Only 36.2 percent of Android devices run Froyo

November 2, 2010 By Jeffrey Van Camp

Google will soon release Android 3.0, but 2.2 still hasn't reached a majority of users. Is the company fragmenting its OS?

Google is beginning to run into an updating issue. While the search company continues to release new updates to its Android operating system at a staggering pace (one every few months), its users are not adopting the software upgrades as quickly. As of Nov. 1, 92.1 percent of users have migrated away from Android 1.5, but far fewer are running 2.2 Froyo, Google’s current OS release, which was rolled out to devices in July and August.

Here are the stats (and pet names):

Android 1.5 (Cupcake) – 7.9 percent
Android 1.6 (Donut) – 15 percent
Android 2.1 (Eclair) – 40.8 percent
Android 2.2 (Froyo) – 36.2 percent

These numbers come directly from Google’s Android Developer resource blog and were gathered by testing the number of devices accessing the Android Market in a given period of time. The company also notes that .1 percent of devices are running obsolete versions older than 1.5. While this obsolete number is low, the take on Android 2.2 is sluggish for an operating system that is automatically updated from the web. 77 percent of users are running 2.1 or higher. This becomes a challenge when developers wish to use the enhanced API tools of newer Android releases. If a developer codes to Android 2.2, only 36.2 percent of Android users will be able to use it. With Android 3.0 Gingerbread already around the corner, this upgrade lag may get worse.

Would it be wise for Google to start naming its operating systems after more delicious treats? Perhaps the general public just isn’t interested in eclair and froyos. Hopefully gingerbread will prove more intriguing.

(Edit: Readers have pointed out that many carriers, like AT&T, and manufacturers have held back Google updates to add in their own code to each release. Poor updating by Google’s partners could be a major reason for the lag in adoption.)

Showing 27 comments

Alastair at 5:37pm 5th November 2010 What *is* striking is that fully 75% of Android phones are on v2.1+. Given contracts are typically two years these days, and that two years ago the G1 was still very much going strong as a new device, it's not surprising that about 25% of people are stuck on pre-v2.1. That and the fact that low-RAM devices like the G1 cope with it much better. Joe user doesn't really notice the difference between Eclair and Froyo, and the same is true of developers. Sure, there are some niceties, but the difference in API terms between them is pretty minimal. What you're saying here is that probably 90% of the phones that have the power to do so sensibly are already running a fairly consistent and recent version of Android. As a developer, it really doesn't feel as fragmented as these numbers would lead you to believe. (I've rooted a G1 and attempted to run Froyo (via Cyanogen mod), but it just doesn't run at an acceptable rate. I guess the device just doesn't have enough RAM. Older phones like that are always going to be stuck on 1.6.)
@eanbowman at 7:24am 3rd November 2010 LOL at the TIIIIIIIINY edit at the bottom admitting you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, if you changed that to read that MOST carriers are the ones holding back updates, you'd have it about correct. Especially here in Canada.
ZungHow at 7:01am 3rd November 2010 Wow, thats a pretty low number dude. Seriously. web-privacy.edu.tc
Steve the Pirate at 6:53am 3rd November 2010 The writer of this article appears not to understand that Users have almost not control of the Version of Android they can run on their device. This article should have been about how companies would rather sell you a new device with 2.2 on, rather than spend money and effort working out upgrades for the devices they have already sold.
Harry Adams at 5:30am 3rd November 2010 This is what happens when you have kids trying to write an OS. The place Google wins is in blog headlines. I find their products to be subpar for real use.
1. rob at 10:04am 3rd November 2010 hmmmmmm you obviously havent used many of their products
@karlhawkes at 5:22am 3rd November 2010 I'm stuck on 1.6 with a sony X10. Next time I will wise up, and only buy from a manfacture that has a proven track record of delivering updates early (HTC?) Eventaully the Market will solve this problem.
1. Greg at 12:00pm 3rd November 2010 I have an HTC Eris, less than a year old, and they aren't going to Froyo (although they did update to 2.1). It seems that writing third-party images is the only way to be reasonably sure to be able to stay up-to-date, and that's not something everybody wants to do.
@JeffreyVC at 4:27am 3rd November 2010 I would argue that there is a subset of power users who do put off updates until roots and hacks are available for a new version. However, you guys make a very good point that I did overlook while writing. The problem is partially the fact that Google lets carriers and manufacturers wait to offer updates, and almost no Android phones run the pure Google version of the OS.
Rich at 2:55am 3rd November 2010 As others have said, it's nothing to do with the end users. Mobile networks (3, Orange, Vodafone etc.) just aren't rolling out the updates to their customers for 2 reasons: 1. They take forever to 'brand' the update with their logos, shortcuts and other crap you don't need 2. They'd rather make your current phone seem obsolete so that you sign up for a new contract in order to get the latest phone with the latest software On top of that some older handsets e.g. HTC Hero apparently can't run Froyo (which we know is a lie) so people are stuck on 2.1....unless of course they 'go unofficial'.
Jean at 1:37am 3rd November 2010 I check every couple of days via Kies if there is an update for my Galaxy S. I always receive the same message telling me the phone is up to date. I know I can find unofficial releases on the net to update my phone, but that is not the route I want to take. After talking with friends who have Android phones (none of whom are running Froyo) and reading the comments here, there is but one conclusion to make, it is not the users who are not adopting Froyo; but rather the phone makers and service providers who are not supplying the update.
jbelkin at 11:45pm 2nd November 2010 Android buyers mostly buy it as default OS on a cheap smartphone contract (most android phones sell for $.01 after 2 weeks of release) so what do they care - as long as they have a few apps and the phone works ... and since every android OS and every phone UI's is different, it's not like learning this android will translate to the next one ... unlike iphone or even RIM, hardly anyone willingly choose android OS - it's just another symbian like OS.
1. Rob at 10:02am 3rd November 2010 Hardly I chose Android when being on the ios4/.1 on the iphone 3gs. I didnt choose it because it was cheap I chose it baecause I was sick of not having any control over my phone and of only being able to load content from one source, of having my formats restricted. People choose Android because they want a little more control of the OS oon their phone. That being said I think as some have mentioned that Android should impose hardware and soft ware restrictions, and regularly scheduled updates
Clinton Wasylishen at 11:35pm 2nd November 2010 I have Froyo for my Liquid E, and it's wicked... needs to be tweaked a bit (not an official release) but it is solid... and awesome :)
Amanda at 11:26pm 2nd November 2010 Tmobile hasnt sent an upgrade for my vibrant either.
Web Teevee at 11:23pm 2nd November 2010 I love Android! I hope there would be more apps f Pacquiao vs. Margarito Live Streaming --> http://bit.ly/Pacquiao-Margarito Free Encyclopedia --> http://bit.ly/free-encyclopedia
Reader at 9:33pm 2nd November 2010 I agree with the rest of the comments. It is not the public's fault that they Android is so fragmented, it is the manufacturers and cellular carriers. They fail to supply their customers with updated versions of android in a timely manner, if at all. Though, there is also the problem of manufacturers selling 'new' devices running old version of Android. While I think that having Android open source is good, I believe that google needs to start being more protective over Android. They could take an approach similar to how Microsoft is approaching Windows 7 mobile. I think Android should remain free, but Google should really impose hardware and update requirements and they should require that skins and other customizations can easily be disabled so that users can run stock android, if they so choose.
Andy at 7:41am 2nd November 2010 Whole heartedly agree. Same here in Ireland with Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 user's. Despite them complaining long and hard on the SE Forums, these users have still as yet to receive 2.1 Eclair and doesn't look like they are going to receive it anytime soon. Problem with carriers here is added to by the fact that they add their own UI and branding to the base Android OS before releasing.
kmc at 6:51am 2nd November 2010 It's the carriers holding the updates back. AT&T still hasn't released Froyo for it's devices!
tom at 6:51am 2nd November 2010 Froyo has not been offered for all Android phones - I am sure this is why your numbers are so low. What percent of Android phones can get Froyo?? I have a Hero and as far as I know Froyo is not available for it!
1. McCaffrey at 10:20am 2nd November 2010 Exactly. This article overlooks the truth that manufacturers and produces such as HT do not instantly release updates for their phones because they spend time revising UI overlays such as Sense to work with updated versions of Android.
cliff at 6:50am 2nd November 2010 It's not the public that isn't upgrading. It's the phones makers and or the providers. Get a clue.
1. dan at 8:42am 2nd November 2010 ditto
2. Alicia at 12:05am 3rd November 2010 I totally agree. I am using Samsung Galaxy Spica and samsung is not going to upgrade it to froyo. This is upsetting
sam at 6:48am 2nd November 2010 Don't forget that Samsung and Motorola are putting out devices with Proprietary drivers that can't be rooted. Locking the users into old versions even when the phones meet the specs to run new versions. I suspect using the market as a method of tracking versions is off because people on older versions probably already have all the apps they want and aren't accessing the market much because they can't use the newer apps.
rasqual at 6:45am 2nd November 2010 "its users are not adopting the software upgrades as quickly"? Good grief. As if most users have the power to do so in the first place. Consider AT&T, which isn't providing the updates in timely fashion. Is it them? Is it Samsung, behind them? Who knows? But the question here is whether the "users are not adopting . . . as quickly?" Please. Consider AT&T, again. When I check for upgrades on my phone, I regularly get a "communications error" (and this is not a network problem; everything else works splendidly). Then when I retry, the phone says I have to wait 24 hours to try again. So something on the CLIENT side is stalling access to their update system which, I presume, would be constantly flooded otherwise on their lame infrastructure. I'm quite sure they simply turn off their update ports most of the time. I frequent XDA Developers as much as the next guy, but I'm having more fun watching with the eyes of Joe Consumer -- who can hardly be held accountable for updates when THEY'RE NOT MADE AVAILABLE BY LAMERS LIKE AT&T.
Robert at 6:41am 2nd November 2010 This is the main reason I am hesitating on my Android phone. They seem to have not quite figured this whole upgrade thing out yet.