There is something wrong with Android

2011-04-07T09:39:00.000+02:00

Android is an important actor in the ecosystem of electronic gadgets. However, many problems have emerged and need to be corrected. Phones, tablets, media players, televisions, Blu-ray, cars, notebooks... Android is everywhere. Maybe a bit too much, at least too quickly. Several serious problems are hurting or will hurt in the near future Android, and some members of the community have many questions about the future of the "Open Source" OS.

Fragmentation

Officially, according to Google, there is no fragmentation in the Android world. However, a simple walk in the electronic section of a US retailer show us the contrary. There are currently 3 different major versions (branches) of Android that are deployed and specific to certain types of devices: 3.0 (honeycomb) is restricted to tablets, 2.3 (Gingerbread) for phones and other devices, and 2.1 (Eclair) for Google TV. Add to that the fact that devices sold today are equipped with versions more or less up to date as 2.2 (Froyo) and some gadgets that are not updated (1.6, which, however, tend to disappear). Add to that the number of available devices and alternative ROM (such as cyanogen) and you get a beautiful digital patchwork.

Android offers, however, many tricks to circumvent this problem. First, Android is backward compatible: an application running under 1.6 works (in theory and in practice often) on all subsequent versions. In the other way, it is possible to add features of recent versions (writing NFC tag 2.3.3 for example) in applications that can be installed on versions below with slightly modified code. Tips and advice are provided by the same official blog of Android. The developers are however known to be lazy. On the other hand, when Google announced a new version of Android, few devices are updated quickly. So developers must choose between developing applications for the fleet of devices already deployed or for the devices to come. Thus the number of "Killer App" (applications that competition does not have, and that add value) is very low on Android, and is often limited to Google applications (Gmail, Google Maps navigation ...). And what about Google TV? For the moment the Android market is not available to install applications. Only some Google partners have access to the SDK to develop applications specifically for Google TV.

Android is free (to be closed)

Android is an Open Source project, which means according to wikipedia that everyone should have "the possibility of free redistribution, access to source code and derivative works." Thus, Google provides the community AOSP (Android Open Source Project), a grouping of source code and lots of resources and documentation of all versions of Android. All versions? Not quite. Take the example of Chromium, the open source browser. Developers (or curious) wishing to participate in development have permanent access to the latest version (dated often within hours) of the code. For Android, this is very different. Google opens the source code of a new version of Android after its announcement. When the community has access to Android 2.1, for example, Google is already on version 2.2, and will retrieve the patches released on 2.1 to improve 2.2 before its release. Officially, this is due to the fact that Google wants to "surprise" developers and customers by ensuring that the latest versions does not leak before an official announcement. This cult of secrecy is similar to Apple's. However, is this policy consistent with the principle of Open Source? The debate is still ongoing.

Another thing is a source of tension within the community. While Android 3.0 has been announced, and that several 3.0 devices are available, access to 3.0 code has been removed from ASOP. According to Google, it comes from the fact that many developers are trying to adapt the code to make Honeycomb compatible with phones. This "hack" is not appreciated by Google, which said Honeycomb is made solely for tablets and nothing else. On the other side, there is a moto in the free world: if you do not like it and you know how to code it, do it yourself. Google does not want to see Honeycomb on phones, close the code and that's it.

Another point: What is free in Android? The question worth asking because everything is not so simple. What characterizes Android today is mainly applications (and hence the market). Now if you compile yourself AOSP, the result may be disappointing. The only applications available will be a calculator, clock, contact manager, a client for mail, the telephony application, messaging and web browser (and a few others depending on the version of AOSP). Forget Gmail, Google Maps and the Market: These applications are owned by Google (not free) and can be installed only if Google approves your use of the code of Android. Any other use is illegal. In theory, when you install an open source version of Android on your device, you lose access to all these applications. It is for this reason that Amazon has launched its own Market, to offer an alternative to the devices running custom ROMs. What we can blame Google for is that the border between open source code and proprietary code in its system is very unclear.

The critical updates

When an update is available for a phone, which participates in the process? Google is the first major player, providing the code. HTC (for example) then provides an update of its applications and its interface (Sense) and hardware drivers. Then the carriers, who want to control the OS meets the standards of their networks (and possibly add their two cents in the interface and applications). An update must go through these 3 players before coming to the end user. In contrast, when Apple wants to update iOS, there is no intermediary between him and the end customer. This problem is sometimes very frustrating for consumers because they feel they are not important after the purchase. Phones have often outdated software on their launch. And the support is discontinued after 6 months. What happens when there are critical updates (to fix a bug in the messaging application, for example)? Nothing, unless you have a recent phone and whose support is active.

Solution proposal

What to do to correct the issues that taint the reputation of Android? Google should act quickly, because competition is strong. Here are some suggestions:

Merge the three branches of Android in one: Google TV, phones and tablets. Base this devices on the same core code of Android, with a clear roadmap and available to developers anytime. Technically the core is the kernel with Dalvik virtual machines.
Remove the GUI code AOSP: The main application manages the user interface is the "launcher" application. It manages the desktops, launching applications, widgets, etc.. By withdrawing this application and other GUI manager, Android would be easier to update and customize by the actors if they wish to do so. An update from the heart of Android might not be blocked by the refusal of another actor to update its interface. Additionally, Google could then work on its GUI and then decline it in as many versions as required, without blocking the development of Android. Finally the user is free to choose the experience of his choice, the one from of Google, or HTC's or the one from any other.
Remove any application code from AOSP: Similarly, remove all applications code from AOSP would allow the Android project to focus on the core system and facilitate updates. Applications currently in AOSP would then be given to the community.
Create a Open Source system update / market : This Open Source Market would manage updates to the heart of Android and applications currently in AOSP, and any application that the community decides to develop. A bug is spotted in the phone application? We update this application only, and all units receive this update. The community has improved the browser in a major way? Anyone can get it! A security update appears? Anyone can install it.
Give the same status in the applications installed by default and the one downloaded: Currently, if a phone comes with an application that takes 40 MB and you never use it, it is impossible to uninstall without advanced manipulations. Except for system applications, this distinction has no reason to be made. The philosophy of Android is to have a choice, right?
Let Google choose to distribute its proprietary applications: The code is owned by Google, Google can choose the devices that can access the Android Market, Gmail and others. But all devices have access to the Market of point 4, containing critical updates and Open Source applications.

Finally, we get a free system similar to Ubuntu, controlled by a commercial company (Canonical), a manager for security updates and major releases (similar to apt-get), a graphical interface (Gnome, KDE enlightenment ...), access to applications and paying for non-free apps if desired (Ubuntu Software Center), and control over what is installed or not. The road is long to get there, but it would be a real revolution in electronic gadgets currently very locked.

Welcome here!

2011-01-01T09:00:00.000+01:00