Lack of alternatives to a provably failed business model does not justify the embrace of that model. There is always another alternative - do something else.
At least they could try to build in some mitigation ahead of time. Like fat binaries, run-time version detection, app store that is friendly to mulitple versions of the app/os etc. Not sure if it would have worked, but not doing anything about it is plain insanity.
Would you really call it "provably failed," (especially considering that it's from the perspective of 2006-7) or are you just being provocative?
I agree that this seems like a problem, but surely Android has a decent chance of success under this model. Consider that people who need to run all the latest apps don't use 3 year old phones. In many places (like Australia where I live) you're not paying any extra to upgrade every two years. Google could introduce an Android X with no backwards compatibility without all that much fuss if necessary.
I am absolutely serious. Hardware and software fragmentation proved near-fatal to old Palm, Windows Mobile and J2me.
The insidious part is that this business model results into hardware manfuacturers being disinterested in providing OS upgrade to old devices. Then a developer ends up supporting multiple versions of hardware/OS but given low software prices they don't have enough money to invest properly. A user then faces apps that are advertised as working on "Windows Mobile" but it turns out require touch-screen, different screen resolution or just crap out on latest OS, or demand the latest OS that user can not get without entering a new two-year contract. I personally stayed away from purchasing a $100 mobile app because I could not figure out device compatibility.
Been there, done that. It's a disaster.
Windows mobile had 100% YoY growth rate so at any point 50% of devices out there were new, and even that was not enough. Maybe if android grows 300% YoY they can make legacy redundant, but how long can this last?
But even then, as a developer I have established relationships with my customers, I can't just tell them to take a hike. If I do they will not advocate my product and I will lose the single most efficient marketing channel.
Bottom line is that upgrading OS to latest version should have been made a key design point form the start, both from the technical point and business-model point. Apple got it right, and as a developer I have 99.6% of my users using the latest major rev of the OS and 93% of my users using the latest minor rev.
Comments
Lack of alternatives to a provably failed business model does not justify the embrace of that model. There is always another alternative - do something else.
At least they could try to build in some mitigation ahead of time. Like fat binaries, run-time version detection, app store that is friendly to mulitple versions of the app/os etc. Not sure if it would have worked, but not doing anything about it is plain insanity.
Would you really call it "provably failed," (especially considering that it's from the perspective of 2006-7) or are you just being provocative?
I agree that this seems like a problem, but surely Android has a decent chance of success under this model. Consider that people who need to run all the latest apps don't use 3 year old phones. In many places (like Australia where I live) you're not paying any extra to upgrade every two years. Google could introduce an Android X with no backwards compatibility without all that much fuss if necessary.
I am absolutely serious. Hardware and software fragmentation proved near-fatal to old Palm, Windows Mobile and J2me.
The insidious part is that this business model results into hardware manfuacturers being disinterested in providing OS upgrade to old devices. Then a developer ends up supporting multiple versions of hardware/OS but given low software prices they don't have enough money to invest properly. A user then faces apps that are advertised as working on "Windows Mobile" but it turns out require touch-screen, different screen resolution or just crap out on latest OS, or demand the latest OS that user can not get without entering a new two-year contract. I personally stayed away from purchasing a $100 mobile app because I could not figure out device compatibility.
Been there, done that. It's a disaster.
Windows mobile had 100% YoY growth rate so at any point 50% of devices out there were new, and even that was not enough. Maybe if android grows 300% YoY they can make legacy redundant, but how long can this last?
But even then, as a developer I have established relationships with my customers, I can't just tell them to take a hike. If I do they will not advocate my product and I will lose the single most efficient marketing channel.
Bottom line is that upgrading OS to latest version should have been made a key design point form the start, both from the technical point and business-model point. Apple got it right, and as a developer I have 99.6% of my users using the latest major rev of the OS and 93% of my users using the latest minor rev.