Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Welcomes Kindle Fire Tablet and More Android Fragmentation

skoorbevad said:
I don't understand the whole "fragmentation" thing. It's not fragmentation, it's a natural effect of development on a (mostly) open code-base. Google releases Android, then AOSP. Manufacturers can modify it as they see fit, but it's still Android.

I don't know why automatically having various choices on user interface is somehow a downside.

If Amazon wants to put another user interface on top of Android, great. Let them. Why is that a bad thing? Why is "fragmentation" thrown around like it's somehow the silver bullet that makes Android bad?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you've never used Android.

Fragmentation hurts apps (and end users) because developers can't know all the possible hardware and software combinations that a user may have.
It's the same thing with Windows. Think of all the time a developer spends on a program. The program it, test it, find it works GREAT, and then they release it ... only to be flooded with a million bug reports from users running a million different configurations, all saying "it doesn't work!".

There is Google open source, but then each device manufacturer tweaks a little for their device. Some leave it mostly stock, but many add their own interface, their own way of working with the file system, their own resolution settings, etc. Then there are community projects like CyanogenMod (and a hundred spin-offs). An app made for Motorola Droid may work with the out-of-the-box software, but may crash with the same device running CyanogenMod, or MIUI, or whatever else the user may have on it.

You end up with apps that force close, appear corrupted on the screen, don't run at all, run at a tiny resolution (320x480) when the screen is running at 1024x600 (with a ton of empty space around the app), or just generally unknown and unpredictable behavior.

Google even lets developers white list apps so they only install on specific devices. Maybe the developer tested 6 devices, and so they only white-list those. You end up with 500+ other Android devices that can't install it from the Market. If they remove the white-list and let anyone install it, then maybe it will work fine. Many times it doesn't.
Some developers even say things like "This doesn't work with XXX device" in their product description (but still lets it be purchased and installed by that unsupported device).

Fragmentation is a huge issue with Android. iOS developers usually don't have to worry too much about the platform. Pick iPhone/iPod or iPad resolution. 5.0, 4.3.x, or 4.2.x (and maybe 3.1.x) support. Android developers have to worry about 4.x, 3.x, 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, and 1.6, a hundred different resolutions, custom launchers, DPI issues, other running programs, etc. Plus with Google's "freedom", not only do you have to worry about other programs running, you have to worry about any random program having complete and total free reign on the system, which may cause your application to crash.

Fragmentation was listed as the #1 issue with developers. Google knows this, and is trying to makes things better with Android 4.0.

"As Android Splits, Developers Get Frustrated"
http://articles.businessinsider.com...d-market-android-developers-mobile-developers

"Developers frustrated with fragmented Android"
http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=47453&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10

"Android fragmentation igniting developer burnout"
http://blog.alphasoftware.com/2011/04/android-fragmentation-igniting.html
 
Last edited:
😕This makes Apple sound so juvenile. We welcome it because we think it will make Android suck more? Come on Apple! Those are just cheap shots and arent' necessary from such a large company. If it wasn't for Android, Jailbreakers etc, Apple wouldn't be so far in it's innovation. These products and changes are what make Apple get off their c@cky arses and keep up with competitors. Jeeze, you don't hear of other big companies taking all these cheap shots.
 
Oletros said:
Why? Is not Google the one that administer or applies the updates
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not Google code we're talking about, but Amazon, HTC, Samsung, etc.

Having been in the software business for many years, I can tell you that anytime one or more other vendors are layering their software on top of yours, there is an exponential increase in the degree of complexity involved in developing enhancements and bug fixes, as well as complicating the QA testing and distribution issues associated with your rollout.
 
thetexan said:
I wouldn't consider this fragmentation. While that is a true problem of the Android ecosystem, the Kindle Fire isn't really Android in the sense most people would imagine. It's not designed to be a tablet computer, it's designed to be a handheld media player for Amazon content.

I'd imagine 90% of the people who buy this have no idea it has anything to do with Android.
Click to expand...

Your right about most people not knowing it is Android based, but it will still increase fragmentation in terms of apps.

The KF will only be able to run apps from the Amazon app store, meaning developers will have to accept their crazy licensing terms (No control on price, Amazon can give your app away.) The apps can't use Google services built into Android like maps.

People who own an Android phone and expect the Fire to run their already purchased apps will be disappointed unless they already use the Amazon app store.

At this point in time the Fire will be compatible with a lot of Android apps, but in the future I doubt Amazon will keep following Google's path with Ice Cream Sandwich, meaning developers will have to use completely different API's to construct an app that works on both platforms. That is where the fragmentation actually lies.
 
People who use Kindle reader apps on Windows, Macs, Android and iOS tablets aren't exactly going to be thrilled the new lending library feature of Amazon Prime is for Kindle owners only.

I prefer reading on my iPad to a Kindle. I don't hate Kindles or e-ink, but I prefer the whole iPad experience reading books.

Sure, 80 bucks for a low-end Kindle reader isn't much, but it's another $80 -- per year -- for Amazon Prime; and already owning an iPad and an iPhone, last thing I need is another portable device -- especially one that for me will do only one thing. Really weak idea, Amazon. I would have signed up for Prime to get access to the lending library on my iPad. But as it is, we have a lending library here locally called the public library, and I can check out as many books as I wish.
 
samcraig said:
It's not the same as the iPad. But there's significant overlap with the iPad - and that's media consumption. And that is where Apple is going to "hurt the most" because some people will choose the Kindle Fire because a) it's cheaper and b) they can watch movies, listen to music and read books. Which for some people is pretty much all they use their iPad for. I didn't say most or even a percentage - because who really knows. And I don't want to get into a debate over that.

Fact is - Apple and Amazon both have ecosystems that are in competition. It has little to do with the device. It's a means to an end for the most part.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this at all. All I'm saying is that even someone like my mom, much to my surprise, does waaay more with her iPad than just consume content. And to talk to her you'd think she couldn't live without it. So apps matter, a lot, is all I'm saying.

But yes, there's definitely overlap. Still, it's an "apples & oranges" argument. They're both fruit. That's where they overlap. But if you want a whole basket of fruit: iPad.
 
thetexan said:
I wouldn't consider this fragmentation. While that is a true problem of the Android ecosystem, the Kindle Fire isn't really Android in the sense most people would imagine. It's not designed to be a tablet computer, it's designed to be a handheld media player for Amazon content.

I'd imagine 90% of the people who buy this have no idea it has anything to do with Android.
Click to expand...

All the kindle consumers will see and believe it as Amazon Kindle. A similar device to that of Apple's Ipad but cooler because its Amazon. lol

The Android market will do just fine.
 
johndallas999 said:
😕This makes Apple sound so juvenile. We welcome it because we think it will make Android suck more? Come on Apple! Those are just cheap shots and arent' necessary from such a large company.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. It's marketing. And Apple, more than anyone, is in a prime position to do it and get very far with it.

You ALWAYS find a way to slag on the perceived weaker competition, especially when you're doing well and command vastly dominant mindshare. It plays quite effectively with the average consumer, and besides, puts you in a power position vis-a-vis rivals when they and other players know you actually have the goods to back it up.

Reminds me of this clever piece:

1981B_steve_jobs_seriouslyIBM_l.jpg
 
arbitter said:
Well If I'd buy a Kindle, I wouldn't see it as Android either, nor would I expect updates of any kind. It's Amazon, integrated with Amazon thingys.

I agree that Android is fragmentated, but here they're just taking an Android version as 'base' to build on in a seperate way.

Or is it meant to be upgraded every Android release?
Click to expand...

I guarantee you a fire will see more updates to the software than any core android tablet will see.

In a few years Kindle Android will be the only android left. Google will EOL it as they work on an integrated hardware/software solution with a different os platform.
 
roadbloc said:
Despite it being based on Android, the ecosystem is totally Amazon's and is fully controlled by them. So there will be no fragmentation. Tim Cook is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, we can all have our opinions, but I tend to think that there may be issues on the developers side of things.

The Fire will only be able to access Amazon's Andriod app store. There's no way to access the Google Android Marketplace from a Kindle (short of hacking it). This will put developers in a predicament. Do they offer their apps only on the Amazon store, or do they put them on Google's, or both. If the Fire gets a critical mass of users, developer may forgo the Google Marketplace in favor of the Amazon store since (IMO), Amazon users are more likely to purchase digital content/apps than Google users.

I've read where Amazon has some developer-unfriendly conditions with their app store, so this could result in a lot of frustration for developers.

disclaimer - I am not a developer and these opinions are not totally my own. I've based this on some of the things that I've read and some of my own mental machinations. In other words, I could be totally full of crap.
 
jclardy said:
Your right about most people not knowing it is Android based, but it will still increase fragmentation in terms of apps.

The KF will only be able to run apps from the Amazon app store, meaning developers will have to accept their crazy licensing terms (No control on price, Amazon can give your app away.) The apps can't use Google services built into Android like maps.

People who own an Android phone and expect the Fire to run their already purchased apps will be disappointed unless they already use the Amazon app store.

At this point in time the Fire will be compatible with a lot of Android apps, but in the future I doubt Amazon will keep following Google's path with Ice Cream Sandwich, meaning developers will have to use completely different API's to construct an app that works on both platforms. That is where the fragmentation actually lies.
Click to expand...


I suspect the amazon app marketplace will become a much better place for developers to focus on then the general android ones, and I think it will happen relatively quickly.



People will be consuming content on the kindle fire and they also will be more than willing to use applications.

We still don't know what the average Android user does with their phone.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

The iPod Touch is only $199 and has cameras. Compare the specs with the Kindle Fire. The ONLY measure that the Fire wins on is screen size.
 
tinkafoo said:
I've got a few friends who all bought smartphones from different vendors (Motorola, Samsung, HTC), and they didn't realize that the underlying operating system was the same. I used the phrase "Android phones" and had to explain what I was talking about. At best, one of them knew that Apple's phones were somehow different the others, but didn't know why.

Based on that purely anecdotal evidence, most users don't seem to care about platform wars.
Click to expand...
I have had a similar experience. People is just aware that they have a smartphone and not much else.

johndallas999 said:
😕This makes Apple sound so juvenile. We welcome it because we think it will make Android suck more? Come on Apple! Those are just cheap shots and arent' necessary from such a large company. If it wasn't for Android, Jailbreakers etc, Apple wouldn't be so far in it's innovation. These products and changes are what make Apple get off their c@cky arses and keep up with competitors. Jeeze, you don't hear of other big companies taking all these cheap shots.
Click to expand...
Branching out from my previous FUD comment, the article is from Business Insider. I have a feeling the article is going to be sent around the world as the usual Joe investor news feed aggregate to sow FUD in Amazon/Google and its product. I am not talking about the power users that know every little thing about tablet hardware and OS. The fringe masses that know just enough to realize that something other than the iPad exists. It is enough to unsettle them.
 
Bernard SG said:
Because developers hate that.
Click to expand...

I think developers would have hated even more having to learn a whole new framework for a whole new OS if Amazon had not used Android though. 😉

Anyway, pure FUD by Apple. Kindle Fire is not an Android tablet. It's a Kindle Fire.
 
johndallas999 said:
😕This makes Apple sound so juvenile. We welcome it because we think it will make Android suck more? Come on Apple! Those are just cheap shots and arent' necessary from such a large company. If it wasn't for Android, Jailbreakers etc, Apple wouldn't be so far in it's innovation. These products and changes are what make Apple get off their c@cky arses and keep up with competitors. Jeeze, you don't hear of other big companies taking all these cheap shots.
Click to expand...

Form everything I've read, Tim Cook always comes across as purely arrogant and smug when talking about competitors. Jobs was way more tactful and tongue-in-cheek.
 
Don't underestimate the potential of the Kindle Fire. Although primarily a media device, its cost will appeal to a lot of young developers -- ever been to a app developers meet? And, there are certainly a number of tools out there, phonegap comes to mind, that permit, within limitations, concurrent multiple platform app development. Given it is sized nicely for portability and reading, between the Touch and iPad, the Kindle Fire is potentially ripe for development in, for example, education. Further, Apple did not update the Touch, a comparable tool at about the same price point as the Kindle Fire, and the Touch now really lags the iPhone in power and features particularly so with its camera. If the Kindle catches Fire with developers, this could be a rather interesting tablet.
 
Lennholm said:
Yeah, because that's what killed off the PC back in the 80's.

...

Wait a minute...
Click to expand...

Right, but look at the state of PCs in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's, to somewhat lesser extent, even today. Do you remember dealing with driver and DLL version conflicts, IRQ and DMA channel conflicts, putting things in the right order of your config.sys or autoexec.bat files so that all of your installed stuff would coexist peacefully? Software that only worked with Genuine Sound Blaster or Adlib sound cards and not other brands? Do you remember buying software that only ran on Windows 95/98/2000/XP/7 and had issues with other versions? Software that ran better (or worse, or crashed) with certain brands of video cards or sound cards than with others?

The PC world was a mess for a long time and it was precisely because as a developer, you could pretty much make no predictions at all about what kind of hardware the user was trying to run your code on.

Xendren said:
The iPod Touch is only $199 and has cameras. Compare the specs with the Kindle Fire. The ONLY measure that the Fire wins on is screen size.
Click to expand...

That's the same argument people made about the iPad. "It's just a Touch, but bigger." And it turned out that "it's bigger" was actually a really compelling feature on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back