Android Problem And its Solution

This robot does not know the cool green he got himself into.
Android is a successful platform? If we analyze commercially, yes: the Android platform is the leader in the world's largest market (USA) , there are predictions that within five years the platform snatches almost 50% of the market and it is thanks to her that the HTC has grown from a small company Smartphones to a monster with a market value greater than Finland's Nokia .
But different from what happens on PCs, where the monopoly of Windows and x86 processors make it a problematic launch (Windows Vista, for example) does not cause major damage (a mass migration of users, for example), in smartphones the market is different. If a platform does not satisfy the user, they end up going to another. See Symbian has dominated more than half the market today and, although still in first, seeing its market share  fall faster and faster.

And Android has problems, this is fact. And these problems can end up with the platform as fast as its growth was last year. But what are these problems and what are the possible solutions?
Most users of the system claim that the problem is the fragmentation of Android: the fact that many devices running older versions of the system and the manufacturers of these devices have no interest in releasing updates. Though it was already in version 2.3 a long time (in tablets and 3.0), the absolute majority of the equipment runs at version 2.2 (and even many new devices come with that version) and some are still running versions of the infamous one. x.

But fragmentation has only half the story. Manufacturers like to have the freedom to personalize their handsets, after all you have to create a differential, a trademark, or the market stagnates. The fragmentation rather is a consequence of this personalization, since each system update, you must carry system applications for this new version, take tests and optimizations that end up consuming resources that could be used for the development of new aircraft. That is, if the Android platform was a "unified" probably would not exist so many manufacturers supporting it.
Looking at the user side, the fragmentation may seem bad at first sight. But if a device satisfies the user, whether he was using version 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, alpha, beta, gamma, etc.. Being happy he will probably buy another unit from the same brand and using the same platform, even if the manufacturer has decided not to upgrade the unit he bought. Update only matter for heavy-users, who like to make the most of the equipment, but they are a small market share.
The big problem is the platform, as this article describes the Engadget , is the contamination of the mark for Android handsets bad: those devices launched in a hurry, with poorly optimized software and hardware bad. In the hand of a player leaves a bad impression of the platform, which can cause people to never buy a branded device Android.

This is not a problem that has happened since the acceptance rate of the platform is currently high. But the popularity of Android may lead to its demise, since the more popular manufacturers are more interested in this platform to launch handsets and increase the chances of bad devices appear carrying the brand.

Maybe it's time Google get a little more at the foot of the manufacturers. Some custom interfaces are very interesting and add missing features in Android "pure" but others seem to have been born only in order to limit the system. Google could require a certification of "Android interface": an interface that does not limit the user experience platform. If the manufacturer does not obtain certification the device in question is no longer the Market. And without the device Market is probably doomed to oblivion, and the manufacturers know this.
Of course, this is just a suggestion, but Google really has to do something. It may be that while the problem of contamination does not disturb much the platform, but with more and more releases will be more obvious problems and there will be increasingly dissatisfied users. And in the end is the user who decides the future of the platform.