Top on my wishlist is a way for Google to deliver software upgrades straight to the user... Without having to wait for the manufacturer to release them. Look at just how long Sony Ericsson took to release the 2.1 upgrade for their Xperia X10. It's horrendous.
Unfortunately that's not up to Google, but the carrier. Your best bet would be to get the "main" Google phone such as the Nexus One (or today the Nexus S). They do seem to get updates very quickly and are stock Android.
Uh, Apple has no problem sending their updates to all carriers at once...
It's the manufacturer, not Google, not the carrier. That is one problem with the multi-manufacturer route Google is taking - you have to rely on the manufacturers.
It would be nice if there were multiple 'reference' platforms that would work with stock Google-supplied updates, though.
The problem is that Google doesn't have device driver code for all the SoCs and components being used in Android phones. I think the best we can hope for is that they set a minimum level of upgrade compliance for OEMs in turn for access to the marketplace, and the right to use various other Google owned items in the platform.
I don't see the manufacturers going along with this; it doesn't allow them the ability to differentiate their devices from other manufacturers (either through hardware or software.) Almost all of the major manufacturers produce most of the semiconductor parts (RAM, SoCs, LCDs) in-house. This lets them design an SoC with certain power optimizations, and they're the best people to write the driver code for that. Such a move would likely cause a fork for at least one of the major phone OEMs, which would cause the dreaded fragmentation...
This is probably the #1 reason Apple went in-house for their SoCs as well. I don't think that the threat of being cut off from Google's proprietary apps is very intimidating; it's nothing that these companies couldn't work around in 6 months (keep in mind we're talking about companies like Samsung who have access to resources on-par with Google.)
This is the biggest problem with Android, and it's a bigger threat than true fragmentation. The device manufacturers don't want to give up control because they see how much money Apple is making, and they want a cut of the mobile revenue as well. The problem is, the manufacturers don't see revenue from updating the phones after the first sale, so they really aren't willing to put any effort into keeping them current. Apple does make additional revenue through updating their phones; the features they add help them sell more apps (not to mention it's an expectation of quality thing, your iPhone 4 works exactly the same as your 3GS, just better.)
Google's in a tough spot here. They need to provide an incentive to the phone manufacturers to update their phones through ongoing revenue from content/advertising sales, but from what we've been able to gather publically, there's not much to go around. Google isn't even charging a licensing fee for the OS; and they don't have a lot of opportunity for revenue on Android because it's TOO open. Anything they implement, the manufacturers or carriers can just replace. The Android App Marketplace is the only real revenue generator, and from all the data we've been able to see, people just aren't as willing to pay money for Android apps as iPhone users are.
Apple makes WAY more periodic revenue off their platform than Google does because they have multiple revenue streams (iTunes, iAd, App Store.) These revenue streams can't be worked around easily (see Apple's policy that to provide in-app content purchases, you have to use Apple's system.)
I would think the carriers would welcome a situation where Google could push updates; if someone buys a phone and it's functional for 4 years, that's 2 years of monthly fees from the customer that aren't paying off a subsidized phone. But because that's a hard number to quantify, they're not interested in paying phone manufacturers to update the phone OS because it's not tied to a revenue stream (the customer is locked into a contract for the first 2 years so they don't care about maintaining support during the contract because it's pure expense without a quantifiable payoff.)
Long story short.. don't expect the situation to change unless either Google or AT&T/Verizon are willing to cough up more money for the manufacturers. Until then, they'll probably keep a 2-3 person team on updates and they'll continue to lag 3-6 months behind what Google releases.
Is the 3-6 month delay with upgrade that bad? Check out Nexus S forums, 2.3 is not perfect yet. Let the early adapters catch most the bugs, and then others can upgrade to a mature 2.3.1.
Sure, as a computer enthusiast I love tinkering and getting the latest and greatest in the way of soft- and hardware all the time but I question if that's relevant. Frankly I don't think the term 'fragmentation' has any real meaning, save diversity.
Android is doing extremely well, in no small part due to offering real and strong smartphones over a wide spectrum from the low-end and midrange up to the ultra-high end.
While the iPhone and WP7 platforms offers different experiences, appealing to different crowds of consumers, these devices are all in the $800-$1200 range and for most people the 'integrated' experience isn't worth the premium.
Perhaps even more importantly is the fact that smartphones are service-enabling platforms far more than they are software-execution platforms. In other words the hardware, OS and software are pretty much all irrelevant as long as the device enables the services the consumer wants.
Phone functionality, texting, browsing, media/music consumption, social media, decent camera, casual gaming, email and file transfer/sync are all on the desired list. Does it matter what you're using to accomplish this though?
For the vast majority I dare say the answer is no.
Heck, SE took a lot of flack from the geeks and tech sites for releasing phones running Android 1.6 but most people getting an X8 or the like haven't rushed to update, let alone have any idea what version of the platform they're using.
It works for their purposes, which is really all that matters.
So charge a licensing fee, but waive part/all of it if updates are rolled out out at least ~ on time. Now that android is the success it is, the vendors have no choice but to comply. Sure, they can roll their own, or go with Symbian, but how much would these cost them?
Google has actually stated that Android's already profitable... Just because they aren't making any money on it upfront doesn't mean they aren't making any money on it at all... And besides geeks and enthusiasts, most users don't really care what version of an OS their phone (or computer) is running, unless the version they're running gets a lot of bad press (<cough> Vista) or just happens to be lacking some major feature that suddenly becomes all the rage.
Most manufacturers are doing a pretty decent job w/updates anyway, HTC/Moto have been pushing out updates within 6 months (took 2-3 for Froyo on my EVO) for their more popular/current phones, and LG's latest phones have mostly come out w/pretty vanilla looking versions of 2.2... It's mostly Samsung & Sony Ericsson bringing up the rear, and the Galaxy S phones in Europe got 2.2 at the end of last year so there's obviously something wrong w/the way Samsung interacts w/US carriers to deploy updates.
HTC/Sprint have released half a dozen updates for the EVO in the same time frame, literally half a dozen... If a customer really cares about this he/she can do as Schmidt suggested, and speak with his money (i.e. don't buy Samsung/SE). You shouldn't expect timely updates for phones nearing their usable lifetime (Hero, etc.), but it's not like Apple's latest updates work w/older iPhone models (3G or original), and even when they do they don't include core functionality of the new versions (multitasking).
Fragmentation's a bogey man, the only people that will really lose because of any possible fragmentation are the manufacturers that fall behind the curve... Luckily, when it comes to Android hardware there's enough competition and choices that an informed consumer has little to worry about imo.
Google have trouble updating their own phone. How are third parties gonna do it. 6 months is probably going to be the norm for updates for phone companies if they even update at all.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
17 Comments
Back to Article
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
http://www.youtube.com/androidaegisofrime - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Top on my wishlist is a way for Google to deliver software upgrades straight to the user... Without having to wait for the manufacturer to release them. Look at just how long Sony Ericsson took to release the 2.1 upgrade for their Xperia X10. It's horrendous.Red Storm - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Unfortunately that's not up to Google, but the carrier. Your best bet would be to get the "main" Google phone such as the Nexus One (or today the Nexus S). They do seem to get updates very quickly and are stock Android.micksh - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Really? SE update is worldwide. Most of the phones outside North America are not bound to carriers.ImSpartacus - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
In those cases, it's just the phone manufacturers and their lovely skins.Either way, it's a big problem and it needs to be fixed somehow.
CharonPDX - Thursday, February 10, 2011 - link
Uh, Apple has no problem sending their updates to all carriers at once...It's the manufacturer, not Google, not the carrier. That is one problem with the multi-manufacturer route Google is taking - you have to rely on the manufacturers.
It would be nice if there were multiple 'reference' platforms that would work with stock Google-supplied updates, though.
DanNeely - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
The problem is that Google doesn't have device driver code for all the SoCs and components being used in Android phones. I think the best we can hope for is that they set a minimum level of upgrade compliance for OEMs in turn for access to the marketplace, and the right to use various other Google owned items in the platform.Exelius - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
I don't see the manufacturers going along with this; it doesn't allow them the ability to differentiate their devices from other manufacturers (either through hardware or software.) Almost all of the major manufacturers produce most of the semiconductor parts (RAM, SoCs, LCDs) in-house. This lets them design an SoC with certain power optimizations, and they're the best people to write the driver code for that. Such a move would likely cause a fork for at least one of the major phone OEMs, which would cause the dreaded fragmentation...This is probably the #1 reason Apple went in-house for their SoCs as well. I don't think that the threat of being cut off from Google's proprietary apps is very intimidating; it's nothing that these companies couldn't work around in 6 months (keep in mind we're talking about companies like Samsung who have access to resources on-par with Google.)
Exelius - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
This is the biggest problem with Android, and it's a bigger threat than true fragmentation. The device manufacturers don't want to give up control because they see how much money Apple is making, and they want a cut of the mobile revenue as well. The problem is, the manufacturers don't see revenue from updating the phones after the first sale, so they really aren't willing to put any effort into keeping them current. Apple does make additional revenue through updating their phones; the features they add help them sell more apps (not to mention it's an expectation of quality thing, your iPhone 4 works exactly the same as your 3GS, just better.)Google's in a tough spot here. They need to provide an incentive to the phone manufacturers to update their phones through ongoing revenue from content/advertising sales, but from what we've been able to gather publically, there's not much to go around. Google isn't even charging a licensing fee for the OS; and they don't have a lot of opportunity for revenue on Android because it's TOO open. Anything they implement, the manufacturers or carriers can just replace. The Android App Marketplace is the only real revenue generator, and from all the data we've been able to see, people just aren't as willing to pay money for Android apps as iPhone users are.
Apple makes WAY more periodic revenue off their platform than Google does because they have multiple revenue streams (iTunes, iAd, App Store.) These revenue streams can't be worked around easily (see Apple's policy that to provide in-app content purchases, you have to use Apple's system.)
I would think the carriers would welcome a situation where Google could push updates; if someone buys a phone and it's functional for 4 years, that's 2 years of monthly fees from the customer that aren't paying off a subsidized phone. But because that's a hard number to quantify, they're not interested in paying phone manufacturers to update the phone OS because it's not tied to a revenue stream (the customer is locked into a contract for the first 2 years so they don't care about maintaining support during the contract because it's pure expense without a quantifiable payoff.)
Long story short.. don't expect the situation to change unless either Google or AT&T/Verizon are willing to cough up more money for the manufacturers. Until then, they'll probably keep a 2-3 person team on updates and they'll continue to lag 3-6 months behind what Google releases.
y2kBug - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Is the 3-6 month delay with upgrade that bad? Check out Nexus S forums, 2.3 is not perfect yet. Let the early adapters catch most the bugs, and then others can upgrade to a mature 2.3.1.Exodite - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
I actually don't think it's that important.Sure, as a computer enthusiast I love tinkering and getting the latest and greatest in the way of soft- and hardware all the time but I question if that's relevant. Frankly I don't think the term 'fragmentation' has any real meaning, save diversity.
Android is doing extremely well, in no small part due to offering real and strong smartphones over a wide spectrum from the low-end and midrange up to the ultra-high end.
While the iPhone and WP7 platforms offers different experiences, appealing to different crowds of consumers, these devices are all in the $800-$1200 range and for most people the 'integrated' experience isn't worth the premium.
Perhaps even more importantly is the fact that smartphones are service-enabling platforms far more than they are software-execution platforms. In other words the hardware, OS and software are pretty much all irrelevant as long as the device enables the services the consumer wants.
Phone functionality, texting, browsing, media/music consumption, social media, decent camera, casual gaming, email and file transfer/sync are all on the desired list. Does it matter what you're using to accomplish this though?
For the vast majority I dare say the answer is no.
Heck, SE took a lot of flack from the geeks and tech sites for releasing phones running Android 1.6 but most people getting an X8 or the like haven't rushed to update, let alone have any idea what version of the platform they're using.
It works for their purposes, which is really all that matters.
Zoomer - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
So charge a licensing fee, but waive part/all of it if updates are rolled out out at least ~ on time. Now that android is the success it is, the vendors have no choice but to comply. Sure, they can roll their own, or go with Symbian, but how much would these cost them?Impulses - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Google has actually stated that Android's already profitable... Just because they aren't making any money on it upfront doesn't mean they aren't making any money on it at all... And besides geeks and enthusiasts, most users don't really care what version of an OS their phone (or computer) is running, unless the version they're running gets a lot of bad press (<cough> Vista) or just happens to be lacking some major feature that suddenly becomes all the rage.Most manufacturers are doing a pretty decent job w/updates anyway, HTC/Moto have been pushing out updates within 6 months (took 2-3 for Froyo on my EVO) for their more popular/current phones, and LG's latest phones have mostly come out w/pretty vanilla looking versions of 2.2... It's mostly Samsung & Sony Ericsson bringing up the rear, and the Galaxy S phones in Europe got 2.2 at the end of last year so there's obviously something wrong w/the way Samsung interacts w/US carriers to deploy updates.
HTC/Sprint have released half a dozen updates for the EVO in the same time frame, literally half a dozen... If a customer really cares about this he/she can do as Schmidt suggested, and speak with his money (i.e. don't buy Samsung/SE). You shouldn't expect timely updates for phones nearing their usable lifetime (Hero, etc.), but it's not like Apple's latest updates work w/older iPhone models (3G or original), and even when they do they don't include core functionality of the new versions (multitasking).
Fragmentation's a bogey man, the only people that will really lose because of any possible fragmentation are the manufacturers that fall behind the curve... Luckily, when it comes to Android hardware there's enough competition and choices that an informed consumer has little to worry about imo.
sciwizam - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Looks like Gizmodo captured Mithun and Anandtech on the Xoom.http://gizmodo.com/5750148/using-googles-android-3...
Look around 2:30.
mythun.chandra - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
I'm famous! :)LostPassword - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
Google have trouble updating their own phone. How are third parties gonna do it. 6 months is probably going to be the norm for updates for phone companies if they even update at all.ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - link
It seems like they're making full use of the GPU this time.