4 ms·

Did you check out the whole OP? I feel the dev's complaint was more nuanced than complaining about fragmentation. The dev was saying there were tons of easy b

Did you check out the whole OP? I feel the dev's complaint was more nuanced than complaining about fragmentation. The dev was saying there were tons of easy back-ports left on the table that could make the fragmentation much easier for developers to deal with. I walked away feeling that some released Android versions were neglected, more than fragmented. [edited last sentence to distinguish neglected versions from not caring about the whole platform, which Google obviously does.]

Wolf_Larsen 16y ago
At least: "released versions of Android are neglected". Google is not neglecting Android itself.
- thesethings 16y ago
  Fair enough distinction, I'll edit.
NickPollard 16y ago
Each fix might be an easy port by itself, but if there's tons of them then maintaining developers to run through integrating all of them, making sure they work, individually and with each other, is not a trivial task. Andy Rubin stated that the release schedule is going to slow down soon to either 2 or 1 releases per year. At the moment, the platform is immature and they are focused on adding in features. I suspect it will all become a lot more stabilised shortly.
bensummers 16y ago
Updating a device is not trivial. But the biggest obstacle is that the effort will be seen as wasted by the device manufacturer, who stopped making that device ages ago. One of the things Apple has done brilliantly is to make updating painless.
babblefrog 16y ago
The problem is that some of the handset makers (or carriers) don't seem to have much interest in providing updates. Which does make sense, in that there is no money in it for them. It's hard to see what Google can do about that.
- nailer 16y ago
  Yes, that is exactly the crux of the problem. I imagine the following could help: - Ensure raw Android devices are as pleasant to use as Sense and Rachel. This means stock updates will work on any phone, rather than having to wait for Handset manufacturers to port their UIs to new Android releases. - Ensure that handset makers have updated their existing units before allowing them to provide 'Google experience' prorietary apps (Gmail etc) to them for new devices.
- biafra 16y ago
  Google could provide (paid) update services for handset makers or carriers. The incentive for those to pay for this service would be that those devices would be much more attractive for customers. As a consumer I would be willing to pay more for a phone if I could be sure to get updates for 3 years ASAP.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    EXACTLY. Why are these updates PAID!. I know many phone users would love to pay for them.
- CountSessine 16y ago
  Actually, the problem is deeper than just that. It's not just a lack of incentive - it's counter-incentive. The phone companies are using the OS version to segment their market (high-rollers get a 2.1 device like an Incredible, cheapskates get a 1.5 device like an Eris or a Tattoo). The phone companies don't want you to be able to cheat their pricing by upgrading your Eris to 2.1. Given how obsequious and accommodating the handset makers are (they have to be - their sales channel belongs to the phone companies and they effectively have to do all of their marketing to phone company execs rather than us), it's unlikely that they'll do extra work to piss the phone companies off.
  - blocke 16y ago
    The CDMA Eris in the US has 2.1.

Wolf_Larsen 16y ago

At least: "released versions of Android are neglected". Google is not neglecting Android itself.

thesethings 16y ago
Fair enough distinction, I'll edit.

NickPollard 16y ago

Each fix might be an easy port by itself, but if there's tons of them then maintaining developers to run through integrating all of them, making sure they work, individually and with each other, is not a trivial task. Andy Rubin stated that the release schedule is going to slow down soon to either 2 or 1 releases per year. At the moment, the platform is immature and they are focused on adding in features. I suspect it will all become a lot more stabilised shortly.

bensummers 16y ago

Updating a device is not trivial. But the biggest obstacle is that the effort will be seen as wasted by the device manufacturer, who stopped making that device ages ago. One of the things Apple has done brilliantly is to make updating painless.

babblefrog 16y ago

The problem is that some of the handset makers (or carriers) don't seem to have much interest in providing updates. Which does make sense, in that there is no money in it for them. It's hard to see what Google can do about that.

nailer 16y ago
Yes, that is exactly the crux of the problem. I imagine the following could help: - Ensure raw Android devices are as pleasant to use as Sense and Rachel. This means stock updates will work on any phone, rather than having to wait for Handset manufacturers to port their UIs to new Android releases. - Ensure that handset makers have updated their existing units before allowing them to provide 'Google experience' prorietary apps (Gmail etc) to them for new devices.
biafra 16y ago
Google could provide (paid) update services for handset makers or carriers. The incentive for those to pay for this service would be that those devices would be much more attractive for customers. As a consumer I would be willing to pay more for a phone if I could be sure to get updates for 3 years ASAP.
- gte910h 16y ago
  EXACTLY. Why are these updates PAID!. I know many phone users would love to pay for them.
CountSessine 16y ago
Actually, the problem is deeper than just that. It's not just a lack of incentive - it's counter-incentive. The phone companies are using the OS version to segment their market (high-rollers get a 2.1 device like an Incredible, cheapskates get a 1.5 device like an Eris or a Tattoo). The phone companies don't want you to be able to cheat their pricing by upgrading your Eris to 2.1. Given how obsequious and accommodating the handset makers are (they have to be - their sales channel belongs to the phone companies and they effectively have to do all of their marketing to phone company execs rather than us), it's unlikely that they'll do extra work to piss the phone companies off.
- blocke 16y ago
  The CDMA Eris in the US has 2.1.