Angry Birds maker apologizes for Android fragmentation issues - Page 2

Rovio didnt exactly shoot for the lowest common denominator here, they opted for OpenGL 2.0 instead of 1.1, and its clear that these older phones do a terrible job with 2.0 while newer Cortex A8 phones run it without a hitch. We wouldnt even be talking about this if they had gone with 1.1 as these older phones, similar to the 3G would be able to run it no issue. Coding for high powered devices and expecting it to run on low tier devices is incredibly stupid.

This same issue DOES EXIST on the iPhone platform, but its handled in a different way. Example, Epic Citadel. This game runs only on OpenGL 2.0 and attempting to download said game on a device that doesnt support it greets you with a lovely "OpenGL 2.0 is required for this game". It doesnt let you even download it. On the Android side of things, the app could be download (some apps are blocked due to device or carrier, so it might not even show up in the marketplace), but it wouldnt run very well.

Developers have to choose what games they want to run on said iOS devices. Take the entire iOS market and code for 1.1, or cater to the newer device market and code in 2.0? This is the essentially the same exact issue Rovio is dealing with, and is opting to go for the entire market instead of the newer device segment.

Alas, these low powered devices are just that...low powered. One cant expect a phone running weaker hardware to flex gaming muscles where its clearly deficient in it. Similar to a computer, you get what you pay for.



As a side note, im pretty sure the best selling headsets happen to be the most powerful ones, devices like the Galaxy S line, Droid X, Evo, Incredible (and other HTC variants). Atleast, here in the US that is.

I've posted on other boards as well about this subject and will post here as well. There was an article on Asymco about the lack of any common DRM framework on Android. The article also brought up the prospect of the Android fragmentation not only being impossible to rein in but that it may actually be by design.

From Netflix blog:

The hurdle has been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM) system on these devices.

Setting aside the debate around the value of content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy. Although we dont have a common platform security mechanism and DRM, we are able to work with individual handset manufacturers to add content protection to their devices.

Unfortunately, this is a much slower approach and leads to a fragmented experience on Android, in which some handsets will have access to Netflix and others wont.

Also from Asymco:

Recently Google TV was blocked from all major US TV content and Google faced litigation from copyright holders in print publications and before that for YouTube infringements and before that from newspaper publishers for Google News unlicensed reuse of their content.

I agree that Google seems to have no intent to control the very ecosystem/platform they've unleashed. It's as though Google wants a chaotic free-for-all on the Internet space. What they don't want is a large sliver of that space being controlled by the likes of Apple, Microsoft or anyone else for that matter. Google doesn't want control. Google only wants the "free" space on which they can sell ads and the more "open" and "freer" it is, the more advantageous their position. Google's very goal is to break down the proprietary control of "competing" ecosystems and content owners.

Google's business model and its strategy to execute on that model is indeed a major threat to all traditional tech and media content companies that own IP and copyrighted material - from software companies to TV/movie studios, etc. Google is leveraging the very power of the Internet, which is owned by no one. It is actually a very well thought-out strategy of profiting from the chaos and fragmentation that they hope will overwhelm the efforts of "closed" or integrated ecosystem players like Apple, Microsoft, Nokia or anyone else - even the likes of major backend players like IBM, HP, Oracle, SAP, etc.

Meanwhile, Google's hardware partners (the Android phone/tablet/TV vendors) who don't have the means to take on the integrated players with their own software ecosystem/platform offerings are getting more and more deeply entangled in Google's sticky and ever expanding web as mere commodity providers from which they have no means to escape. They're essentially pawns who do the dirty work of undercutting Google's chief platform adversaries and then getting virtually nothing in return. Ditto for the software developers on the Google platform...

Google's aim is to commoditize the entire Internet infrastructure on which they can profit from through their search monopoly. Taking a page or two from Microsoft's playbook which Gates used so effectively during the 80's and the 90's to dominate the PC industry, Google is using its search monopoly position to render all other proprietary players irrelevant through their use of "open" source software and the marketing of "free" services as search, YouTube, Picasa, Gmail, Google Docs, Maps, etc. How can consumers argue against "free" stuff?

Another interesting article from the Harvard Business Review about why Google is losing this battle with this strategy:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/11/did_...own_enemi.html

Aysmco's Horace Dediu summarized it well:

"Android is powerful, but as Google is finding out, power can be very dangerous without control."

You know, some people don't give a shit about fragmentation, just as no one gives a shit about the poor external antenna of the iphone 4.

See how this works? It's only an issue if you think it is.

Some people do and some people don't. Why bother posting if it's not an issue to you? There are plenty of industry analysts and the vendors of the handset devices considering this very issue. Samsung recently hinted that it will be focusing more on the WP7 platform than Android in the future. LG is also putting more of its focus on WP7. Why have Nokia, RIM, and HP rejected the adoption of Android? They don't want to be part of the fragmentation chaos. It's also what Steve Jobs repeatedly talked about at the last earnings call.

I know why android is open. so you can replace junk with junk.

I'll agree with your last sentence, but the fact is there are a lot of Android phones that cannot run the game at all, let alone choppily, and some of them are fairly new (like the T-Mobile G2).

http://gizmodo.com/5693428/angry-bir...entation-means

The platform is weak in this respect, and this is exactly why Microsoft insisted on minimum specifications for all WinMob7 phones - something Google hasn't done.

It's mistaken to think that Google doesn't want control. However, they are essentially different in how they seek control. Google gains control through destruction, and only through destruction. (They like to call it "disruption", but their entire philosophy is one of destruction.) Apple is essentially a creative company. Microsoft got it's success by consuming. Very different models, the main difference is that in Google's model, if they win, everyone else, including consumers, loses.

If you're here long enough you'd think, from some people posts, Android is so perfect, has no flaws, and beat iOS in every aspect. But in the real world that I had played with, there's nothing to write home about but for voice control and navigation.
But by the nature, it's never user-friendly. You have to research what phone to buy, what manufacturer record in supporting their phones. Then after you actually PAY for it you still have to work for it like rooting it, making custom ROM, finding a way to upgrade when there is one, and now even have to research on how to play app, or if my phone support it???
I'm sure it's a geek heaven but damn, just writing it shows how lousy the experience can be for people.

Rovio removed the US T-Mobile G2, they were mistaking it for the UK T-Mobile G2 aka the Hero aka Droid Eris on Verizon. It runs fine on the new G2, but it'd be nice if they just changed the damn name.


Its easy for Samsung to focus on Windows, they all run the same exact insides. Change the plastics/screen and you have a new phone model. On the Android front they'll have to actually be on the bleeding edge and play in the bargain bin. Costs wise it makes sense to deploy more WP7 devices (im sure they are including Windows Mobile Classic in that as well.)

FYI all the companies you listed rejected Android because they want control over their platform. Nokia wants more control over its platform, considering they built it from the ground up, Android is not the answer for them. RIM is completely proprietary, Android i guarantee was never in the cards. As for HP, they learned their lesson from their Windows Mobile days just like Sony Ericsson is right now, showing up and saying your running Android doesnt guarantee sales. HP is differentiating itself, and thus they bought Palm.

Wrong. The "G2" listed there refers to what we know as the Hero, it does NOT refer to the T-Mobile G2 aka HTC Desire.

You said it yourself: The game needs a certain amount of processing power. Not all Android phones come with an amazing gpu. Some just get by. Why TRY and port the game to these? This isn't Android fragmentation, but rather limited hardware

I say they favor the iphone because clearly this is their platform of choice. They are bitching about being able to port their game to all phones? Why is it then every game I've ever bought runs fine? I guess it's just because I have the latest and greatest? With PC gaming, it's understood a certain amount of processing power is needed, so why is it suddenly different with Android? Not all Android phones are the same.

Finally, I DO have the game running smooth as silk when the ads aren't loaded, and the fact that the ads have such an impact on performance says more about the shitty ad system and why they should offer a paid version, which I would happily buy.

So what does it say about these developers that even on a controlled "non-fragmented" OS, they still can't get it right and by your own admission, has choppiness and glitches!?

BTW "Making out like it "runs smooth as silk" (for you) just makes you look foolish. It's not believable." SERIOUSLY? You know what makes YOU look foolish? Talking about shit you clearly don't have a clue about. You have an iPhone, how could you KNOW what MY phone is capable of? Jeesh.


Android users don't actually buy apps!? What are all those PAID APPS doing in the market place then? And seeing as how I've bought PLENTY of apps in the few months I've had this phone, I can't take that statement seriously. Buying apps is so easy and they're so cheap, it seems like an even bigger hassle to try and pirate them! KIDS might pirate them, but people with jobs have no reason to.


Nobody NEEDS to do this though, so what are you talking about?

You're clearly not very intelligent, and even after I've explained why they call it an open OS, you continue to post this abortion of thought.

You mean they even have fragmented device naming? It rarely happens, but you really out-dilgered the original poster here :-)

At some point, the truth will catch up with all the Android folks (and their fans): Nobody, except for service providers (i.e., not Google, not the handset manufacturers, not the developers, not retailers), is making a whole heck of a lot of money off this platform.

When they finally realize it, the platform will end up in the dustbin (or at best, with the lower-end users).

Note: I am not saying that 'Apple Is It,' as much as Android Isn't It.

Honestly, I really don't understand what it is they could be doing wrong to have such variable performance on phones with capable processing power. I haven't come across a single game that has given me issues. I guess I lucked out with the Fascinate and now it's left me with a false impression of Android.

BUT, someone did mention it's choppy on the iPhone as well, and that OS clearly isn't fragmented. What does that say?

edit:

Just saw a comment above mine saying it's a Hero that can't run this? Makes more sense. Actually, which one of those phones in the list is the best/most powerful? I haven't kept up with each Android phone, but I don't recognize any "powerhouse contenders" there lol

Because everyone thinks the sky will fall on Android because older versions of the OS fail to support newer games. Big deal. As quoted already older versions of the iphone won't support newer games either. So what? Fragmentation? Oh no!

Why would Nokia with their Linux/Meego/Qt platform and RIM with RIMOS, HP with webOS? I hope they succeed because as Daniel points out, rightfully in this case, Apple vs. Google is getting old and stupid.

LG just sold a million Optimus phones, yet you make it sound like Android has no value to them. Sure it is a low end phone, but it just shows there are those who want a low cost basic smart phone.

Personally I think Android phones are developed so quickly that the state of the art is gone in less than 6 months. That's annoying.

Then there is apple who says "You can have any phone you like, as long as it is tied to Att and is black and costs $200."

OK, but I think the whole "Droid" naming scheme is a better example of what is wrong with not so much Android but Verizon.

May be you don't know how smart the iOS SDK. Upgrading old program into retina display can be done without changing the code, just provide resources for retina display. Android doesn't support tablet, but many force themselves to use Android on their tablet, resulting "big Android Touch". iPad is not big iPod Touch, because iOS SDK is designed specifically for both, but we can make application Universal that can run on both iPad & iPhone.

I have to take back what I said about there being a performance hit with the ads appearing. They must have fixed this in an update or something.

this is how Android Forums look like (androidforums.com)


Each phone has it's own subforum!! with different set of issues, problems, etc!!!


IT'S RIDICULOUS!! --- Android Developers have to make sure their app runs on ALL OF THESE PHONES!!!!!

And how do you think the average user will be able able to figure that out? Some will, yeah, but how about a product that works as it should out of the box?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same people who not long said in response to something that Steve Jobs said that it's not difficult to develop for the Android platform, and that the fragmentation that Jobs was referring to is just rubbish?

For me, and many others, apple gained great growth from "a free song". There was perhaps a year - or so (I don't remember exactly how long) where they gave away a free song on what seemed to be just about every Coke soda. I swear I gave friends a few hundred free songs. I was a strict PC person building my own stuff and hated Apple. Then I actually thought about how many songs I had given away and decided to keep my own bottle caps. Since then I have gone through two iPod classics (which weren't classic at the time), several minis, two iPod touches (refuse to buy the latest because it has the same storage capacity). Oh and I bought a mac mini just for my songs and media.

Then when Steve actually decided (or re-iterated) that they were a "mobile devices company" things started to take off. The new iPad was born.

Now, as i was buying the nano's and classics, the Zune came out. Actually there was tough competition for apple from the start with MP3 players that ranged from $5 to $200... anyway, every time I got a new iPod I was looking at a 3 year old version of the competitors offering. I don't think I've ever seen a Zune2. Maybe there is one... Steve said the reason why they got so far is because they don't rest on their laurels. He's right. That's the whole reason why their products are doing so well. I can go to the store and see 10 models that will disappear next year, or buy a new iPod. Really... is there an actual choice if you have some intelligence what so ever?

In the iPhone it's close, but you have to add in subsidation. Everyone I know "wants" an iPhone. Some simply can't afford it or the plan, so they get 'knock offs'. I don't have one, by-the-way, my company supplies Blackberries.

The iPad and slates in general will fall prey to the same tactic. Apple will always have the newest, better developed product just like in the MP3 share war. I don't think we can even count Android (which is software) in this market. As many here have noted, the next version of iPad will be available when the competitions "iPad" look alike comes to market. They can only research and develop so much before they have to call it quits.

----- my 2 cents.

I did notice a small performance lack with the new 4.2.1 iOS. However, some apps actually ran better. I did notice that "folders" seems like it 'takes a moment' before it opens. Small things really, after playing with an iPad for 7 months or so.

Good article Daniel, I also enjoy reading them in RDM.
I want to write about the UI, there is a right way and a wrong way to design screens, as well as the underlying programs that control them. I am a programmer, and I can assure you that the majority of screen designs that I have come across have bordered from the inept, lazy, pathetic to the criminal. Sometimes it feels that the programmer has simply thrown as many fields onto the screen to capture/display data to/from the database, no concept of design what so ever.
This is common in the IT industry, I can give many more examples.
Web site design is another that seems to have been hijacked by non-technical people, and the end result is chaos. I find most web sites rubbish, even Apple's is not that good, although better than many others in similar line of business.
I had a disagreement with a techie, he was of the opinion that what the user wants the user gets, I was of the opinion that the user doesn't know what he wants, because he/she does not understand the fundamentals of good screen design, period. I have worked at many client sites where I gave them what they I wanted and not what they wanted, in the end they were most happy and were amazed that they could get these features, they were simply unaware they existed.
I program on mainframes, but the concept is no different than on PCs, one site had no idea that function keys could be deployed, help available at the screen or field level, browse-select functionality was something they needed, pop-up selectable data from a list. yes all can be incorporated in mainframe applications, as long as the programmer is passionate and wants to give the best experience to the users.

I agree with Apple's approach to UI design, give users what Apple deems, it just makes sense, Apple are the experts, do you think most consumers have programming/design skills, no they don't. Now we get to the nitty gritty, Android approach is the opposite, give them the option to change the UI experience. I disagree on this approach, although its not a direct correlation in what I mentioned above, there is this fundamental approach taken by Android sellers that run counter to my philosophical approach to UI.

I find Apple's UI experiences on the whole to be enjoyable, there is room for improvements, but at least Apple has the correct principles in place and can build on them.

Each time I visit various techie sites, there seems to be a new phone or tablet displayed, "buy me, buy me ! I have x,y & z, the iPad doesn't, so I must be better, please buy me", hang on why won't you buy me ? What's wrong with me"?"
The fragmentation of the Android market place is going to grow exponentially, how can the typical non-techie consumer possibly keep up ? Will they simply trust the handset maker, when they tell them its the best phone/tablet available?"
Its a scary place, I am a techie, but I'm scared, I would rather be in the Apple world, at least I know what I am getting now, and will get in the future.

All those "free" things like what Google has put out, e.g. Docs, Maps, aren't really free. It just feels that way because the end user doesn't have to put out any money. All of those are basically advertising-funded. Google distributes users' search habits to advertisers so that the advertisers can target their ads to you.

I don't know about the breakdowns but I know for sure that Google definitely has high profit margins, significantly higher than those of the Android manufacturers. This is to be expected. It's similar to what's happening in the PC ecosystem. Microsoft has the high profit margins but the manufacturers have no more than a razor-thin margin. By using Windows, manufacturers are robbed of the ability to innovate and differentiate their products. Pretty much the only avenue for product differentiation is on price. That's why PCs are so much cheaper than Macs. There are so many devices out there that aren't that much different. PCs have been been reduced to almost a commodity. Neither Microsoft nor the manufacturers can establish a brand.

The margins for Samsung and other Android manufacturers are not even in double digits, and some are in the negatives. Carriers are handing out Android phones like candy. However, at least with Android, since it's open-source, manufacturers actually have some avenues to differentiate their products, but still, the main point is price. The results is that Google has the high margins while the manufactures are relegated to Foxconn clones, making no more than broken pennies on the dollar.

Somewhat inhuman?

bu wha ha ha ha...

Prior to the release of the iPod with video, Jobs disparaged watching video on a handheld device.

Prior to the release of the iPad and iBooks, Jobs disparaged reading in general, saying nobody reads anymore.

Prior to the release of AppleTV, Jobs had made many comments about Apple not getting into TV as it's a passive activity that Apple wasn't interested in.

Ever get the feeling that his public comments may be a way to throw the competition off Apple's tracks?

And the reason there isn't a paid version...? Because, as the developer has explained, it's too hard to get the full version with all features to work well enough on enough Android phones to justify charging for it. Thus, Android users get the "lite" version subsidized by ads.

This is a circular argument, i.e., a completely overblown statement by someone who obviously favors Android.

FWIW, I own both an iPhone and an Android phone, so my preference comes from my experience with both, not an irrational bias. My nearly-3-year-old iPhone 3G running the most up-to-date version of iOS blows my 1-year-old Droid (perpetually stuck on 2.1--thanks for nothing Verizon/HTC/Google) out of the @#$%& water on just about every level.

Hilarious! out-dilgered!

I have to disagree with you here - I have an android phone - htc hero 2, several in the office have android phones. We are all running the same version of android. Our user interfaces, hardware configurations and experiences with the phone are fundamentally different. I'm completely unable to run angry birds from the market, two others are and one user can run it, but it's as jerky as hell - with or without airplane mode enabled.

The iPhone has very few current models, all with exactly matching configurations and the UI looks the same - you can't argue that android isn't fragmented and this doesn't have negative impacts on the android user experience.

What makes me smile when I hear that android is overtaking iOS in market share is that an OS which is installed on multiple handsets with multiple carriers often shipping with free hardware is only just managing to hold it's own against one of the most expensive smart phones out there, with only one current model and available on limited carriers. It's a pretty poor show from the competition.

iOS and the iPHone might not be to everyone's taste - and yes, it is about what you prefer to use - but Android is massively fragmented, barely recognisable from one handset to another and offers a wildly varying user experience. You might prefer a certain handset, but to say you prefer Android over iOS is to say that you prefer any drink over a glass of a 1964 Chateau Lafite Chardonnay.

Vague label vs. very specific user experience.

It's very difficult to compare the two operating systems when one of them varies so massively with each handset install and carrier.

Platform that matters? Perhaps they are investing time and effort into it because android, by the end of next year, will be much more dominant that iOS. Forgetting android would be like trying to be a leader in computer software and only developing for the mac.... Even if android is more fragmented mobile developers will have to consider it if they want to reach the most people

Remember than iphone had about a two year head start over android. It's doing more than hold its own since it has had to catch up in the first place. In future android users are going to get new features long before iOS users because of the fast iterative release cycle, then the iPhone will always be playing catch up. This started when froyo was announced and now just wait until gingerbread gets announced in the next few weeks.

I have an iphone 3g with the latest software too. I would happily swap it for any android phone and I am just waiting for gingerbread to come out before I do. The 3g is the slowest piece of crap phone ever. Apple's code must be seriously bloated to slow my phone down to over a minute to open bloody safari.

PS. Why don't you just install the update http://www.intomobile.com/2010/08/11...ting-handsets/ or root it? Or are you technically disabled?

It's an important lesson for devs who hear about the growing market share of Android and want to port their app. How much of that market share can actually run their app, and how much of it is very cheap devices?

If other devs take the approach of these guys and make a cut down version for Android, then over time iOS will have the best versions of all big apps.

This has nothing to do with "fragmentation" - the fact that there are many different "skins" for Android wouldn't affect a self-enclosed program like Angry Birds.

It has everything to do with the fact that the developer wrote sloppy code that might have worked on the latest, fastest android phone running the most recent version of Android, but was slow as hell and/or crashed on a 2-year old phone running an earlier version.

If they can create a version of Angry birds that works on a first-gen iPhone running iOS3, they should be able to do the same thing for the Android platform. Blaming "fragmentation" is just using other folks as a scapegoat for their own laziness...

Scalability is something that all programmers on all platforms have to deal with, so I don't understand how this is news...

Does the "fragmentation" of the internet between different browsers, web connection speeds and computer specs prevent web designers from getting their content to folks? Not the good ones....

With all these problems, it is very surprising that Android is so much more popular than iOS.