Mar 6th, 2010

A few days ago I responded to an article titled Android Is Doomed with a rather crass, unapologetic denial of the author’s sensibility. In a world where Android news swirls at cyclone speeds, I just didn’t have the patience to offer an analytical rebuttal – but I still wanted to point out how some people fail to see the success of Android above and beyond it’s relatively minor and unavoidable challenges.

But Kevin C. Tofel, blogger from jkOnTheRun, ran a similar piece yesterday. There are two differences in Kevin’s article:

  1. It was responding to a different article – one that criticized Android but with a more accurate and fair analysis
  2. Kevin demonstrates a bit more patience, offering a thorough and level-headed assessment of the situation/criticism. It’s a great read and I definitely recommend you read the article in its entirety.

I love Android – no doubt about it – but I’m not above admitting it’s challenges, shortcomings, problems and other negative factors. No mobile OS is perfect and with each decision made there will be necessary evils – it’s all about finding a formula that will work best and I think Google has cooked up a pretty darn delicious recipe.

Kevin’s article closes with a great conclusion – one that my own article would have likely reflected (though not so eloquently) had I written a complete response:

tofelThere is a fragmentation issue with Android — in that respect, I’m in total agreement with Mark. I’ve even asked your opinions on if Google should “de-frag” Android and attempt to get most, or all, phones on the same version. But ultimately, it’s not up to Google and their open-source platform. It’s up to the carriers and the handset makers unless Google draws a line in the sand and exerts near-total control. If that’s what you really want, you can already get that from a company in Cupertino.

Google clearly has some choices to make – as do the carriers and manufacturers – in which direction they want to take their Android initiatives. But the best part of Android is that its users and enablers can take it any direction they want. And even the United States Military would agree with that… how can you argue with that?