Google needs to take back Android from the OEMs
Summary: Is Google to blame for the fragmentation of the Android OS and delayed updates, or does the blame lie with the OEMs and the mobile carriers?
Image courtesy of Android and Me
It was announced last month in DigiTimes that Google may be launching Android 5.0 in the second quarter of 2012. That's good news, except for one tiny problem. Why hasn't the current version of Android, Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0, attained widespread distribution yet?
I have been using a (mostly) functional version of Android 4.0 on my Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, thanks to the efforts of the CyanogenMod people and the developers over at the XDA forums. Aside from no functional camera or VPN--both due to the lack of working drivers from Samsung--everything else is functioning.
I don't think the OEMs or the carriers are the problem. Ever since smartphones appeared, OS updates have been fragmented, delayed, or flat out ignored unless there was a showstopping bug that needed fixing. OEMs simply aren't in the business of maintaining handset operating systems. They've been forced into the role due to the advancing technology.
Apple recognized this as a problem from day one with the iPhone. They took the decision out of the hands of the OEMs and the mobile carriers, and handled all of the OS updates themselves. Admittedly, that's a lot easier to do when you also control the hardware as well, and only have a few models to deal with.
The solution is to have a virtual layer, much in the same way that virtualized host systems like VMware, Hyper-V and VirtualBox function. They create a standardized layer, and then each operating system sees that as the hardware platform that it will be installed on.
Google wouldn't even be required to create the virtual layer. All they would need to do is provide the OEMs with APIs and hardware specifications and let them build it. They wouldn't have to develop OS-specific drivers, and customers wouldn't be forced to sit on their hands and wait for the OEMs to get around to writing updates.
Google would have complete control of the OS, because every device would be presenting the exact same hardware layer to the operating system. They could put out software updates like clockwork, and they wouldn't be held back by the OEMs and mobile carriers because they didn't want to be bothered spending resources on software updates.
But until that happens, we the customers are stuck watching OEMs release new devices with new operating system updates while they let their previous generation of hardware languish. Don't blame Google for Android fragmentation; blame the OEMs and mobile carriers for having too much control over the operating system and no desire to spend any effort to provide updates.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
They are Distros. GPLv2 Licensing Terms Prevail
h t t p : / / w w w . a n d r o i d . c o m / u s / d e v e l o p e r - d i s t r i b u t i o n - a g r e e m e n t . h t m l
In the case of Google, they have finally completed committing their driver code for Android to kernel.org.
This has nothing to do with the Distro Android itself which sits on top of the kernel.
GPLv2 has zero impact on Android
If an OEM writes device drivers for Android devices that uses binaries that taint the kernel, that is not a violation of GPL2. Vendors have been doing that for years (nVidia, etc)
fyi
not exactly.
The nVidia drivers are not written for Linux, but for Windows. The shim code that is used to adapt the Linux API to the Windows API (used by the driver) IS GPL.
That toothpaste is out of the tube.
On top of that
They should, because in a couple of years people choose new phones again
very true, plus
It looks better, it seems to have better screen drivers, text and stuff like that but now it locks more often, the browser is different, locks from time to time, going to sleep causes many more problems than before, etc. etc. etc.
If I were running a hardware company with a device which has a supported life span of no more than three years, I'd leave the blasted thing alone. Less updating means lower support costs.
If the customer feels strongly, they can pay to upgrade. 90% to 98% don't even know what Android is, so who cares if they get an upgrade.
No upgrades = simpler, cheaper, fewer problems, happier customers in the long run.
Google is not ONLY an advertising sales company!
If Google writes software, they write software. Just because revenue does not come from Android directly does not mean Google is not in the practice of writing software! Google writes Android. Google also is driving programming language practices for web development (DART) (i.e. web "software," if you will). To discount Google's impact as a software producer by saying they're not a software company is to say Android doesn't even exist! NEWSFLASH!: WHEN AN ADVERSTISING SALES COMPANY CREATES THE SOFTWARE THAT DRIVES TRAFFIC TO GENERATE MORE OF ITS MAIN REVENUE, IT IS ALSO A SOFTWARE COMPANY! Google should support said software and book the cost of developing it as COGS (Play Store sales share, search and ad impressions being the revenue making targets), otherwise, without software support, users will leave for competitors and could find alternatives to Google's web-based services that are at least accessible on iPhones or Windows Phones. Half the people I know that carry iPhones have deliberately chosen to either set the search agent in their phone to Bing or have installed the Bing app. Their reasoning for choosing a seemingly inferior search service is, "It isn't Google." Not surprisingly, that's also their reason for not going Android and for not creating Google/Gmail accounts.
Yes...but
it is all because of how third world manufacturing goes
1. Steal the design from somewhere;
2. Build a factory according to the design;
3. Manufacture few million pieces of that particular electronic junk, usually until the factory wears out;
4. Sell the junk to whomever wants it, at whatever price goes;
5. Go to 1.
Software? Support? From vendors producing things that they have no clue of? In some other world, might be.
I don't understand the problem
Unless there's a "showstopping bug", why would i want an update anyway? I had an iphone 3gs and updated it to iOS 4 when iphone 4 came out. Performance went out the window. my new motto : " Don't fix it if it ain't broken "
And Apple fixed that issue quickly.....Hence the difference:)
Pagan jim
Not really...
Most are waiting to see what the iPhone "5" brings, as they don't like the iPhone 4/4s. They don't like the squared casing and all glass and metal finish, it is too "square" and doesn't sit comfortably in the hand. They'd rather suffer failing batteries and a sluggish OS than upgrade... :-S
@wrigt_is
[b]Most are waiting to see what the iPhone "5" brings, as they don't like the iPhone 4/4s. They don't like the squared casing and all glass and metal finish, it is too "square" and doesn't sit comfortably in the hand. They'd rather suffer failing batteries and a sluggish OS than upgrade...[/b]
Where is your data on this? Let's talk iPhone 4 - it had a 3% return rate at the height of that overblown "antennagate" issue meaning it had a 97% satisfaction rate - the best satisfaction rate of any previously released iPhone. And it gave VZW it's best first day sales ever - after it had been out 6 months with AT&T. Not too shabby for a phone people didn't like according to you...
@Pete
3% return, 97% satisfaction, yes, fine... From the people who upgraded. I am talking about people who qualify for an upgrade, have looked at Android and WP7 and don't like them and want a new iPhone. They have tried an iPhone 4/4S in the shops and don't like the way it feels, so they are waiting for the next release and hoping for a redesign.
Those people don't turn up in the returns or satisfaction figures, because they have looked at the phone, tried it in shops or used friends' iPhone 4s and don't like them. I can't tell you how many fall into this category, whether it is 100s, 1000s or millions of people, I do know a majority of my friends who are still on the 3GS are waiting for the "5" to come out, before they upgrade, in the hope it will have a redesigned case. And it also has nothing to do with "antennagate", just that they don't find the squared off form factor fits nicely in the hand.
Pointless...
OEMs and Carriers ARE the problem, they always will be.
As I've said before, Google was, and still is, all about getting Android handsets into as many hands as possible, and to do so they had to basically "give away the store" to the carriers and OEMs. Even the "pure Android" Nexus models are now showing the interference of OEMs and carriers.
Huh?
say what?
The Google way