on Windows, how many companies skin the start menu or modify the task manager to function completely different from stock or change taskbar icons like the wifi or volume icon? how many companies add their own block of UNINSTALLABLE apps to Windows?
it's not an even comparison, it's not even a close comparison.
Did you read my post thoroughly? I was talking about Android fragmentation (which seemingly now means being available on 1000's of devices - not just OS version) is not a major problem for DEVELOPERS. First of all because being on 1000's of different devices of different shapes and sizes is not fragmentation it's device diversity. Skins have no impact on developers. Touchwiz, Sense, whatever. You don't need to program your app to take into account the skin, apps that follow the new design guidelines such as Gmail will look good on any device. How the wi-fi icon, task manager or volume icon look is of no real consequence to a developer either. If a developer wants to be on 90% + of Android devices they simply need to target 2.2 and up. The same way If I'm a windows developer I might want to program my app to work on XP and up to reach 90% + of the market - But developers don't complain that they have to write for XP, Vista and Windows 7 (and soon Windows 8) and the majority of customers don't upgrade their windows version from the one they originally got with their computer. There have been a couple of articles deliberately written to mislead people into thinking that Android is very difficult to program for due to the thousands of devices available, different form factors, cpu's & gpu's and it is fud. Total fud designed to garner hits and confirm pre existing bias. You write your app using the guidelines to accommodate different screen sizes, follow the api's for the versions of Android you want to target and you'll be fine. Uninstallable apps have nothing to do with developer issues, you are talking about the end customer which is not something I was even referring to. Yes, it would be nice to have every android phone on the same version , but that doesn't necessarily hurt developers it just means that they have to make a decision about which versions of android they want to support. Don't want to support XP? No one is making you. Don't want to support Vista? similar.
Now if you want to talk about the end user that is a different story. But lets be clear. You and I are not in the majority. We are the minority. It is my job to manage a team who sell mobile phones for a living. Do you know how many customers have ever complained to me about not getting the latest version of Android? None. Do you know how many customers have complained that there are apps on their phone that can't be uninstalled? <1% Do you know how many customers even ask me what version of Android runs on their phone at the point of purchase? <1%. For those of us who are tech enthusiasts and live in threads like these, The Verge, and Android blogs, this stuff is all super important. But for the overwhelming majority? it's not the case. It's not that I'm defending it, or saying it's excusable but when you spend your time on tech blogs you tend to think of these issues as being massive and when you get out in the real world and engage with normal people, (the vast majority of whom have never heard of Engadget or Gizmodo) you quickly find out they don't know their Honeycomb from their Gingerbread, or even their Ice Cream Sandwich! They might have heard of it vaguely but have no idea what it means. They don't expect updates. Frankly, most of them don't even know how to update! And this is the majority, it is we who are the minority, but we can't see it because we live in this stuff. Believe me I am one of those who would get pissed off If I didn't have the latest version of Android, which is why I only get Nexus devices (sorry Verizon owners). If you are an Android buff and getting the latest version is important to you, you will know to buy a Nexus anyway, unless of course you can't afford one.
Anyway, end of.