Is Android One success or failure?

According to a report by Economic Times,

“Google Gears, Google Wave, Nexus Q and of course Google Glass. Is it time to add Android One to the list? Having been hailed as a significant advance in the march towards global domination by Google’s phone operating system, Android One may have to be added to the list of interesting stuff that has not really worked.

Google’s first set of phone making partners — Micromax, Karbonn and Spice — have no developmental roadmap for the platform’s next batch of devices. Some are clearing existing stocks at discounts, executives told ET. Intex, Lava and Xolo, which were to join the above three, no longer seem keen, leading some to question whether the search giant is planning to drop the Android One project altogether.”

Android One was launched in September 2014 as OEM’s failed to provide regular updates to its users. This was initially targeted at low cost hardware phones with Google taking care of all the requirements for updating the firmware including the data charges incurred for over the air updates.

It is Android’s fragmentation problem that forced Google to go with the Android One initiative. There are several reasons that fuel fragmentation:

· OEM’s were unable to provide updates as they are operating on a very thin margin.

· These low cost hardwares are not capable of running the latest Android OS updates.

· Each of these OEMs’ make hundreds of different models every year and updating each of them is a very time consuming and costly affair.

· Markets like India are still very price conservative and data prices in these markets are quite high. This may result in most users not opting for updates.

Solving these problems presents an untapped market. Android One was created as a solution to all these problems. But is the attempt successful? No, says data.

Close to 800,000 Android One units were shipped until May 2015, since its launch in September last year. However, this is only about a third of the sub $100 smartphones sent to India just in January — March 2015. Pundits are very vocal about the failure of Android One because it couldn’t sell much; and this is a statistic quite cited.

These are my understanding about the failure:

1. OEMs’ are not willing to forfeit their ability to customize the OS. They don’t want to be controlled completely by Google. They do not have any part in the design process. Both hardware and software are under the control of Google. As such, OEMs’ are left with few options to differentiate themselves from others.

2. These phones were available only in online sales. The income group at whom this is targeted may not be as tech savvy as to purchase their phones online. They may prefer buying from the local brick and mortar stores.

3. There isn’t any significant difference between Android One phones and other Android devices. What is the difference between a Micromax Canvas A1 that’s runs on Android One and a Moto E which runs on regular Android?

4. People are not much concerned about the Android version running on their phone; perhaps a fraction of the sales are decided on this, but for most, it may not matter. If the OS is not very old, it can run almost all apps so this may not be a deciding factor for many users. In general, hardware is the deciding component on which Android phone to buy.

Therefore thinking in terms of sales, Android One is a failure. But in a broader perspective, it has had an impact on OEMs’ to provide more updates. Speaking from my own experience, this has fueled more updates to my current phone, Moto G. I’ve been using my Moto G for the last one year. When I bought it in March last year, it was running on Jellybean. Until now, I’ve got two updates and it is running on Android Lollipop now. I wonder how Motorola can afford to give this kind of service when the margin they are making per device is very thin.

This is where we understand the Google strategy. We directly only see one side of it, when in reality it is double edged, the other side hidden from view. Although Android One failed to give updates directly to its customers, it has succeeded in making OEMs’ provide more updates.

Sengupta, who oversees product strategy for Android One, said in an interview with ET,

“When Android One was launched, nobody was offering or talking about updates or OTA (over-the-air) software updates. But now, you will find that most OEMs’ and vendors alike are talking about Lollipop, and updates to the latest Lollipop. So we are happy with the kind of change that we’ve been able to bring about in the whole ecosystem.”

However, as a product the scope od Android One is quite limited. According to Sengupta, Google is very much committed towards Android One.

“No, we are not backing away from the program. We are very much committed to it. Android One is now in seven countries. Overall, we continue to work with OEMs’ across the board; local and large OEMs’ for bringing Android One’s value proposition to many more markets. We are also thinking about specific phones for specific markets. We think of ourselves as more of a catalyst to the ecosystem. Android One is a very small part of Android which Google pushes.”

But I am still skeptical.

One of the main reasons as discussed is the unwillingness of OEMs. They are not willing to adapt to the non-customizable part of Android One phones.

In an interview with foundingfuel.com, Rahul Sharma of Micromax said,

“Smartphone chipsets today are from Qualcomm and the operating system from Google. All the data goes straight to Google. What do we have? Even small things like — when I am typing an SMS, why does an incoming call take up the whole screen — I cant even control those. Why should it be like that? That is when we realized we needed to take control of our software and not send our customers to Google.”

These local manufacturers like Micromax may have joined the program due to sheer pressure from the mighty Google, hoping also that they could use Android One as a differentiating factor against the likes of Samsung and others and help them propel sales of their units. But when they have no control over it, why would they stay in?

Maybe in future Google can coax some ambitious local players to join them in building Android One phones.