4 ms·

Are Wireless Carriers Responsible For Fragmentation?

2 points by rpikeca 14y ago

otoburb 14y ago
The article is correct in honing in on the carrier and 3rd party firmware add-ons tacked onto vanilla Android releases (e.g. ICS). Carriers rarely develop their own firmware extensions/skinning. They manage the process through specifications, where marketing will provide skinning assets and custom specs. In-house carrier developers rarely/never get to touch the device. RIM was a notable exception to the rule where carriers gave them the flexibility to download firmware updates directly to the device, provided they didn't interfere with the minimal branding and custom apps. Apple came along and forged a deal that all carriers hate. Although carriers may enjoy the increase in ARPU, carriers in general hate dealing with Apple; whether it's the T&Cs, scrambling to get device shipments in on time, or general Job-sian brashness. This is all known history. What people forget is that carriers are typically large enterprises that are very slow to change. Most are probably still using old (i.e. existing!) binary terminal release processes. I call it 'binary' because they are either in complete control ("code to my spec you powerless device OEMS!") or at the mercy of Apple ("hey XYZ carrier -- my way or the highway"). Notice that in both of these situations, there's very little leeway for maneuvering. Android comes along. Carriers hate Apple's way of doing business. Brain-dead analysis shows that Android didn't have the brand cachet that iPhones had. So naturally they wanted to re-exert their control back into the process. Unfortunately, the only way they knew how was by (probably literally) throwing the book (read: terminal specs) back to Android OEMs. And so, you now have the current situation of: 1) Fragmentation; and 2) Slow firmware updates. Carriers don't have the funding, organization and/or willpower to subsidize firmware updates. The upgrade process for the OS on a smart phone should be multiple times over the course of a year and yet it seems that there is often only a single update. This sentiment echos a portion of Android consumers. Yes, it's a big problem. But the rapid plethora of devices released by Android device manufacturers demonstrate that they are also operating using old processes and risk-benefit models because they simply want to sell as many devices as they can to carriers. In short, the article title is misleading: everybody in the mobile ecosystem is responsible for the fragmentation, mainly for what I see as large organizations unable to change their terminal approval and release cycles enough to cope.

2 points by rpikeca 14y ago

The article is correct in honing in on the carrier and 3rd party firmware add-ons tacked onto vanilla Android releases (e.g. ICS). Carriers rarely develop their own firmware extensions/skinning. They manage the process through specifications, where marketing will provide skinning assets and custom specs. In-house carrier developers rarely/never get to touch the device. RIM was a notable exception to the rule where carriers gave them the flexibility to download firmware updates directly to the device, provided they didn't interfere with the minimal branding and custom apps. Apple came along and forged a deal that all carriers hate. Although carriers may enjoy the increase in ARPU, carriers in general hate dealing with Apple; whether it's the T&Cs, scrambling to get device shipments in on time, or general Job-sian brashness. This is all known history. What people forget is that carriers are typically large enterprises that are very slow to change. Most are probably still using old (i.e. existing!) binary terminal release processes. I call it 'binary' because they are either in complete control ("code to my spec you powerless device OEMS!") or at the mercy of Apple ("hey XYZ carrier -- my way or the highway"). Notice that in both of these situations, there's very little leeway for maneuvering. Android comes along. Carriers hate Apple's way of doing business. Brain-dead analysis shows that Android didn't have the brand cachet that iPhones had. So naturally they wanted to re-exert their control back into the process. Unfortunately, the only way they knew how was by (probably literally) throwing the book (read: terminal specs) back to Android OEMs. And so, you now have the current situation of: 1) Fragmentation; and 2) Slow firmware updates. Carriers don't have the funding, organization and/or willpower to subsidize firmware updates. The upgrade process for the OS on a smart phone should be multiple times over the course of a year and yet it seems that there is often only a single update. This sentiment echos a portion of Android consumers. Yes, it's a big problem. But the rapid plethora of devices released by Android device manufacturers demonstrate that they are also operating using old processes and risk-benefit models because they simply want to sell as many devices as they can to carriers. In short, the article title is misleading: everybody in the mobile ecosystem is responsible for the fragmentation, mainly for what I see as large organizations unable to change their terminal approval and release cycles enough to cope.