iOS fragmentation - Is it worse than Android's?

How do we define fragmentation?

This is what fragmentation (frgmn-tshn) actually means:
The scattering of parts of a computer file across different regions of a disk. Fragmentation occurs when the operating system breaks up the file and stores it in locations left vacant by previously deleted files. The more fragmented the file, the slower it is to retrieve, since each piece of the file must be identified and located on the disk.

Below we will try to explain the FUD term propagated by Steve Jobs and spread by Apple fans that also have a very vague idea of it's meaning.

• the inability to update the OS because of the manufacturer?
• the user's choice not to update?
• the coexistence of multiple app stores?
• exclusive apps?
• different hardware configurations?

So let's start with updates

    If we are to consider updates as the sole factor in fragmentation, we would certainly be wrong. Both Android and iOS can run the same Apps. Forcing partial updates like iOS 4 on iPhone 3G and 3GS has lowered the device performance considerably while still not bringing the same features iPhone 4 had. Apple might have reduced fragmentation in statistics, but it has decreased user experience by making 3G and 3GS laggy devices.

So how are iPhone updates doing in 2011?
According to statistics, not too well. So far iOS 5 is only on 38% of all iPhones:

"According to Chitika Insights, one month after release, the new OS is on 38 percent of iPhones, 30 percent of iPads and 12 percent of iPod Touch.

iOS5 distribution in 2011

 The firm uses mobile ad network impressions to analyze traffic."

In comparison, Android's latest major distribution for Phones 2.x.x is spread across 95% of the devices, and the latest subversion, Gingerbread or 2.3.x is spread across 38.2% of the devices.

We should also mention that Android has a market share or 52.5% while Apple has a market of ~15%. Given the fact that there are 443 unique Android devices released and only 7 iPhones, I'd say Apple's closed eco-system idea is doing a lot worse in the real world than it did on paper.

Did you know why you own an iPhone?

     Reality distortion field (RDF) is a term coined by Bud Tribble at Apple Inc. in 1981, to describe company co-founder Steve Jobs' charisma and its effects on the developers working on the Mac project. Later the term has also been used to refer to perceptions of his keynote (or Stevenote) by observers and devoted users of Apple computers and products.

     In essence, RDF is the idea that Steve Jobs is able to convince himself and others to believe almost anything with a mix of charm, charisma, bluster, exaggeration, marketing and persistence. RDF is said to distort an audience's sense of proportion or scale. Small advances are applauded as breakthroughs. Interesting developments become turning points, or huge leaps forward. Impossible-seeming schedules, requirements or specifications are acceded to. Snap judgments about technical merits of approaches are sometimes reversed without acknowledgment. Those who use the term RDF contend that it is not an example of outright deception but more a case of warping the powers of judgment. The term "audience" may refer to an individual whose attitudes Steve is intending to affect.

      Often the term is used as a derogatory remark to criticize Apple's products and its more enthusiastic fans.

The term has extended in industry to other managers and leaders, who try to convince their employees to become passionately committed to projects, sometimes without regard to the overall product or to competitive forces in the marketplace. It also has been used with regard to hype for products that are not necessarily connected with any one person.

There is no spoon

     Fake Steve Jobs on the iPhone 4 and reception: Probably the biggest thing I've taught the team at Apple is that people never know what they're supposed to think about anything. This is true in Hollywood, in the book business, in the art world, in politics. And especially in technology. So we put out a new phone and everyone is sitting there wondering what they should think about it. What I realized many years ago - and honestly, it still amazes me - is that most people are so unsure of themselves that they will think whatever we tell them to think. So we tell people that this new phone is not just an incremental upgrade, but rather is the biggest breakthrough since the original iPhone in 2007. We say it's incredible, amazing, awesome, mind-blowing, overwhelming, magical, revolutionary. We use these words over and over. It's all patently ridiculous, of course. But people believe it.

We demo FaceTime, and we say that nobody in the world has ever seen anything like this before. Jonny and I act stunned and gob-smacked, as if we ourselves still can't believe that we've just invented video chat.

Again, this is utterly untrue, a total and absolute lie. But people accept it. They hoot and cheer for us.

      The other strategy we use is "clouding". Right now, for example, we've sent out the following messages about iPhone 4 and the antenna issues:

The iPhone 4 screen - a multimedia flop?

    We all know that iPhone started out with that is know as the lowest resolution ever used on a modern touch screen phone - 480x320px and a non-standard 3:2 aspect ratio. Why apple chose this format  is not sure but it's certain that most Chinese gadgets and knock-offs use non standard screens and they are cheaper to get than the standard ones; we should also keep in mind that the success of the first iPhone was somewhat mediocre when compared to it's non-touch counterparts like N95 and later models.

     What does that mean for the end-user? First of all it means that watching shows on either iPhone or iPad will give you two nasty horizontal thick black stripes that will pointlessly draw power while not displaying anything and that the faulty aspect ratio leads to loss of screen estate. Second, the abysmal resolution in the first iPhone made it very hard to distinguish page elements without zooming in as most web-pages retain a compatibility width of 640px. Another fun thing would be for the fourth iPhone to be called HD as it's aspect ratio resembles more to TV's from the 80's than to anything we consider HD today.

     By now you must be thinking how about the screen size? Could Apple really switch to a standard resolution like 800x480 since there's plenty of devices out there using a 3.5" screen? The short answer is no. The long answer is that the iPhoneOS does not use a scalable UI and not having a scalable UI means either the iPhone UI will either have black bars like movies currently do or the UI elements will be stretched and deformed while the applications that aren't re-coded will suffer the same faith as the UI.

    So what did apple do to overcome this huge drawback? Well so far they have done nothing as the average iPhone user doesn't even know what resolution means. But now with the fourth device of the series, that has a surprising resemblance with Nokia's internet tablet N800, Apple seems to have decided to give iPhone an internet tablet worthy resolution that other OSes (Symbian and Android) have had for years.