4 ms·

Android is a cross platform technology that makes it possible to run a single application on different hardware and software configurations. Android-based opera

Android is a cross platform technology that makes it possible to run a single application on different hardware and software configurations. Android-based operating systems can look, feel, feature and perform very differently, but as long as the developer sticks to the standard, the Apps can run on all systems. Android is, by definition, a "defragmentation platform". It allows companies to basically make their own operating systems but stay binary compatible through a common standard. The term "Android fragmentation" really just describes the fact that the defragmentation only works 95% instead of 100%. It's still much more fragmented if you want to support devices outside the Android ecosystem. Try making an app that runs on the Galaxy S2, the HTC One and the Nexus 4. Then make one that runs on the Galaxy S, the iPhone 5 and the Lumia 720.

cbeach 13y ago
"Try making an app that runs on the Galaxy S2, the HTC One and the Nexus 4. Then make one that runs on the Galaxy S, the iPhone 5 and the Lumia 720" What an absurd argument. There's a difference between platform fragmentation and having industry competitors. The fact that there are other mobile OS's does not reduce or negate the fragmentation within Android's ecosystem. As for Android "by definition" being a "defragmentation platform," I think you're drunk on Koolaid. Android's operator-indulging multi-platform strategy makes it the very definition of fragmented. The fact that such an obviously blinkered post reaches the top of HN comments speaks volumes for Android fanboyism on HN.
- bookwormAT 13y ago
  "Operating System" is certainly a ambiguous term these days. Two Android-based software systems can differ in user interface, applications, file systems, performance, interaction design and features. Compare Amazon's FireOS with Samsung's Touchwiz with Motorola's Moto X software: Here we have different industry competitors competing against each other. The only special position that iOS has in this scenario is that it is not binary compatible with the others. Android did certainly not fragment the market. There were thousands of devices with incompatible software systems out there before Android came along. Android is not responsible for all the companies and form sizes and UIs and operators. These were all there before 2008. Android just made it possible for developers to target all these devices with the same codebase.
  - blub 13y ago
    Terms tend to become ambigous when one has an agenda... Otherwise, OS is a perfectly clear term, Samsung and Motorola use the same OS, Android. Amazon uses a customized version of Android. iOS is a completely different OS.
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    If you need to compare Android devices to the previous market in order to make it look consistent, it is in fact fragmented. It's not like you need a new binary for each platform, but the screen sizes, device capabilities, and whether or not the drivers work properly differs across devices. Enough so that an app which works fine on some devices might not operate properly on a specific device or a certain manufacturer's device line.
- salient 13y ago
  Look at it this way. If Android wouldn't have existed, Samsung would've gone with Bada, LG with their own Bada-inspired clone with no binary compatibility with Samsung's OS, Sony would've made their own, too, HTC, and Motorola the same. Would that be a better situation? Even if Microsoft got ahead and released Windows Phone early (which they didn't), you would've still had "hardware fragmentation" for developers. You would need to work with different resolutions, just like today, and with hardware from 600 Mhz ARM11 to quad-core 2.3 Ghz CPU's (same for GPU's). And of course WP would need to be on the same amount of hardware Android is today, not just on the 5 models it is today due to the poor adoption. And it would need to support more than just Qualcomm's chips, and same goes for other components. The point is, the situation wouldn't be much better. So Android did solve what could've been a big problem, and it's almost as good as it gets for this kind of situation (it can be better, but that requires not just technical solutions, but commitment from other OEM's too, to actually do what Google is asking them in order to further standardize the platform, but unfortunately many still want to go in their own directions). The truth is this things are "no worse" than they were with other platforms before, it's just that Apple made it "better" for developers, but only because they got lucky (sort of speak) to get hundreds of millions of people to buy just one device that developers need to target - and get away with releasing it only once a year. That's pretty unheard of, and it's the exception that proves the rule, I'd say. If you want everything to be "just like iOS", you'd probably have to get all of the world's inhabitants to use the same device - the iPhone. But that's kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

cbeach 13y ago

"Try making an app that runs on the Galaxy S2, the HTC One and the Nexus 4. Then make one that runs on the Galaxy S, the iPhone 5 and the Lumia 720" What an absurd argument. There's a difference between platform fragmentation and having industry competitors. The fact that there are other mobile OS's does not reduce or negate the fragmentation within Android's ecosystem. As for Android "by definition" being a "defragmentation platform," I think you're drunk on Koolaid. Android's operator-indulging multi-platform strategy makes it the very definition of fragmented. The fact that such an obviously blinkered post reaches the top of HN comments speaks volumes for Android fanboyism on HN.

bookwormAT 13y ago
"Operating System" is certainly a ambiguous term these days. Two Android-based software systems can differ in user interface, applications, file systems, performance, interaction design and features. Compare Amazon's FireOS with Samsung's Touchwiz with Motorola's Moto X software: Here we have different industry competitors competing against each other. The only special position that iOS has in this scenario is that it is not binary compatible with the others. Android did certainly not fragment the market. There were thousands of devices with incompatible software systems out there before Android came along. Android is not responsible for all the companies and form sizes and UIs and operators. These were all there before 2008. Android just made it possible for developers to target all these devices with the same codebase.
- blub 13y ago
  Terms tend to become ambigous when one has an agenda... Otherwise, OS is a perfectly clear term, Samsung and Motorola use the same OS, Android. Amazon uses a customized version of Android. iOS is a completely different OS.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  If you need to compare Android devices to the previous market in order to make it look consistent, it is in fact fragmented. It's not like you need a new binary for each platform, but the screen sizes, device capabilities, and whether or not the drivers work properly differs across devices. Enough so that an app which works fine on some devices might not operate properly on a specific device or a certain manufacturer's device line.
salient 13y ago
Look at it this way. If Android wouldn't have existed, Samsung would've gone with Bada, LG with their own Bada-inspired clone with no binary compatibility with Samsung's OS, Sony would've made their own, too, HTC, and Motorola the same. Would that be a better situation? Even if Microsoft got ahead and released Windows Phone early (which they didn't), you would've still had "hardware fragmentation" for developers. You would need to work with different resolutions, just like today, and with hardware from 600 Mhz ARM11 to quad-core 2.3 Ghz CPU's (same for GPU's). And of course WP would need to be on the same amount of hardware Android is today, not just on the 5 models it is today due to the poor adoption. And it would need to support more than just Qualcomm's chips, and same goes for other components. The point is, the situation wouldn't be much better. So Android did solve what could've been a big problem, and it's almost as good as it gets for this kind of situation (it can be better, but that requires not just technical solutions, but commitment from other OEM's too, to actually do what Google is asking them in order to further standardize the platform, but unfortunately many still want to go in their own directions). The truth is this things are "no worse" than they were with other platforms before, it's just that Apple made it "better" for developers, but only because they got lucky (sort of speak) to get hundreds of millions of people to buy just one device that developers need to target - and get away with releasing it only once a year. That's pretty unheard of, and it's the exception that proves the rule, I'd say. If you want everything to be "just like iOS", you'd probably have to get all of the world's inhabitants to use the same device - the iPhone. But that's kind of ridiculous, isn't it?