Does Android need saving? If yes, here's how to do it.

Jay Goldberg

Posts: 75   +1
Staff
Editor's take: Android is a hot mess. Google should make it truly open source. This would relieve them of a major antitrust vulnerability and infuse a massive amount of energy to the project.

We have been writing a lot about Qualcomm lately, lamenting its lackluster growth prospects. As we noted, the heart of their problem is that they are (probably) losing Apple as a customer, and at the same time Apple seems unstoppable, gaining share seemingly everywhere.

Put differently, Qualcomm's problem is Android.

Android is not in good shape. After 16 years on the market, Android remains heavily fragmented. This requires developers to build hundreds of versions of their app, and consumers face a bewildering array of user interfaces. Developers are deeply frustrated by this.

Editor's Note:
Guest author Jonathan Goldberg is the founder of D2D Advisory, a multi-functional consulting firm. Jonathan has developed growth strategies and alliances for companies in the mobile, networking, gaming, and software industries.

We know many software developers who insist on using an Android phone out of principle, but their green message bubbles stand out as exceptions. Consumers, especially young consumers (a.k.a. customers of the future) prefer iOS by wide margins. The result is that iOS users monetize for app developers much, much better than Android users, causing many to eschew the platform altogether.

For handset makers, the problems are painful. They are stuck in a situation where they have little leeway to differentiate on top of a free operating system, and many of their attempts to do so just add to the fragmentation problem. One of the only levers left to them is to cut prices, with ASPs (application service providers) shrinking in most markets. And while they are attempting to launch higher priced phones, with $2,000 models on the way, these are expensive to build and unlikely to sell enough to shift market share figures by much. And so Apple continues to suck up the vast majority of the sector's profits.

Most importantly, Android's owner, Google, seems deeply ambivalent about their OS. They have made no real effort to fix the root problems – especially around fragmentation, security and privacy. They are not exactly doing nothing. They have invented a lot of tools to make writing code for Android apps, and the web, easier. But this is Google we are talking about, and they sometimes seem to have the attention span of a toddler who probably needs a Ritalin prescription.

Android version distribution chart

For many years, they even seemed to be building an alternative OS, Fuschia, but that seems to have ended with their recent jobs cuts. And let's not forget their Chrome operating system which is fairly successful in cheap laptops, but also could use some focused attention. Google knows they need Android, and … well, that really seems to be it. Too important to abandon, not important enough to really focus on and fix.

The rest of the world sees the problem but either lacks the ability to build a real alternative or has resigned themselves to tinkering around the edges. We recently spoke to a major ecosystem stakeholder looking for a way forward but the only options they had identified looked either futile (get all the handset vendors to work together) or just more tinkering around the edges.

We think there is an easy solution to all of this. A glaringly obvious one, written in giant blue letters with a neon purple outline. Google should make Android truly open source. Not the half measure Android Open Source Project (AOSP) they have today, but completely spun off into its own foundation, or ceded to the fine folks at the Linux Foundation.

Obviously this might cause some anxiety at Google. Android was created to prevent them from getting shut out of the mobile search market. So they have to be worried that losing control of Android would cause that to happen. But we think that is an outdated model.

Google could still cut deals with the handset makers to keep Google as the Android default search engine, just as they do with Apple. This would be expensive, but not as expensive as the billions they pay Apple every year. The handset makers would still want to license Google Apps (the G-Suite, Mail, Maps, etc.) and Google would not lose their ability to influence the code.

Google could also worry that every Android licensee would create their own version of the OS confounding users. Oh wait, we have that already.

Every major open source project relies heavily on corporates contributing significant engineering time. Linux was built with a very large time contribution from Intel. Google could easily emulate this model. Google could also worry that every Android licensee would create their own version of the OS confounding users. Oh wait, we have that already.

Google would also rightly worry that changing privacy policies (not least Apple's App Tracking Transparency) make internal traffic much more strategic to company's dependent on advertising. While this is a legitimate concern, we imagine Google could take steps to ensure their needs are met on this front. Most importantly, by relinquishing control of Android, Google could remove a very large antitrust vulnerability. Scan the many regulatory cases against Google and Android is at the heart of many of them.

An open source Android would likely enjoy a massive infusion of energy and resources from the rest of the ecosystem. The handset makers and chip suppliers would all have a large incentive to contribute to the project. Maintaining an OS is expensive, even for a company of Google's size. Why not defray those costs to some of the other highly-motivated members of the Android Foundation. Done well, this could also lead to significant improvements in many of the technical issues, fragmentation and security at the top.

This seems the best, if not only, way to save Android. Both, improving its codebase and keeping any one company from dominating it. No doubt, Google would only take this step with immense trepidation, but at this point we see few other options and many, many reasons to adopt it.

{poll id:4}

Masthead credit: majamaki

Permalink to story.

 
The biggest problem with Android is a lack of standardisation among phones. If Android phones had design standards like PCs do with ATX, this wouldn't be an issue. There would only be one kind of Android, like there's only one kind of Windows and apps would all be coded to work with Android instead of the individual phones. It would make Android phones far less expensive to make and there would be no question about cross-brand compatibility.

The reason they haven't done it? Who knows? Stupidity? Greed? Pick either of them (or both) and you probably won't be wrong.
 
It's one of those sacrifices I think are worth it for having options and variety.
 
I think the problem is public perception. Apple has far fewer devices to support so they almost win by default, but I'd argue that those updates are boring. Hardware has peaked across the board on both sides, and more improvements now need to come via Oygen, SE, MIUI, and the like. Every Android 10+ device already gets critical security updates via Google Play regardless of manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Is it just head honchos not understanding the benefits of investing in the core - surely it's not that hard - it's not like Google has to spend 5 years arguing standards with all and sundry.
What about is it Lineage and Oxygen - how many people maintain them -- yes I know Google need to do whole ecosystem - cleaning inputs or what even the term is

Plus they must have a lot of tools now at their disposal - to test code , security - add in AI

Hell they can contract out make a Call, API or DLL or whatever it's called -
that does this the most robust and efficiently

I assume the hard work is in the details , fine tuning , post production - or again my ignorance whatever it's called
 
Whatever happened to Ubuntu for phones. I would much rather a Linux based distro that has nothing to do with Google other than their Apps recompiled for Ubuntu. No it doesn't have to be Ubuntu specifically, another Debian based distro would be fine.

I should say I'll probably switch to iPhone when the 16 ships and my current Android is 5 years old and due for an update. I don't customise Android like I used to, iOS is fine, I have and iPad and am used to the different ways of doing things.
 
I personally have only been using one brand of phone with Android on them which is Samsung. For me at least it has always been a good experience. I like having the choice also if I did decide to go to another brand of phone company. Unlike if you are on Apple all you get is a few choices for models of devices but the OS itself is always the same and pretty much controlled by Apple so it limits you what you can do or install.

On Android yes Google has some stuff locked down for what you can or cannot do but it can pretty much be bypassed if you choose to do that. On Apple if you start tinker too much, they can pretty much close you down or worse if you brick your phone, they most likely will refuse to work on it. A few years ago, I had a guy come into my computer store I had at the time, and he spent 4 hours on the Apple support trying to get them to fix his bricked iPhone that got brick by Apples own IOS updater. They refused to help him no matter how hard he tried to get help from them. After seeing this I decided to give it a go and within 20 minutes had his iPhone up and running again and I did it for free because I felt he had gone through enough pain trying to get Apple tech support to help him.

If they would have actually tried to help him, they too could have gotten the phone back up and running with little to no effort, being they should know more about Apple devices than I did at the time. Instead, they kept telling him it was his fault the updater bricked his phone not their fault and they basically kept passing the fault onto him and brushing him off.

So yes, I will take my Android phone and use it and when something goes wrong with the OS it is easy to fix. Apple can stuff it and they can keep their bland boring cookie cutter stuff.
 
Android desperately needs to get out of the hands of Google. Users are being fined every month by having data taken from them in order for ads, which they did not choose to download, to be pushed to them. Android is nothing but a big advertising platform, and its for this this reason alone that Google does so little work on the other parts of the platform, but so much effort goes into the analytics, spying and advertising side of things. Smart phones should be liberated in one of two ways, either Android needs to become independent of Google, or a third OS needs to be produced. What is however strange to note is that not much functionality has been added to Android since the launch of the HTC G1/Dream in 2009. It ran Android Cupcake in 128Mb of storage space and it ran it quite well, so the question that needs to be asked, is why does Android now suddenly need 4GB+ of storage space and 6GB+ of Ram to run properly. What has change so much to justify these increases, and the only thing that comes to mind, are cosmetic differences and the amount of Google integration. Personally, I think Microsoft would do well to Open Source the Windows CE/Mobile OS and to update it a bit, make it run Android Apps just as well as Android if not better, and then start pushing it as a real open source alternative to Android. Add features to it that will make it integrate seamlessly with Windows, without requiring additional apps, and make sure that no adware or spyware runs on it, and you should have a very successful OS on your hands. The smae could be said of Palm OS. Bring it back, update it a bit for newer hardware, and give it the required newer features to make it a bit more modern. Let's have a mobile OS built from the ground up for mobile devices, not a desktop OS ported to a mobile device, using resources like a desktop does.
 
"We think there is an easy solution to all of this. A glaringly obvious one, written in giant blue letters with a neon purple outline. Google should make Android truly open source. Not the half measure Android Open Source Project (AOSP) they have today, but completely spun off into its own foundation, or ceded to the fine folks at the Linux Foundation."

Oh yes, because linux has NO issues with fragmentation, right? Open source software, famously, is always on the same page and never forks.

LMFAO

"Put differently, Qualcomm's problem is Android."

This "editors take" is totally backwards. Half the reason so many handsets on android are so far behind is simply because qualcomm does not update their driver blobs to newer kernels. Making android "truly open source" wont fix that. Android's problem is Qualcomm, not the other way around. Qualcomm losing apple isnt even related to this, apple likes to have full vertical integration, this should be obvious by now, and their various purchases to make themselves independent of third parties have a long history.

"This requires developers to build hundreds of versions of their app, and consumers face a bewildering array of user interfaces."

Why are developers doing this? If you are targeting APIs (which is what you should be doing) then you should not be making hundreds of builds. Do windows devs have to make hundreds of builds? No. Neither do android devs. Target the API, its not hard, and most functions are updated via the store, not the kernel.

As for end users, look, the average end user we are working with is squarely around room temp IQ. They want to know where the facebook button is and where their text is. They have no comprehension about different interfaces and software packages. Nor do they care. So long as they can text and call, they dont care about the UI. That should be obvious, given that apple's domination is a western thing, and android carries the majority of sales worldwide by a huge margin.
 
Biggest issue for google is not having a successful phone lineup. Pixel doesn't sell enough to put ton of focus on..

Microsoft would have done a much better job in regards of being a major player in the OS space. Google is a mess company wide.
 
Biggest issue for google is not having a successful phone lineup. Pixel doesn't sell enough to put ton of focus on..

Microsoft would have done a much better job in regards of being a major player in the OS space. Google is a mess company wide.
Pixel would do better if they didn't charge iphone prices for nexus tier hardware. And if they put bigger batteries in the things.

Google, stop being apple, it doesn't work for you.

The Microsoft but made me laugh. MS made such a mess out of windows phone it destroyed the brand.
 
Pixel would do better if they didn't charge iphone prices for nexus tier hardware. And if they put bigger batteries in the things.

Google, stop being apple, it doesn't work for you.

The Microsoft but made me laugh. MS made such a mess out of windows phone it destroyed the brand.
I agree the UI choices and trying to keep the app store locked down like apple was horrible mistakes...

But their OS was super faster even on low tier Hardware. I remember how quick the old windows phones were compared to iphones at the time, even though iphone's SOC was by far better. That was WinCE7 based, then they switched to NT based on windows 10. It was a hog on old hardware, but still ran great on newer devices.

I've always been a android user, but MS could make a NT based device that ran android apps that could run circles around android in terms of OS performance. They have zero means of replacing their Google Play store with their own. MS is by far the dumbest large company when it comes to making a store front work..

Google Lucked into Android's success.

I wouldn't say Apple has ever really tired to be apple. Pixel phones are not expensive.... They are priced what they are worth.


Qualcomm IMO has always been the bane of Android devices when it comes to battery life.
 
A new OS should be written from scratch. Removing any part that even remotely has connection to Java. And making it open source from the very start (but not before first working prototype is developed). It would be smaller, faster, with less errors and less security holes.

However, that's the problem. If you remove security holes, a lot of agencies will complain. They can't spy on you without holes. Not even Google can spy on you without deliberate security holes. And that's why some parts will always be closed source. And manufacturers will add their own closed-source parts that will contain much more than just hardware drivers.

Because let's be honest, the reason why cellphones have advanced so fast in such a short time is not because the audience demanded it. If they really cared about audience, all the female TV hosts and most of Hollywood actresses would have big tits. But instead, they are flat like planks.

So, nope, it's not exactly what the audience wants. It's because smartphone is the best spying device ever invented. And they want everyone to have it.

That means we should forget about transparency and privacy. They are interested in making a security-hole-free phone same as politicians are interested in public tracking of all the government expenses.
 
I've been using android since v4.4, before that I had windows phone 7 and 8. over the course of the years, it's evident that google has no plan to save Android from fragmentation. problem is, they want to have all the marketshare. google basically still allows phone with 2GB of RAM to be sold today, so you could imagine how an OS has to be designed for devices with 2GB - 24GB of RAM.

google knows well that if it raised the minimum bar for Android specs, the lower end market would be filled with KaiOS or other alternative OS. that's why we see KaiOS is almost dead because you can buy a brand new Android device with 2GB of RAM well under $99. they literally have no chance to compete.

then you have big chinese players like Xiaomi Corp, BBK Group and Transsion holdings. together each year they created more than 200 different types of phones all running on the same Android version. of course google allowed that to happen.

at this point I'm waiting if another big player would try and challenge Android. I know windows for arm still has a long way to go but who knows if they could properly emulate android apps in the future. I wouldn't mind getting a windows 12 arm "phone" as long as I can run android apps (not games) on it.
 
All that text to advertise for Apple. Young consumers don't choose, first because that requires thinking and that they don't do, they are just influenced by society, family etc... in a vicious cycle.
 
Back