Nice readings... Tidak menyulut fanboy wars tapi langsung ke pusat dari 
masalah...

Taken from Engadget, 
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/09/editorial-androids-problem-isnt-fragmentation-its-contamina/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial: Android's problem isn't fragmentation, it's contamination
By Vlad Savov posted Apr 9th 2011 5:00PM
Editorial


This thought was first given voice by Myriam Joire on last night's Mobile 
Podcast, and the simple, lethal accuracy of it has haunted me ever since. All 
the hubbub and unrest about whether Google is trying tolock Android down or not 
has failed to address whether Google should be trying to control the OS, and if 
so, what the (valid) reasons for that may be. Herein, I present only one, but 
it's arguably big enough to make all the dissidence about open source idealism 
and promises unkept fade into insignificance. 

Let's start off by setting out what the goal behind Android is. It'd be 
impossible to identify the flaw with Google's strategy if we aren't clear on 
what it's strategizing toward. From its very inception, Android has been about 
expanding the reach of Google search. Never mind all the geeky professions of 
wanting to build a great mobile operating system and one which Googlites 
themselves would want and be proud to use -- there's no reason to doubt the 
veracity of those proclamations, but they're symptomatic, a sort of nice side 
benefit, of the overarching business decision. Google makes its money by 
selling ads. It sells those ads by serving them up in front of its vast 
audience, which in turn comes to it primarily through the use of Google search. 
When faced with the rampant ascendancy of mobile internet use -- and Google 
deserves credit for identifying the oncoming smartphone craze in good time and 
reacting to it -- the company knew it simply had to maneuver its products into 
the mobile realm or face a slow, ignominious path to irrelevancy. Ergo, what 
Google was really and truly striving for with Android was ubiquity. Instead of 
having to dance to the merry tune of carriers -- as Microsoft is now having to 
do with Verizon in order to get it to bundle Bing on some Android devices -- or 
appease manufacturers' many whims, Google opted to build its own OS, with that 
specific aim of expanding availability as rapidly and as broadly as was 
possible.

To say that the goal has been accomplished would be an understatement. Android 
has stormed every Symbian castle, ransacked every webOS village, threatened the 
mighty tower of Mordor iOS, and thoroughly         resisted the upstart 
challenge of Windows Phone 7. The reasons for its success and universal 
acceptance have been twofold. Google has invested plentiful resources into 
expeditiously building up its Linux derivative for the mobile space, on the one 
hand, and has decided to make the fruit of that labor available to phone 
manufacturers without hindrance or demand -- to use as they pleased, for it was 
open and flexible, and while it wasn't initially beautiful to look at, it was a 
sturdy platform from which to build.

Many have characterized the resulting melange of multivariate Android skins and 
devices as generating fragmentation within the OS' ecosystem. That may be true, 
but is not in itself problematic. If there were no qualitative difference 
between Android on an HTC device and Android on a Sony Ericsson phone, the end 
user wouldn't care. He'd call that choice.

Where the trouble arises is in the fact that not all Androids are born equal. 
The quality of user experience on Android fluctuates wildly from device to 
device, sometimes even within a single phone manufacturer's product portfolio, 
resulting in a frustratingly inconsistent landscape for the willing consumer. 
The Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 is a loud and proud Android phone, but it features 
an older version of the OS, has had a checkered history with updates, and 
generally leaves users sore they ever picked it up. At the same time, Samsung's 
10 million unit-selling Galaxy S is too an Android phone, one that Google can 
rightly be proud of. The most irksome example, however, is LG's Optimus 2X -- 
it has Froyo on board both in its European 2X garb and in its US-bound G2x 
variety, but the former crashes the browser any time you look at it, while the 
latter, eschewing LG's customizations and running the stock Android 2.2, is one 
of the slickest and smoothest devices we've handled yet. 

The point is not that carrier or manufacturer customizations should be 
abandoned entirely (we know how much those guys hate standardization), it's 
that some of them are so poor that they actually detract from the Android 
experience. Going forward, it's entirely in Google's best interest to nix the 
pernicious effects of these contaminant devices and software builds. The 
average smartphone buyer is, ironically enough, quickly becoming a less savvy 
and geeky individual and he (or she) is not going to tolerate an inconsistent 
delivery on the promise contained in the word "Android."


It may seem odd for us to pick faults with an operating system in the midst of 
a world-conquering tour, but then you only need to look at Symbian's fate to 
know that fortunes change quickly in the breathlessly developing smartphone 
realm. All Google really needs to do to patch the cracks and steady its ship is 
to live up to those rumors of Andy Rubin ruling from above. Dump the X10s and 
2Xs from the portfolio of real Android devices -- and Google can do that by 
denying them access to its non-open source products like Gmail, Maps, and the 
all-important Android Market -- and give us some respite from having to worry 
if the next Android will be a rampant robot or a dithering dud. Custom skins 
can still live on, but it's high time Google lived up to its responsibility of 
ensuring they're up to scratch before associating its mobile brand with their 
final product. Such a move may dent the company's valuable reputation as a 
do-gooder, but if it helps the even more valuable Android OS keep its course 
toward world domination, surely it'd qualify to be called a good thing in and 
of itself?

-- 
Regards,
Ivan Liem

-- 
===============
Indonesian Android Community,  join:  http://forum.android.or.id

Join ID-Android FB Groups:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112207700729
---------------------
Unlimited Data XL Mobile Broadband  
http://www.xl.co.id/XLInternet/BroadbandInternet
--------------------
PING'S Mobile - Plaza Semanggi
E-mail: i...@pings-mobile.com Ph. 021-96087100
--------------------
i-gadget Store - BEC Bandung
E-mail: a...@i-gadgetstore.com Ph. 0812-21111191
--------------------
Toko EceranShop - BEC  Bandung
E-mail: wi...@eceranshop.com  Ph. 0815-56599888
--------------------

Aturan Jual/Kloteran ID-Android  http://goo.gl/azW7

Reply via email to