• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

IS Android a "Dead End"?

Well Google are extremely innovative, and despite the success of Android (not sure why the author labels it as a 'dead end'), I can imagine Google wanting to build something which they have complete control over. So I could well see them ripping the guts out of Android and replace it with their own O/S, developed in-house.
 
A couple of years ago similar articles were saying that Chrome OS was going to replace Android, so I'm a bit more cautious about reading the tea leaves than this.

And some of the things he says don't make much sense: the "fragmentation" problem isn't because of anything to do with the Android OS, it's what happens when you allow many manufacturers use it on many different devices with it up to them to build and distribute updates. But that's not going to be solved by a different OS base unless Google also undertake building and distributing updates for all devices out there (including removing carrier's fingers from the software), and that's not going to happen. So unless they cut the OEMs out (suicidal) I don't see that changing significantly. Similar comments apply to performance issues - even forbidding OEM skins (which would probably make Samsung walk) will still leave a plethora of hardware and the OEMs responsible for optimisation for that.

So I reckon that for "Android" to go the Apple way, which seems to be what the author is saying should happen, it really would have to go the Apple way: a closed OS (so Google can control who uses it and on what devices), very constrained hardware designs, possibly very centralised updates. Anything less than that won't be very different in practice. But what incentive would the OEMs have to become assemblers for Google's designs? So if Google went that way you would probably see Samsung switch fully to their own OS, and other manufacturers (or maybe a consortium of them - a real Open Handset Alliance) could take Android itself and continue from there. Leaving Google playing their own game by themselves.

So even if the base of the OS does shift (and become more closed) my feeling is that it will take longer than the author thinks, and won't make as much difference as he thinks either. But given that Android is successful now, and Google have an extensive track record for starting and dropping projects, I think he is reading far too much into Fuschia.
 
No way it could ever be a dead end as android is based off linux with a mix of java.

Anybody with great coding skills could easily take what is there and make a new O/S off the original code.

Make it a new distribution of linux.
 
Only a matter of time and won't bother me in the least. Whether Android flourishes or disappears, whatever. Something better will come along eventually, Google made or not. Whatever device or OS does what very little I need without the instability or headaches is where I'll go. Dead lifeless fingers... Google managed to push me out of the daily handset use months ago, sadly.
 
10 years ago Symbian was the big thing for me, and most other people I knew at the time. In another 10 years, will I still be using Android or something else entirely, who knows?
 
You'd think after such time Facebook would suffer a slow and painful death like it so rightly deserves... nah. The infinite amount of feeble minded ******* dependent on it keeps it going. I guess the same goes for candy crushers and snapchatters alike ;) yeah the ones that nearly kill me on the road daily.

Seems automakers are leaning towards QNX for automotive integration, perhaps some new ideas for handsets will follow. I certainly wouldn't want android auto driving me to work lol...
 
To me the major power of Android is the diversity of hardware available. You can get budget phones, right up to all powerful flagship models with stellar performance. They can all pretty much run the same apps. Seems like restricting this would be a bad move on the part of Google. Producing over priced phones and vendor lock in would be a backwards step for consumers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom