Archive for June, 2009

There seems to be a lot of “take it for granted” style discussion around the possibility of Android fragmentation. Without strong top down control of the platform, folks seem to think that we’re going to end up with hundreds of versions of Android, all slightly different. This was the nightmare that mobile Java became. There were large engineering teams dedicated to and specialized in taking your write-once-run-anywhere app and actually getting it to work on the volume of handsets you wanted to hit.

It’s true that technically anyone who wants to build a slightly different version of Android can, so in that sense there CAN be fragmentation. However, the ecosystem has also fundamentally changed. Before we had the carriers tightly controlling the channel, dictating what was in and out in terms of hardware, enforcing strict standards on the software they pushed to users, and doing everything they could to keep anyone else from pushing software to users. In that world the burden of dealing with fragmentation was with the developers, and the benefit went to the carriers. The carriers controlled the channel, so fragmentation continued.

The one lesson that everyone in mobile seems to have learned over the last year was that the carriers were really bad at determining the right hardware and managing that application and content catalog. It’s why everyone is jumping on the App Store Bandwagon. One of the side-effects of that is that it breaks the strongly controlled content and application channel. If ATT decides that their Android version is going to do Bluetooth slightly different, sure, go ahead. But how can they strongarm Android developers who produce Bluetooth apps into making an ATT specific version? The control isn’t really there any more. Developers might do it, but only if ATT is offering up enough incremental sales revenue to make the port worthwhile. Right now developers frequently do it cause they’re contractually obligated to if they want ATT to promote their app.

Anyone who’s worked in open source knows that forks are technically possible, but practically uncommon. When the “market” is completely open folks tend to follow a path that serves them best. And it’s a reinforcing path. Even when someone with vested interest tries to keep a fork distinct, normally the burden ends up being more on the controller than anyone else. Forks tend to get folded back or die off pretty quickly. I think the same thing should happen with Android. Sure, people might try at the start to get a leg up by including proprietary features and customizations. But in the long run if Android as a whole works, the only person they’re hurting with a fork is themselves (to the tune of a decreased application catalog). And although it’s possible for them to create a custom application catalog with some differentiation in the short term and attempt to keep that differentiation going, there’s no difference between that and the strongly controlled channel that we currently see failing today. The cost of trying to do so will outweigh the benefit of joining the mainline. толстые проститутки