Something that I see all over the place in the technology industry, and even occasionally on the street, is the tendency for people to blame Google for all of their woes with Android. “Why won’t Google fix the Play Store,” “Why won’t Google fix updates,” and “Why won’t Google make things standard” are just some of the questions thrown out every day by those who find problems with the OS. And it is true: Android has its share of problems that need to be fixed, and it certainly isn’t perfect.
However, some people seem to think that Google is responsible for controlling and fixing every single problem with the Android OS, and that just isn’t the case. Google does have a lot of responsibility in making Android good, but what people don’t realize is that having a unified, coherent, and always identical experience isn’t the main point of Android; yet that is what causes the problems so many people have with the OS. Yes, it would be great if Android were a perfect platform, but the fact is this: Android was designed by Google to be a venue for them to offer services and serve adds. The most effective way to do this is to get Android on the largest number of devices possible, but also to keep the OS open source so that companies like Amazon can make products like the Kindle Fire. It is because of this goal – making an operating system that is open and can be deployed on all types of hardware and devices – that Android can’t always be exactly what people want it to be.
And what do people want Android to be? Well, as much as I don’t like to say it, people seem to want Android to be more like iOS. Bloggers and commentators want Android to look the same across all devices, they want all devices to be updated at the same time or at least very quickly, they want a coherent ecosystem, and they want a very standardized experience overall. Sensibly, Google wants these things too, at least the ones that will get them more customers and thus make them more money. However, although Android and iOS are very similar, Android has a completely different mission. Instead of creating a perfect customer experience like Apple’s, the primary goal of Android is to be a free and open OS that anyone can put on their devices and that can be easily customized, which sometimes gets in the way of user experience.
Let me explain it this way: sure, as far as I can tell, Google would love to have all Android devices, or at least all remotely current ones, updated to Ice Cream Sandwich. It would make for a much better user experience, easier app development, and ultimately more revenue for Google from Android customers. Unfortunately, there’s really no way that Google can ensure all devices get updated to the latest version without working closely with, and in some cases forcing, manufacturers to update their devices. It would not only be impractical for Google to work with every manufacturer, and on every device, for at least the length of a two year contract. It would also defeat part of the purpose of Android’s openness. No longer would manufacturers be able to just take and use Android; they would have to talk with Google and even have a support plan for the life of their device. So, while it would be nice if all Android devices could be updated in a timely manner, that is really up to the manufacturer. If Google wanted to make sure all Android devices were updated in a timely manner, they would have to sacrifice some of the openness that is such a big part of the platform.
Currently, they do the best they can instead under the circumstances. By releasing the Android source code, Google theoretically allows manufacturers and anyone else who makes Android devices to easily compile, build, and ultimately roll out a new version of Android for their devices. Unfortunately, few manufacturers do this, as they instead prefer to take the Android source code and customize it to their liking. Some manufacturers do a better job than others, but the fact is that customized versions of Android generally cause problems for the consumer. Once again, Google can’t really fix this without compromising the whole idea of Android. As long as the project is open source, manufacturers can take the code without Google’s approval and make custom versions. If Google were to close and control the source code, we wouldn’t have such awesome projects as CyanogenMod and AOKP. The approval process for the Play Store and other Google apps is Google’s small attempt at control of modifications by only granting Google approval to some devices. But they don’t have too much leverage, because you can make a successful Android device without the Play Store or Google approval. (Just look at the Kindle Fire.)
Moving on to the Market, (er, Play Store), we can see that Google doesn’t actually have too much control there either. Because their goal is to have an open marketplace where even things like root apps can be freely distributed, they don’t have any approval process. Because of this, many complain about “junk” apps getting in, or more importantly apps that pose a security risk. For the latter, Google quickly responds to problems as best as they can and takes the offending application off of the market, and has even created a “bouncer” to keep clearly malicious apps from ever making it into the store. For the former, though, the process is different. Unless an application violates a rule, it stays. It doesn’t matter if the app is completely worthless; if it isn’t harming anything, then it won’t be taken out. Yes, that results in a lot of junk cluttering up the app store, but the point of the Play Store isn’t to provide a cultivated experience. The simple truth is that the Google is trying to make the Play Store as open as possible to any app that doesn’t do anything malicious (except for the rare case where carriers take down apps), and simply doesn’t try to get rid of junk. Blocking so called “junk” apps is a delicate process, as we have seen with Apple’s App Store, because what some people consider junk is not the same as what others consider junk. So, the Google Play Store has a policy to let pretty much everything in unless the purpose is clearly to break the rules and steal data, and if users don’t want to sift through some less than perfect apps, then they can return to iOS and the carefully curated App Store.
This post is in no way meant to let Google off the hook for improving Android and making the user experience better, as that is always something that I think they should be doing. However, what I am trying to do here is to show users why Google can’t always take what seems to be an easy solution to Android’s problems. Android isn’t iOS, and so while the operating systems are similar, the approach taken for each one is very different. By making Android more open than iOS and giving its users freedom, Google also gives manufacturers freedom to do things like customize the UI, make non standard devices or Android versions, and even not update their devices. And unfortunately enough, there isn’t an easy way for Google to fix some of the major problems with Android fragmentation, UIs, and compatibility without compromising the philosophy of the Android Open Source Project. The only thing they can do is to lead by example with things like the Nexus line of devices (and hopefully take advantage of the Motorola deal as well), and hope for the best. The fact is, most of the problems people have with Android can be traced to the device manufacturers and distributors. So, what should they do about it? Well, I’ll get to that in a later article.
I’ve never understood that complaint either. I like how they are all a little different. Like you said, “those people” are completely missing the point of Android.
“the primary goal of Android is to be a free and open OS that anyone can put on their devices”
(Note: “anyone”)
“Google theoretically allows manufacturers and anyone else who makes Android devices to easily compile, build, and ultimately roll out a new version of Android for their devices”
(Note: anyone who makes Android devices)
THAT subtle difference is what contributes largely to the fragmentation.
Manufacturers should be prevented from locking the bootloaders and also prevented from denying hardware warranty claims due to custom ROMs (yes, they do that)
I get it – there are folks who will NEVER want to compile a custom ROM or deal with drivers. For them, let them rely on the manufacturer.
For others who want to have the latest update, make the phone manufacturers provide all hardware drivers to any of their customers, and let google make it easy for a customer to take the Android source code and the drivers and build a ROM (stock Android – it may not have all the fancy features that the manufacturer provided – big deal – but at least the customer gets the latest OS)
Look at Microsoft – you can install their latest OS on a 10 year old PC – and they make is super easy – just pop the OS disc in, and it installs the necessary stuff. If you want the bloat that the PC manufacturer installed on your PC (NOT!), tough luck (well, you can download the crap after the OS install).
Yes, I get it. PC is different than a phone. Fine. Maybe customer needs to compile the binaries. But make it easier than it is today.
OK, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
well said!!
I think you make good points regarding Android’s mission being different than iOS’s mission. And, by extension, I think you make a good case for Google’s role/responsibility.
I’m struggling to find a solution to a growing problem as I perceive it, and I can’t currently find any one party to lay responsibility on, given the nature of open projects like Android. The problem is this: among my family and acquaintances, a growing number are switching from Android to iOS, and when I ask why the resounding response is “because iOS is WAY more stable”.
I really want Android to be successful. There is a lot about the Android experience that I would miss if I switched to iOS (I REALLY like Swype, for example). But, even I have started to experience some instability as my phone has aged (primarily, randomly changing ringtone selections in several apps).
I agree with everything you described in your article. The stability of which I speak is (in my opinion) a far more fundamental issue than whether or not the Play Store is cluttered with useless apps, or whether every brand of phone looks and acts exactly the same way.
I can’t “blame” anyone, therefore, I can’t hold anyone responsible. Open is Open, after all.
However, the unfortunate fact is that if people see one OS as unstable, and another as incredibly stable, whether or not there is a rational explanation (“Hey, Android is Open, and this is a natural consequence”), more and more people will start to gravitate to the more stable OS.
That would be very sad to me, because I love my Android phone, and I want Google’s “experiment” to succeed.
But, when one of my ringtones changes randomly, I have to admit that I secretly look over my neighbor’s shoulder at his iPhone and the slightest twinge of envy for his stability pricks the back of my mind.
Viva la Android!
Cheers
The reason manufacturers always slap on their UI’s lock bootloaders, and don’t support devices all too long (obviously) comes down to business. They put on their UI’s to differentiate and say “our version of android is best” but honestly it has stopped me from buying Samsung devices before because I don’t like touchwiz at all. If every device ran the same version of android I believe manufacturers would be afraid of losing money because they’d lose uniqueness among competitors, they’d have to compete strictlly on hardware (which I don’t think would be a bad thing)
Honestly, in earlier versions of android, manufacturer made UI’s helped a bit, but android has fixed many of it’s interface and display issues it used to have, the need for these interfaces is vanishing, because android is starting to get style and design down.
I own an EVO 4G LTE and I have to say, Sense has come along way since what it was on my EVO 4G. It’s a lot less intrusive and actually offers a couple nice things. I’ve always thought that sense would be great just if they stuck to widgets and optional functions. Truthfully though, I really wouldn’t miss Sense if it wasn’t on my phone.
I really wish they’d give us the option of turning their UI’s off at least, I believe in early versions of sense and android they’d let you turn off sense, but that option is now gone.
I’d rather they compete based on hardware. The EVO has a kickstand, that’s nifty! Try innovating through phone design, because down the road a nexus may be my next choice or maybe…just maybe…an idevice
It’d also be nice if google gave us a straight option to update, such as going to the android site, and assuming you have a phone capable of running it, download the newest OS/updates straight from them, you keep it open to manufacturers all while give the consumer the choice. Win win?
@ Samson – that’s really the issue isn’t it – everyone wants to differentiate their product through the software. It would be nice if Google required compatability with “stock Android” that you could download and update through Google.
Yes! It asks the question: Who exactly is android open to? Because as far as I can tell it’s openness stops with the manufacturers. They ultimately get the OS then decide what and when people get it.
The average consumer doesn’t get to open up their android experience when a manufacturer slaps their custom kernel on and locks the boot loader. Is jumping through hoops to unlock the bootloader and playing catch up to every update to get root access open? How does it compare to jailbreaking an iphone?
I agree, if they required phone makers to have the option for stock, then it could be an open experience. Either download updates as they roll out from google directly or wait….6 months to a year for the phone maker to manipulate it to their standards.
Apple’s fragmentation argument would go right out the window if that option was given to us.
Don’t you think Android is doing just what was hoped it would do, and to a degree that probably far exceeds any expectations?
Android allows companies to compete with great products without having to develop an entire OS and ecosystem of their own. It’s that simple.
Most people using a Galaxy/Droid/Evo or whatever are getting a great experience and their manufacturers and carriers are getting a great business. So what’s the problem?
You’re right, my EVO 4G LTE is a great experience. And You’re right about google giving manufacturers a great os to work with. The problem I believe it that manufacturers (and carriers as well) block or completely replace the stock components of the OS. It’s like google gives them a metaphorical number of options, and manufacturers and carriers will give you the ability to use half of them.
Example: It was sad how thrilled I was that I could screen shot now on my EVO, all my friends with iphones have been doing that forever now.
They should be adding to it if anything, not taking away from it.
Example: Was there a real need to replace the stock multitasking in android and replace it with the sense one? In my opinion It adds nothing to the os, it was a waste of time to make on HTC’s part
Phone manufacturers and the carriers are doing the same thing apple does in terms of regulating it’s devices environment, except apple cuts out the middle man and do it in a much more timely manner.
TL:DR For the consumer, More options are better than no options
Actually yes, I think Android is doing quite well for what Google wants for it. The problem is the hoards of people who complain that Google won’t fix this, or Google won’t fix that. All I’m saying is that some of what seem like the easy fixes can’t be done because of the fundamental nature of the Android project.
“If Google wanted to make sure all Android devices were updated in a timely manner, they would have to sacrifice some of the openness that is such a big part of the platform.”
I would gladly sacrifice some openness for timely updates and a less fragmented ecosystem. There’s no reason a new phone should be released with an old version of Android when the new version is available. Manufacturers and carriers have already made their money because you bought the phone and are paying for service. What leaves a lasting impression is the experience that person has with the phone, and I feel having a phone that is supported is essential to that experience. And if manufacturers don’t feel they need to support the phone, Google/Android is the one looking bad, even if it isn’t their fault. Certain responsibilities come along when you grow from a jungle to a modern civilization, which I feel Android has become.
I understand that Android’s main goal was for openness and have as many use it’s platform but it has grown into something much more mature and feel that it needs to cultivate that growth by ensuring the platform is well kept.
Also, I think a certified partner program that closely works with manufacturers to ensure updates and optimum user experience would be a good idea to keep the platform on track and reign in on fragmentation.
My main point is that I don’t want openness to ultimately compromise the progress and user experience of Android.
You are all ignoring the elephant in the room. Carriers, US carriers in particular. Manufacturers would probably care very little aboulocking down bubotloaders if it weren’t for carriers, we’ve even seen cases where a manufacturer goes out of his way to offer an unlock option only to be shot down by a carrier (HTC/AT&T)… Plus carrier validation for updates in the US tends to delay updates just as much, if not more, than manufacturer modifications (Samsung updates in the US lag EU updates by 6+ months). I like my LTE and lack of nation wide roaming as much as the next guy (just ask someone how much it costs to roam across Europe, or look into the state of LTE deployment there), but US carriers have TOO MUCH POWER over manufacturers, customers, and government.
I have to agree with frank, allot of the problem falls on the carriers. Just look at the Evo 3D. HTC gave them the ICS update months ago and it still hasn’t been pushed out yet. Hell one of sprint prepaid companies has a version of the EVO 3D running ICS. If their prepaid Evo 3d can run ics what is the hold up. It’s bad enough that we have to wait months for the manufactures slap on their skin on a new version of android but then we have to wait for carriers like sprint to stop playing their business games. They hold out on updates in the hopes that you will get sick of waiting and just upgrade to a newer phone and sign another 2 year agreement. This is one of the biggest problems with Android.
Just adding to my comment above. This is onle of the only things I respect about Apple, no carrier would dare to tell them they can’t push out an update because they want to make better sales for the newest phones. This makes for poor customer satisfaction.
Haha I did mention carriers. isn’t the 3d still waiting for an ics update? Lack of updates is a really a bothersome thing. I mean the iPhone 3gs still gets updates. I can’t remember the last time my OG EVO had one. if carriers won’t push android updates like apple, then updates straight from update would be a good route. I mean we pay our monthly bills, but more money is always appealing…
*straight from google (such as the android site)
Ironically, my gripes with Google are mostly concerning how it doesn’t do what you claim it does in this article. To me, Android isn’t open, or at least not open enough. Google is restricting my access to apps that it thinks won’t work on my device, while allowing apps that don’t work to be installed. The age old response to that is that it’s the developers’ fault for not making proper manifest files, but I know from experience that some developers aren’t aware a device has been excluded. More to the point, Google is applying an Apple-like user experience filter to an app store which, like you point out, is basically designed as an “anything goes” deal. It’s creating a library of apps with no first party quality control in place, and at the same time restricting user access to it as if such a system were in place. It’s ridiculous.
Google pushing ICS is also one of my big annoyances. I could hit OTA update right now and get ICS on my S II, but I want 2.3.5, because 2.3.5 works. I have confirmed reports of ICS not working with things I currently use in 2.3.5, so of course I have no interest in updating when I know it will break something. As you say, Android is designed to be on as many devices as possible, and as such the adoption rate of new version is lower. That is why it annoys me that Google is pushing the adoption rate, because it’s like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. In my opinion, it should either abandon the “android anywhere approach” and actually start controlling more, or it should stop trying to control anything and make sure that each new version is as similar in functionality as the last one. Instead it pokes at every minor piece of it with a sharp stick, changing minor things that break something that used to work. When you remove something from a new OS version, that is 100% guaranteed to create a compatibility issue, which means that it’s not something you should do on an OS that by its very nature exists in many versions.
“perfect customer experience like Apple’s”. I had to refrain from giggling.