The solution seems to be...

Post #360,936 by Another Scott 7/17/12 9:55:11 PM Reply	The solution seems to be... You've laid out a compelling case. The solution seems to be: Sell the device with your app. That's what Amazon has done, and Google seems to be moving that direction in a big way. Depending on Verizon and Samsung and the others to keep their OS up to date seems to be a guaranteed way to strangle the platform for ISVs. Of course, Amazon is a behemoth. Tiny ISVs can't take the risk of also having a hardware inventory... But if decent up-to-date tablets are available for $50 in the near future, or if Google starts bundling apps with their tablets, then ... Presumably in the next 10 years things will settle out a bit. Best of luck being on the bleeding edge! Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,939 by drook 7/17/12 10:34:50 PM Reply	Nobody's going to want single-purpose devices We had phones before that were just phones, and cameras that were just cameras. We're not going back to that. -- Drew
Post #360,941 by Another Scott 7/17/12 10:59:02 PM Reply	True, but I wasn't clear what I was suggesting. Fragmentation and the other issues that malraux outlined are serious and are holding the Android platform back. If a small ISV could say: "This app is certified to run on the new Widget tablet running Android 4.1 (JB). You can get our app and the Widget for a special bundle price of $x." It wouldn't be a single-purpose box, it would be a standard Android box, but an up-to-date one that the ISV could target and maybe get a piece of the hardware money as well (if tablets become cheap enough - it obviously wouldn't work especially well for smart phones that depend on phone company subsidies). The Store issues would have to be addressed as well, but if it were a standard JB box then presumably at least Google Play would work out of the box. I agree it's not practical (at least not for the biggest players), but it is a way to attack the problem. Another way is to somehow get preloaded on new boxes (the DOS/Windows/Office model). Otherwise, the market isn't going to be very big (in a sensible sense) for a few more years (after things shake out some more), and ISVs are going to be struggling in the Android space. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #360,943 by malraux 7/17/12 11:07:52 PM Reply	Defeated by the market share issue It is very unlikely that a small ISV is going to get someone to buy a phone with their Angry Birds clone, and the people who do are a very small install base. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #360,956 by static 7/18/12 8:26:45 AM Reply	IOW, Google needs to out-Apple itself. :-/ I don't have time for a big, thoughtful response to either of you, but I can see several things Google should do or should have done. Some of these are going to be Very Difficult, however. * Curate the Google Play store. Yes, this will hurt. The standards don't need to be as tough or as opaque as Apple's (and I don't think it should be at all), but it needs to happen. * Licence the "Android" name and vett devices that want to use it. Or something like that. This means that shit Android devices will be told they cannot use the name. At all. They can also use this to help co-erce vendors to keep up with the OS upgrades. This is also hard because it will mean an attempt to put the "open source" genie back in the bottle. It was a great sentiment, but it's not working so well. I'm sure you could think of other points. Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #360,957 by pwhysall 7/18/12 9:08:43 AM 7/18/12 9:09:06 AM Reply	On your second point: Neither of the big new Android handsets in the UK (i.e. Samsung Galaxy S 3 and the HTC One X) make any mention of the word "Android" or "Google" anywhere in their their current advertising campaigns - at least, not in anything other than the small print. Be under no illusion: Samsung sells Samsung phones, not Android phones made by Samsung. It's not just about the SGS3, either; the Galaxy Note's adverts also have a conspicious lack of Google and Android about them. Edited by pwhysall July 18, 2012, 09:09:06 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #360,984 by static 7/18/12 5:12:47 PM Reply	Hmm. I hadn't noticed. You're right: the brands are selling brand loyalty. I've been subject to that myself. Maybe that genie simply can't be put back in that bottle... Wade. Just Add Story http://justaddstory.wordpress.com/
Post #360,964 by malraux 7/18/12 11:33:44 AM Reply	Google is doing #2 to a certain extent They're now threatening to withhold early access to new versions unless the manufacturer adheres to an upgrade pledge. I doubt it will work. Google absolutely needs to do some curation, but that doesn't address the fragmentation much if at all. There's no walled garden, so there will always be competing Android stores. What we'll probably see is Amazon and Play duking it out for the top 1 and 2 spots, and multiple much smaller stores from the manufacturers, carriers, and so on. There's probably room for a 3rd party in-app purchase provider, but the apps will need to include the libraries themselves or users won't bother. Theoretically you can use Amazon's in-app purchasing for apps sold in the Google store, but only if the user downloads and installs the Amazon store app. Google Play requires Google Mobile to be installed, which is a bit deeper than just an app. If you have a Kindle Fire you have to root the device to get it on there. The vast majority of users, again, aren't going to bother. The Nook doesn't even have an in-app purchase API for its store, and in fact B&N will reject your app if it implements in-app purchasing or advertising. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!