Are there too many Android devices to choose from?

Does the bevy of choice actually cause more confusion for consumers looking at Android devices?



Android (www.android. com/) is an open platform that can reside on devices made by many different manufacturers. In just under three years, Google has catapulted to the top of the food chain in smartphone market share with as many as 550,000 new Android devices activated every day worldwide.

This rapid rise is somewhat reminiscent of how Microsoft grew to dominate the PC industry in the 1990s, when there were so many PC makers using its Windows operating system software.

Walk into any mobile phone store or kiosk, or browse their websites, and you're likely to see several Android devices offered. Are they running the same version of Android? What's the difference between, say, the Samsung Galaxy S II and the Motorola Defy? How about the Samsung Tab 10.1 tablet and the Acer Iconia A500?

A lot of this comes down to hardware, a key aspect of the process that Google doesn't really control. And while specs are important, it may be fair to say that the wider public isn't fully aware of how a dual-core processor in the Motorola Atrix is so much better than the basic specs of LG's Optimus One, as an example.
This will carry on for a while, but not for long. Microsoft wisely insisted on laying out the hardware specs that would fit just right with its Windows Phone 7 mobile operating system.

Google did the same with its own brand of Nexus phones, and there is speculation they will do the same with Motorola Mobility devices, now that they will operate under Google's auspices.

It's not sustainable to have this kind of fragmentation continue, where different devices, including some of dubious quality, run on arrayed versions of Android.

There is a difference in having an Android phone or tablet that runs on version 2.1 (known as Éclair), and one that runs on 2.3 Gingerbread or 3.0 Honeycomb. Google smartly designed Honeycomb to be a tablet-only operating system, and the ultimate plan is to merge Honeycomb with Gingerbread to form 4.0, or Ice Cream Sandwich.

Funny names aside, the slew of Android devices flooding the market is the opposite strategy to what Apple has done.

The iPhone is a single device and brand that changes once a year. Features change, and the operating system updates, but the one constant is that there aren't a number of iPhone models to choose from. Once a new one comes out, the preceding model becomes the "budget" iPhone, and that's it.

With Ice Cream Sandwich, you can expect Google to tighten things up and streamline the way devices run Android. Google may not employ the kind of strict measures with Android that Apple does with iOS, but moving to one particular OS - with minor differences between the smartphone and tablet versions - will likely prove a sound strategy that will no doubt compete hard against the iPhone.

But Google, RIM, Microsoft and Nokia want to appeal to a broader base of consumers, whereas Apple has always aimed at delivering high-end products. But as Apple has proven over the last 10 years, great quality and a trusted brand name resonate with any customer, regardless of means or demographics.

This ongoing Android carousel will be running its course, and in turn, help change the telecom industry in a big way. In time, manufacturers and carriers will have less of a say on what they can build and offer, and consumers will be better positioned to get what they want on more favourable terms.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/there+many+Android+devices+choose+from/5326314/story.html#ixzz1WWDcX2rU