Google Targets Android Fragmentation With Updated Terms For SDK 154
A reader writes "Google has expanded its legal agreement with developers working on Android applications to specifically prohibit them from taking any action that could lead to a fragmentation of the operating system. The prohibition was added to the terms and conditions for Google's Android SDK (software development kit), which developers must accept before using the software to build Android apps. The previous version of the terms of service, published in April 2009, didn't address the issue, but the new terms published on Tuesday include this new paragraph: 'You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android, including but not limited to distributing, participating in the creation of, or promoting in any way a software development kit derived from the SDK.' Google did not respond to several requests for comment. The issue of Android fragmentation has been gaining increased attention, but it's happened largely as a result of actions taken by Google and Android handset makers, not developers. It's a problem because it means that Android applications may not run properly across all Android devices. 'It continues to be a problem, both on smartphones and tablets,' said Avi Greengart, research director at Consumer Devices. 'Google has talked about multiple initiatives for dealing with it, but none of them have successfully addressed it.'"
Off-topic (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How will a license agreement solve fragmentatio (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but this is almost certainly just a shot at Amazon (and a preemptive shot at Samsung). It doesn't do anything to address the real fragmentation problem: hardware and other issues causing manufacturers to abandon OS updates a few months after launching phones
Re:Off-topic (Score:2, Insightful)
tl;dr
An on-topic post really can be overrated with a score of 1, just as it can be on-topic and a troll, or one of the other negative scores aside from off-topic. While I usually use Overrated as a dissenting vote on up-mods (very rarely), I have also used it for a post (base Karma 1) that adds simply nothing to the topic under discussion. I've done that maybe twice in the years I've been here.
I just happen to have mod points again (happens abut every two to three days), but I was not the person that did the mod; obviously since I'm posting under my username. I try to be rather conscientious about the whole mod duty thang, having been a CompuServe SysOp for a couple of decades including thread-police duties, and I do see evidence every day that most do seem to do their duty well. IAC, there is recourse. Another mod can come along to up it (Underrated is great for this), and/or it may also be picked up in the meta-mod voting as well if somebody really is using mods unwisely.
Way more than needed to be said about the subject.
Re:Why didn't I think of that? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't an attack on fragmentation. This is an attack on Amazon.
Google is furious that people are able to take the "open" Android source and release their own non-Google-approved devices. Even worse, those non-Google devices are more popular than the Google approved ones!
I have the answer that will solve it overnight... (Score:5, Insightful)
You cant call it android unless it is the current version or the previous version. Anything older can NOT be called or branded android in any way.
Suddenly the Lazy bums at HTC and Sony will actually use the latest OS for their phones and push out updates.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely disagree. Carriers are actively customer hostile entities. Everything they touch becomes worse for the end user. The apple phone experience was so good because they didn't let the carriers have their way. It's why Verizon turned down apple for so long. It took Steve Job's massive reality distorting balls to to convince At&t to try it their way. Bam. Smart phone boom.
Just look at Europe, where the GSM standard mandated interoperability. Customers were free to use whatever device they wanted just by slipping in a sim, and they picked devices that weren't carrier crippled. The mobile market there boomed while it stagnated in the US with our carrier-oriented market.
Now we've got devices with a higher degree of consumer control (Yes, apple's walled garden isn't "open" but it's 1000's of times better than anything verizon ever attempted) and the market is huge.