The alternative isn't for all these devices of different sizes and capabilities not to exist. The alternative is for them all the be running even more disparate, vendor-specific operating systems. We should be thankful for the degree of unification Android's success has brought.
One of the annoyances I've had with Android, from a new consumer's point of view, is that it's presented as this monolithic OS that's the same across every phone. But once you do the research, you find that it's really not. Except for the Nexus line, there really isn't a "Google Android" experience. When you buy an Android device, you're really buying HTC's, Samsung's, Amazon's or Motorola's Android. Every device has different capabilities. Some ship with different Google services out of the box, others ship with their own internal apps. Google's Android strategy is that every manufacturer can make their own Android shell, without placing any requirements on the vendors as to what version of Android they're using.
It's a great thing that there's all this choice for the devices. It's a great thing that Android allows this kind of freedom. But it's led to a lot of issues for Google and for developers.
The problem that Google has is that they've effectively lost control of Android. They can't force manufacturers to use the latest version of Android. So they're left with situations like this, where the vast majority of Android devices are running an old version of the OS, and will never be updated to the newest version, because the manufacturers just don't want to[1]. So the result is that they have to support around 4 different codelines at the same time(ICS, HC, Gingerbread, and Froyo).
It's a problem for developers because your display code might not look right on a new device with a weird screen resolution. Or you might need API calls that are only in 4.0, which would lock you out of 90% of the devices right now.
No, the alternative is for Google to exert control over the device manufacturers and state that if they're going to be using the Android OS, they need to support and update their devices to the latest version for at least 2 years after the phones are released.
[1] There is a good economic argument that patching phones that are 18 months old with 24 month contracts about to be up just doesn't make sense, but honestly, it comes down to that the manufacturers just aren't willing to do it.
"No, the alternative is for Google to exert control over the device manufacturers and state that if they're going to be using the Android OS, they need to support and update their devices to the latest version for at least 2 years after the phones are released."
You think that would cause the manufacturers to change their behavior in order to stay certified as Android compatible? I think that would lead the major manufacturers to fork Android, like Amazon has done for the Kindle Fire.
Unfortunately, I don't that any of the manufacturers would listen to that.
Ultimately, I think it's on Google's head to do this. I've said in previous posts that Google should have handled the Android trademark a lot like how Mozilla handles their trademarks. Android, the OS, is free to use(both as in Speech and Beer), but if you're going to make major changes(i.e. the standard services and applications, limit install privileges, etc.), then the manufacturer cannot use the Android trademarks in their advertising, and can only use a "Powered by Android" mark.
Manufacturers that comply with Google's requirement could brand their phone as a full Android phone.
'We define an "Android compatible" device as one that can run any application written by third-party developers using the Android SDK and NDK. We use this as a filter to separate devices that can participate in the Android app ecosystem, and those that cannot. Devices that are properly compatible can seek approval to use the Android trademark. Devices that are not compatible are merely derived from the Android source code and may not use the Android trademark.'
