News Stay informed about the latest enterprise technology news and product updates.

Android fragmentation complicates enterprise BYOD support

IT pros that want a consistent version of Android to support as part of a BYOD policy, take note: Android fragmentation is here to stay.

Samsung has made strides in making Android enterprise-ready, but the operating system remains too fragmented for most organizations to standardize on.

There are six different versions of the Android OS currently in use. The latest statistics from Google this week showed that 94% of the nearly 500 million Android devices activated are powered by Gingerbread 2.3 or higher. Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0 accounts for 29.3% of devices, Jelly Bean 4.1/4.2 accounts for 25% of devices and Gingerbread 2.3 is found on 39.8% of devices. Other versions of the OS run on about 6% of devices.

This level of fragmentation presents challenges to IT departments' mobile strategies because they need consistency across the Android platform.

They are "fighting an uphill battle because they don't have much control over what devices get brought into their environment," said Benjamin Robbins, principal at Palador Inc., an enterprise mobility consulting firm based in Seattle.

Companies with a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policy have an easier time limiting the variables they have to control and secure with Apple iOS, Microsoft's Windows Phone or BlackBerry than they do with Android, said Adam Bookman, co-founder at Propelics Inc., a mobile application development and consulting shop in San Jose, Calif.

"With Android those choices are exponential," Bookman said.

The seemingly limitless choice of Android devices for consumers requires IT pros to make choices of their own when it comes to supporting the platform in a BYOD environment, Robbins said. Since most Android devices run version 2.3 or higher, IT can use that as a baseline to set a BYOD policy around. Employees who want access to the network and mobile management resources must have at least Android 2.3 installed on their device, Robbins said.

"That would certainly make life easier for IT in the short-term as they figure out how to support a range of platforms," he added. "It's better to take a device-agnostic mobile approach and concentrate on securing the apps and data because fragmentation isn't going away over the long term."

Android fragmentation factors

The primary factors driving fragmentation of the Android OS, according to industry watchers, are:

  • Agreements between device OEMs and wireless carriers to support OS updates only last for a specific number of months. The majority of Android devices only receive one OS update during their lifetime.
  • OEMs add a user interface customization to the Android SDK in an effort to distinguish themselves from other vendors. Also, many devices come in a range of screen sizes.
  • Each new release of the Android SDK has been significantly larger than the previous. Device OEMs only partition a certain amount for the OS. If the new version of Android, plus their customization skin, is larger than the amount of space partitioned, then OEMs cannot update to the new version of Android.

Android limitations lead to fragmentation

The Android Software Development Kit (SDK) has increased from 72 MB to 203 MB from versions 2.0 to 4.2, respectively. The inability to physically resize the partition containing the OS is one of the biggest reasons why fragmentation exists in the Android platform, said Lori Sylvia, executive vice president of marketing at Red Bend Software, a Waltham, Mass.-based company.

Red Bend's vRapidMobile is the technology behind firmware-over-the-air (FOTA) updates for many mobile device OEMs. The latest version allows OEMs to resize partitions over the air by taking extra space needed for the new OS version from the cache partition. The new feature does so without touching the space designated for the user's apps and data, although Sylvia could foresee Android OEMs allowing that to be a user option.

The ability to resize device partitions won't work for Android devices bought within the last few years, but vRapidMobile will support FOTA updates for future devices using the technology.

Red Bend hopes that by eliminating the partition size limitation of OS upgrades more OEMs and carriers will be inclined to support devices for a longer duration, Sylvia said.

However, even if the majority of OEMs push out timely firmware updates so that a majority of devices run the same OS version -- something IT pros would embrace -- there will always be form-factor and screen-size fragmentation to consider, Propelics' Bookman pointed out.

Further, the OEM customizations of Android aren't going away because that's the primary way Samsung, HTC and other OEMs distinguish themselves from one another, he added.

Google, for its part, has made several attempts to address the problem of fragmentation.

It launched the Android Update Alliance in 2011 as a joint agreement with OEM partners to support OS updates for at least 18 months after the release of a device. It also made Android's source code available to those partners earlier in the development process so OS updates would happen sooner, launched Google-branded hardware, and adjusted the Android SDK Terms of Service in January 2013 to limit OS forking.

Dig Deeper on Google Android operating system and devices

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

Has Android fragmentation hindered support?
Certificate handling of various devices, VPN support gaps, lack of consistent EAS policies, MDM support matrixes limit scalability.
support & SLA requirements is driving up cost & complexity
Android is not helping BYOD
Organizations do not need to support all versions of Android, nor is it recommended for companies moving to multi-OS environments. Decide on BYoD, create strong mobile policies, research what platforms (or versions of Android) can meet your policy requirements, find an MDM that meets requirements for platforms you'll support, train employees on safe usage, then allow them to connect to your network. Too many skip important steps.
As the article says - differing versions make it difficult to manage across handset and tablet makers. However Samsung's SAFE devices work well with most MDM solutions
Android fragmentation is the byproduct of strength, not a weakness or a problem in Android. The Android ecosystem is better because of the freedoms of use that the system provides. Android innovation is moving ahead quickly and there are variances along the way for sure; but what you get in innovation and advancement of the platform makes up for these problems by far. ...This is one very good reason as to why Android has been such a success. Instead of whining about it, we should celebrate it.

The very same is true for Linux in general, where individuals, private business, government, and research labs, leverage it as they wish and scale it to their needs as desired.

Unification and consolidation of Android and/or Linux would provide a far weaker, stagnant, and less innovative solution by far and would not meet the various needs of users and/or providers.
As the "support staffs" are specifically trained to do the same thing lots of times. sup[port is hindered by IT management and or the MBS's running the company, not developing the skills of the support staffs and never providing a "way up and out" for advancement.

As with anything, as the complexity of the environment increases, the qualifications of doing support, and development of in-house solutions increases proportionally. The BIGGEST block against Android (and other BYOD) are the entrenched Microsoft Zealots who want nothing that isn't from Redmond. This has been and continues to be the biggest roadblock to change and advancement in IT for the past 20 years.
Get over it; With freedom comes choice and new opportunities.

The simple solution here is for enterprise to not support all possible versions of Android.

Nobody believes that supporting BYOD for any possible device and software version is a must--that is plain silly. If you absolutely need a feature in a later version, then from enterprise only support that version and forward.

How does this concern differ from the current standpoint of most IT organizations to not support all past versions of their infamously expensive and restricted enterprise OS? Oh this is not a problem in that space because your single source provider is telling you what to do and when to do it while fleecing your business.
It makes it almost impossible to support all phones and tablets people are looking to use. The worst are the cheap units being sold - too many variations.
Yes, due many testing effort on certain kind of dispositives
How to deal with Malware
Long term support. Phone is expensive. Not only the manufacturer have ROI, we also have one.
We saw many different bugs even on the same version of Android on different models.
We used bugsense to identify them
One way to get around the OS fragmentation is to make as much of the BYOD security process utilize apps that run on different OS releases. Example, many hospitals use Tigertext for HIPAA secure texting to security and compliance over a very Andriod OS fragmented environment. Also, companies are starting to write thier own data security apps for their employees, which can run a all OS releases. Tigertext now has a secure texting API called TigerConnect that companies are intigrating into thier own data security apps, which I think is very telling in that companies are taking this option seriously.
Set up base policy, also depends on the security apps and languages to support the application working fine on other type of devices
My 'duh' moment for the day came from reading this. Of course you're going to get fragmentation when you have an open-source-esque product that a good portion of your staff wants to use to be more productive. I'm a self-confessed Mac and iPhone user, but I understand the freedom afforded Android users because of the OS. Trouble is there are so many devices that feature so many different builds that it's going to remain a problem for IT teams to address. I would hope for some streamlining, just to simplify the challenges and make our enterprises a bit more secure.