSX user would care that TRIX has a different look and feel? They each started as UNIX.
That's a silly argument. To be accurate you need to compare flavours of UNIX with that of Linux. No one said it was silly for Android to be built atop Linux just as it's not silly for Mac OS X to be built atop Darwin, a UNIX-certified OS.
What you're suggesting is that Apple license their Mac OS X to other vendors (like HP, Dell and Acer), let them call it Mac OS X, but then have them change the OS and UI so that it no longer resembles Apple's version and often prevents Mac App Store apps from running on these forks of Apple's version for various HW and SW reasons. Does that really make sense to you?
By then, China will have been able to study Android long enough to be able to work up their own stuff to which they can update, create their own apps etc.
Sure, but they might hit the ground running but they still will have to keep running for themselves. How much does Google invest into Android every year, if every third-party manufacturer has to invest the same to keep their forked version of Android on par with Google's, there have no real advantage anymore compared to what Apple spends every year on keeping iOS current and competitive.
Not really sure why people keep posting that tablet image. How about this:
Before iPad:
iOS5 on iPad:
haha...Your response to Google completely revamping the idea of a smartphone based on the release of the iPhone is to compare a minor iOS5 feature's bleak resemblance to a failed MS product's software feature?
The only resemblance between the 2 is the keyboard is split...Heck, HW ergonomic keyboards have been doing that for over a decade. Maybe you should have put a picture of one of those on there.
That's a silly argument. To be accurate you need to compare flavours of UNIX with that of Linux. No one said it was silly for Android to be built atop Linux just as it's not silly for Mac OS X to be built atop Darwin, a UNIX-certified OS.
What you're suggesting is that Apple license their Mac OS X to other vendors (like HP, Dell and Acer), let them call it Mac OS X, but then have them change the OS and UI so that it no longer resembles Apple's version and often prevents Mac App Store apps from running on these forks of Apple's version for various HW and SW reasons. Does that really make sense to you?
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Apple seldom licenses software in that manner.
What I am suggesting is that OSX users have no disappointments because software for other flavors of UNIX do not run on OSX. Likewise, I don't understand why MOTOBLUR users would care that software for TouchWiz won't run on their handsets.
Both OSX and, for example, UNIFlex started as UNIX. Both MOTOBlur and Baidu's OS started as Android.
Nobody clams that OSX users are frustrated because of their inability to run software developed for Red Hat. But DED and others say that some Android users are frustrated because of the variety of Android implementations.
That's a silly argument. To be accurate you need to compare flavours of UNIX with that of Linux. No one said it was silly for Android to be built atop Linux just as it's not silly for Mac OS X to be built atop Darwin, a UNIX-certified OS.
What you're suggesting is that Apple license their Mac OS X to other vendors (like HP, Dell and Acer), let them call it Mac OS X, but then have them change the OS and UI so that it no longer resembles Apple's version and often prevents Mac App Store apps from running on these forks of Apple's version for various HW and SW reasons. Does that really make sense to you?
Baidu won't call their fork android, Grid (FusionGarage) doesn't call THEIR fork android, Neither does Barnes and Noble (Nook) and I doubt amazon will either.
Most "Fragmentation" issues are completely avoided with a fork because these products are not billed as the same thing. They don't share a common app store, they're not called the same thing, in Baidu's case it's in a completely different market.
The average user doesn't buy a nook and then complain that she can't get all the apps on it she has on her phone because there is NO expectation that she would.
These devices won't have the android market, they won't have Google applications, they cannot (legally) have Google anywhere on the device, the advertisement, or the box, nor would baidu put Google there since it's a direct competitor.
This isn't a "Fragmentation" issue in any way that matters to the consumer.
I never quite understood this line of thinking. Isn't similar to saying that UNIX suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual PC makers add their own proprietary layers, like Apple's OSX?
My point is, why would a Motorola phone user care whether or not Samsung has a different look and feel, any more than an OSX user would care that TRIX has a different look and feel? They each started as UNIX.
1) Because devs develop for Android, and not for Motorola Blur, or HTC Sense.
2) UNIX isn't a single OS, the way Android tries to be. UNIX is largely a certification any OS can get if it contains certain programs. Unlike Android, where a new company like Amazon, or Baidu steps in and forks off Google's codebase, UNIX OS'es would be developed independently, from independent codebases.
3) A better comparison is Linux, which is indeed like Android, and terribly fragmented. Hence its lack of success in the desktop market. The only glimmers of success Linux has seen is when a certain distribution of Linux has dominated a market (Red Hat in enterprise, Ubuntu in desktops).
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Apple seldom licenses software in that manner.
What I am suggesting is that OSX users have no disappointments because software for other flavors of UNIX do not run on OSX. Likewise, I don't understand why MOTOBLUR users would care that software for TouchWiz won't run on their handsets.
Both OSX and, for example, UNIFlex started as UNIX. Both MOTOBlur and Baidu's OS started as Android.
Nobody clams that OSX users are frustrated because of their inability to run software developed for Red Hat. But DED and others say that some Android users are frustrated because of the variety of Android implementations.
I don't quite understand the distinction.
OS X did NOT start as UNIX. OS X BECAME UNIX around OSX 10.5...You have a fundamental misgiving of what UNIX is, or how OS X was created. Apple did not fork off any codebase to create OS X (although they did include Open source components, on which they based their code, but it wasn't a fork).
And you are right that MotoBlur can succeed even if devs can't develop the same apps for HTC Sense, or Baidu's OS, like OS X succeeded, based solely on its own install base.
But at that point it makes no sense to class all those together. Unlike Android (which is an OS in itself) UNIX is a specification (like Bluetooth, for example). HP, Solaris, IBM, Apple, all have versions of UNIX whose codebases have little to nothing to do with each other, but meet the same specifications, so they are all certified as UNIX. In this case, Baidu and Amazon are using the ACTUAL Android code for their SW but once they fork it off, there need not be anything similar about the original Android OS and the Baidu fork, for example...
Baidu won't call their fork android, Grid (FusionGarage) doesn't call THEIR fork android, Neither does Barnes and Noble (Nook) and I doubt amazon will either.
So long as they don't claim to be Android and try to access the Android Market I wouldn't call them Android fragmentation, but that's why we have the term fork. But's that's all beside point because Android does have plenty of fragmentation that does it make difficult for consumers and developers alike.
Yeah we'll see how this "feature" works out with Google's version of Android, Amazons version of Android, this Chinese version of Android, who ever else may attempt to fork Android.
I am afraid you haven't got the point. Try to click on that link.
Even if I buy into your argument, Google's Android and Amazon's Android and quite likely the Baidu's Android will have identical API and application run all of them just fine, no matter how different the launcher applications look (the MotoBlur, SenseUI, TouchWiz, whatever else is completely irrelevant to application developer). iOS is as "fragmented" with iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad Touch, iPad and iOS 1 through 5
haha...Your response to Google completely revamping the idea of a smartphone based on the release of the iPhone is to compare a minor iOS5 feature's bleak resemblance to a failed MS product's software feature?
The only resemblance between the 2 is the keyboard is split...Heck, HW ergonomic keyboards have been doing that for over a decade. Maybe you should have put a picture of one of those on there.
As pointed out countless times: Android was designed from the start to be modular and adaptive to a variety of form factors. That pre-iphone model is just a single model shown, of an unknown number of others. (And existing android handsets USE that form factor).
Secondly, Every company had to rework their strategy when the iphone came out. That's kinda what a game changer does. Did you really expect Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to continue making the same types of devices when apple showed them a previously untapped market? That's how this kinda stuff works. A company comes out with a good idea, and other companies adapt it. Apple does this too. Companies that don't adapt to changes die. NO ONE is saying that android didn't change it's strategy when the iphone was announced. You're just arguing that this is somehow unique to google, which is wrong. Google had the advantage because their product wasn't released yet, so they didn't have to worry about legacy support or consumer expectations.
When you bring a new product to market, you look at what the current "It" phone is and you build your product to compete against it. You don't say "well, we have this design that's losing popularity, but we'll stick with it anyway" Rim tried that, remember? Then they tried making their current OS touch (the storm) now they're rewriting the whole thing in QNX. That's what technology DOES. Yes, even Apple.
iOS is as "fragmented" with iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad Touch, iPad and iOS 1 through 5
Well, I actually think some apps developed for iOS 3 run on iOS 4, and I know for a fact that vast majority of apps I use on iOS 4 run perfectly on iOS5. Plus iPhone 3GS runs iOS 4, etc. So not as fragmented as you make it out to be.
So long as they don't claim to be Android and try to access the Android Market I wouldn't call them Android fragmentation, but that's why we have the term fork. But's that's all beside point because Android does have plenty of fragmentation that does it make difficult for consumers and developers alike.
Actually, there are countless posts by developers who say that while yes, Android has fragmentation, it's not the huge deal everyone says it is.
There is fragmentation, but it's not game breaking. The real problem is that some companies are using the fragmentation politically (IE tegrazone, Netflix, Hulu support) These are INTENTIONAL cases of fragmentation that would not exist otherwise.
And Gameloft can DIAF over their billing practices.
Comments
And the best part is the fragmentation is feature of Android, not its shortcoming.
2) What was your point in posting that?
Probably to derail a discussion of bad news for Google and Android. I suggest we all ignore it and continue talking about a news story that portends the most glaring example of Android platform fragmentation yet.
edit: Yep. Check out the posting history. Google apologist. I suggest everyone ignore and move on.
Android already suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual phone makers and carriers add their own proprietary layers of apps and look and feel packages such as Motorola's Motoblur and Samsung's Touchwiz.
I never quite understood this line of thinking. Isn't similar to saying that UNIX suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual PC makers add their own proprietary layers, like Apple's OSX?
My point is, why would a Motorola phone user care whether or not Samsung has a different look and feel, any more than an OSX user would care that TRIX has a different look and feel? They each started as UNIX.
I never quite understood this line of thinking. Isn't similar to saying that UNIX suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual PC makers add their own proprietary layers, like Apple's OSX?
My point is, why would a Motorola phone user care whether or not Samsung has a different look and feel, any more than an OSX user would care that TRIX has a different look and feel? They each started as UNIX.
That's a silly argument. To be accurate you need to compare flavours of UNIX with that of Linux. No one said it was silly for Android to be built atop Linux just as it's not silly for Mac OS X to be built atop Darwin, a UNIX-certified OS.
What you're suggesting is that Apple license their Mac OS X to other vendors (like HP, Dell and Acer), let them call it Mac OS X, but then have them change the OS and UI so that it no longer resembles Apple's version and often prevents Mac App Store apps from running on these forks of Apple's version for various HW and SW reasons. Does that really make sense to you?
By then, China will have been able to study Android long enough to be able to work up their own stuff to which they can update, create their own apps etc.
Sure, but they might hit the ground running but they still will have to keep running for themselves. How much does Google invest into Android every year, if every third-party manufacturer has to invest the same to keep their forked version of Android on par with Google's, there have no real advantage anymore compared to what Apple spends every year on keeping iOS current and competitive.
Not really sure why people keep posting that tablet image. How about this:
Before iPad:
iOS5 on iPad:
haha...Your response to Google completely revamping the idea of a smartphone based on the release of the iPhone is to compare a minor iOS5 feature's bleak resemblance to a failed MS product's software feature?
The only resemblance between the 2 is the keyboard is split...Heck, HW ergonomic keyboards have been doing that for over a decade. Maybe you should have put a picture of one of those on there.
That's a silly argument. To be accurate you need to compare flavours of UNIX with that of Linux. No one said it was silly for Android to be built atop Linux just as it's not silly for Mac OS X to be built atop Darwin, a UNIX-certified OS.
What you're suggesting is that Apple license their Mac OS X to other vendors (like HP, Dell and Acer), let them call it Mac OS X, but then have them change the OS and UI so that it no longer resembles Apple's version and often prevents Mac App Store apps from running on these forks of Apple's version for various HW and SW reasons. Does that really make sense to you?
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Apple seldom licenses software in that manner.
What I am suggesting is that OSX users have no disappointments because software for other flavors of UNIX do not run on OSX. Likewise, I don't understand why MOTOBLUR users would care that software for TouchWiz won't run on their handsets.
Both OSX and, for example, UNIFlex started as UNIX. Both MOTOBlur and Baidu's OS started as Android.
Nobody clams that OSX users are frustrated because of their inability to run software developed for Red Hat. But DED and others say that some Android users are frustrated because of the variety of Android implementations.
I don't quite understand the distinction.
That's a silly argument. To be accurate you need to compare flavours of UNIX with that of Linux. No one said it was silly for Android to be built atop Linux just as it's not silly for Mac OS X to be built atop Darwin, a UNIX-certified OS.
What you're suggesting is that Apple license their Mac OS X to other vendors (like HP, Dell and Acer), let them call it Mac OS X, but then have them change the OS and UI so that it no longer resembles Apple's version and often prevents Mac App Store apps from running on these forks of Apple's version for various HW and SW reasons. Does that really make sense to you?
Baidu won't call their fork android, Grid (FusionGarage) doesn't call THEIR fork android, Neither does Barnes and Noble (Nook) and I doubt amazon will either.
Most "Fragmentation" issues are completely avoided with a fork because these products are not billed as the same thing. They don't share a common app store, they're not called the same thing, in Baidu's case it's in a completely different market.
The average user doesn't buy a nook and then complain that she can't get all the apps on it she has on her phone because there is NO expectation that she would.
These devices won't have the android market, they won't have Google applications, they cannot (legally) have Google anywhere on the device, the advertisement, or the box, nor would baidu put Google there since it's a direct competitor.
This isn't a "Fragmentation" issue in any way that matters to the consumer.
I never quite understood this line of thinking. Isn't similar to saying that UNIX suffers from an inconsistent, fragmented experience for users as individual PC makers add their own proprietary layers, like Apple's OSX?
My point is, why would a Motorola phone user care whether or not Samsung has a different look and feel, any more than an OSX user would care that TRIX has a different look and feel? They each started as UNIX.
1) Because devs develop for Android, and not for Motorola Blur, or HTC Sense.
2) UNIX isn't a single OS, the way Android tries to be. UNIX is largely a certification any OS can get if it contains certain programs. Unlike Android, where a new company like Amazon, or Baidu steps in and forks off Google's codebase, UNIX OS'es would be developed independently, from independent codebases.
3) A better comparison is Linux, which is indeed like Android, and terribly fragmented. Hence its lack of success in the desktop market. The only glimmers of success Linux has seen is when a certain distribution of Linux has dominated a market (Red Hat in enterprise, Ubuntu in desktops).
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Hey, you totally stole what was going to be my post!
Sorry Google, looks like Baidu is as busy innovating as you are. Maybe even more so in your strange world of "copying == innovation".
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Apple seldom licenses software in that manner.
What I am suggesting is that OSX users have no disappointments because software for other flavors of UNIX do not run on OSX. Likewise, I don't understand why MOTOBLUR users would care that software for TouchWiz won't run on their handsets.
Both OSX and, for example, UNIFlex started as UNIX. Both MOTOBlur and Baidu's OS started as Android.
Nobody clams that OSX users are frustrated because of their inability to run software developed for Red Hat. But DED and others say that some Android users are frustrated because of the variety of Android implementations.
I don't quite understand the distinction.
OS X did NOT start as UNIX. OS X BECAME UNIX around OSX 10.5...You have a fundamental misgiving of what UNIX is, or how OS X was created. Apple did not fork off any codebase to create OS X (although they did include Open source components, on which they based their code, but it wasn't a fork).
And you are right that MotoBlur can succeed even if devs can't develop the same apps for HTC Sense, or Baidu's OS, like OS X succeeded, based solely on its own install base.
But at that point it makes no sense to class all those together. Unlike Android (which is an OS in itself) UNIX is a specification (like Bluetooth, for example). HP, Solaris, IBM, Apple, all have versions of UNIX whose codebases have little to nothing to do with each other, but meet the same specifications, so they are all certified as UNIX. In this case, Baidu and Amazon are using the ACTUAL Android code for their SW but once they fork it off, there need not be anything similar about the original Android OS and the Baidu fork, for example...
... UNIX is largely a certification any OS can get if it contains certain programs. ...
This is not true at all.
Just sayin.
2. Chinese (recent version of chinese, let's not argue history here) love to steal ideas and make their own products.
3. Chinese (see above) love to make knockoffs.
4. Google lets anyone steal their ideas cause they see no point in copywrites and patents when they can sell ads.
The result is Y-iOS.
Actually they've had the oPhone for a while also, which is a clone of Android as well.
Baidu won't call their fork android, Grid (FusionGarage) doesn't call THEIR fork android, Neither does Barnes and Noble (Nook) and I doubt amazon will either.
So long as they don't claim to be Android and try to access the Android Market I wouldn't call them Android fragmentation, but that's why we have the term fork. But's that's all beside point because Android does have plenty of fragmentation that does it make difficult for consumers and developers alike.
Yeah we'll see how this "feature" works out with Google's version of Android, Amazons version of Android, this Chinese version of Android, who ever else may attempt to fork Android.
I am afraid you haven't got the point. Try to click on that link.
Even if I buy into your argument, Google's Android and Amazon's Android and quite likely the Baidu's Android will have identical API and application run all of them just fine, no matter how different the launcher applications look (the MotoBlur, SenseUI, TouchWiz, whatever else is completely irrelevant to application developer). iOS is as "fragmented" with iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad Touch, iPad and iOS 1 through 5
haha...Your response to Google completely revamping the idea of a smartphone based on the release of the iPhone is to compare a minor iOS5 feature's bleak resemblance to a failed MS product's software feature?
The only resemblance between the 2 is the keyboard is split...Heck, HW ergonomic keyboards have been doing that for over a decade. Maybe you should have put a picture of one of those on there.
As pointed out countless times: Android was designed from the start to be modular and adaptive to a variety of form factors. That pre-iphone model is just a single model shown, of an unknown number of others. (And existing android handsets USE that form factor).
Secondly, Every company had to rework their strategy when the iphone came out. That's kinda what a game changer does. Did you really expect Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to continue making the same types of devices when apple showed them a previously untapped market? That's how this kinda stuff works. A company comes out with a good idea, and other companies adapt it. Apple does this too. Companies that don't adapt to changes die. NO ONE is saying that android didn't change it's strategy when the iphone was announced. You're just arguing that this is somehow unique to google, which is wrong. Google had the advantage because their product wasn't released yet, so they didn't have to worry about legacy support or consumer expectations.
When you bring a new product to market, you look at what the current "It" phone is and you build your product to compete against it. You don't say "well, we have this design that's losing popularity, but we'll stick with it anyway" Rim tried that, remember? Then they tried making their current OS touch (the storm) now they're rewriting the whole thing in QNX. That's what technology DOES. Yes, even Apple.
iOS is as "fragmented" with iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad Touch, iPad and iOS 1 through 5
Well, I actually think some apps developed for iOS 3 run on iOS 4, and I know for a fact that vast majority of apps I use on iOS 4 run perfectly on iOS5. Plus iPhone 3GS runs iOS 4, etc. So not as fragmented as you make it out to be.
So long as they don't claim to be Android and try to access the Android Market I wouldn't call them Android fragmentation, but that's why we have the term fork. But's that's all beside point because Android does have plenty of fragmentation that does it make difficult for consumers and developers alike.
Actually, there are countless posts by developers who say that while yes, Android has fragmentation, it's not the huge deal everyone says it is.
Just a few examples:
Mika Mobile (Battle Heart): http://mikamobile.blogspot.com/2011/06/android.html
Angry Birds: http://www.phonearena.com/news/Angry...tation_id15593
Meridian Apps: http://nfarina.com/post/8239634061/ios-to-android (Great overview of differences, positive and negative)
There is fragmentation, but it's not game breaking. The real problem is that some companies are using the fragmentation politically (IE tegrazone, Netflix, Hulu support) These are INTENTIONAL cases of fragmentation that would not exist otherwise.
And Gameloft can DIAF over their billing practices.