Powerful SIP softphone apps
Ideal for individuals looking for a better SIP softphone experience.
- Lifetime Updates
- Access to 100+ New Features
- Award-winning end-to-end encryption
Android’s greatest strength, its openness and vast device diversity, has also created its most persistent challenge for developers: fragmentation. While Apple’s iOS universe is carefully curated, Android is free to roam across more than 20,000 device types.
This means every launch is met by confronting a maze of device-specific quirks, platform evolutions, and new compliance hurdles. And this challenge isn’t fading—it’s simply evolving.
These variations, often referred to as “device-specific behaviors,” require developers to write conditional code for specific devices, which adds time, complexity, and creates potential for bugs.
A comprehensive study by study by Dong et al revealed just how deep this challenge runs. Their analysis of over 20,000 apps across Google Play, App China, and Huawei AppGallery revealed that 21% of Google Play apps contain device-conditional code.
That number rockets to 70–77% for China-centric stores, where manufacturers like Huawei, Vivo, Xiaomi, and OPPO set their own rules for how Android should behave.
For any developer building at scale, it’s not a matter of if you’ll need device-specific workarounds, but how many.
These figures highlight how regional development priorities and market realities drive the need for customizations, particularly in countries where manufacturers like Huawei, Vivo, Xiaomi, and OPPO set their own rules for how Android should work.
This means the same app might behave unpredictably or even crash depending on the user’s device.
This disparity reveals important insights about regional development practices. Chinese developers tend to implement more extensive device-specific adaptations, likely due to the dominance of local manufacturers like Huawei, Xiaomi, OPPO, and Vivo in their market.
These manufacturers heavily customize Android’s open-source foundation, creating unique system behaviors that require special handling.
The researchers categorized these behaviors into 29 distinct types across three major categories, each serving different purposes:
The most fundamental set of problems relates to basic compatibility. While the original study cited now uncommon issues like memory leaks in system components, the current reality for developers is more nuanced and persistent.
In 2025, one of the most notable challenges involves integrating with the system’s native call UI, a process known as call integration, or more formally, the Connection Service API.
Nowhere is fragmentation more frustrating than in system-level integration. As Android’s official ConnectionService API, it is the recommended way for communications apps to present calls in the system’s native UI. On paper, it’s universal. In practice? Not so much.
Developers building apps that need to appear as incoming or outgoing calls in the system’s dialer face an unpredictable landscape. Some Chinese brands, most notably Vivo and OPPO, either block Connection Service integration entirely or present themselves as devices without telephony capabilities.
As a result, an app may not be able to display or manage calls in the native UI at all, despite being fully compliant elsewhere. Furthermore, compliance with platform APIs is necessary but not always sufficient. Each new Android version or OEM update can upend assumptions, requiring continuous adaptation.
Pro Tip: Teams often mitigate these issues with foreground services, custom permissions handling, and extensive device-specific QA. But there’s no substitute for direct, device-in-hand testing—especially for real-time communications.
Another example is certain Huawei devices running EMUI 5, which suffer memory leaks in their customized gesture management component, requiring developers to manually release references to prevent memory accumulation.
Camera functionality presents another challenge; some devices like the Lenovo X804F cannot reliably retrieve front camera IDs, while others have reversed photo preview orientations compared to standard Android implementations.
Even devices running a near-stock version of Android, such as Google’s Pixel series, are not immune. Google’s recent privacy enhancements, for example, prevent apps from accessing the microphone unless a visible activity (an app screen) is displayed. This requirement poses a unique obstacle for call integration, since the very nature of using the system’s native call UI means the app’s own interface is hidden at that critical moment.
Even seemingly simple features like photo storage paths vary between manufacturers. While most Android devices store screenshots in “/sdcard/Pictures/Screenshots”, Xiaomi devices use “/sdcard/DCIM/Screenshots”, forcing developers to implement brand-specific file retrieval logic.
Inconsistent screenshot or image paths across devices might seem minor, but they can break essential app features like media browsing or image upload.
These examples demonstrate that compatibility issues are not a relic of Android’s early days. They remain relevant, often changing in form rather than disappearing entirely. Developers must constantly adapt to shifting requirements and unexpected behaviors, even on devices that might seem “safe” because of their stock Android pedigree.
Another class of challenges arises from features introduced by manufacturers to differentiate their devices.
While the fragmentation of push notification services once posed a major hurdle, it has become far less significant in Western markets
Push notification services were once used to exemplify this challenge. While Google’s Firebase Cloud Messaging works globally, it’s inaccessible in regions like China, prompting manufacturers to create proprietary alternatives like Huawei Push Kit and Mi Push.
Now, the overwhelming majority of devices rely on Google’s Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) for push delivery. For most developers targeting the West, proprietary alternatives like Huawei Push Kit or Mi Push are now niche concerns.
However, aggressive power management strategies continue to create headaches, regardless of region. Many manufacturers, including Xiaomi, OPPO, and even Google itself, have implemented systems that quickly terminate background processes as soon as a user closes an app from the recent apps screen.
This approach can disrupt crucial features, such as push notifications and incoming VoIP calls, particularly on devices from brands like Xiaomi, forcing developers to instruct users on how to navigate often complicated permission settings in order to keep their apps functioning reliably. This is a significant blocker, as it creates a UX issue that requires user intervention to make the app function properly.
Android 16 requires developers to explicitly opt out if they do not want their apps running in “freeform mode,” a feature intended for desktop and foldable experiences. Based on past experience, this opt-out will likely become an enforced default in future releases, making it mandatory for apps to support freeform capabilities.
Real-World Lesson: Documentation and onboarding must include clear instructions for users to adjust power and notification settings—often with device-specific screenshots or videos. Even then, behavior can change with every OS or OEM update.
The next fragmentation frontier is large-screen and foldable devices. Android 16 (API 36) introduces a shift: by default, the system will ignore many previous restrictions on activity resizing and orientation for large screens, unless developers explicitly opt out. By Android 17, that opt-out disappears, making support for desktop-like and foldable experiences mandatory.
While Android provides solid APIs for managing these scenarios, every new form factor adds new surfaces for bugs—and new rounds of testing. The diversity of devices means QA and maintenance costs only rise as Android evolves.
This shift, while aiming to improve the user experience on new device types, will inevitably increase maintenance and QA complexity for developers, as they’ll need to ensure their apps work seamlessly across an even wider array of device configurations and usage scenarios.
Ideal for individuals looking for a better SIP softphone experience.
Android has shifted from being the “Wild West” to a tightly policed privacy regime. Scandals around apps accessing private data via undocumented system hooks have led Google to clamp down hard.
Scoped storage, mandatory for all new apps targeting Android 11+, makes file access far more complex. Even innocuous actions—like reading the Wi-Fi SSID—now require location permissions, privacy disclosures, and sometimes user approval of new permission types (such as NEARBY_WIFI_DEVICES in Android 13+).
While this protects users, it often penalizes legitimate use cases, forcing developers to jump through new hoops and sometimes rethink feature designs altogether.
Perhaps the most concerning discovery involves apps exploiting manufacturer customizations to access sensitive user data without permission. The research identified 33 aggressive apps, including some with millions of downloads, that abuse custom system properties to obtain user unresettable identifiers like IMEI numbers.
This exploitation works by accessing manufacturer-specific system properties such as “ro.meizu.hardware.imei1” or “ro.ril.miui.meid” that inadvertently expose hardware identifiers.
These properties require no permissions to access, effectively circumventing Android’s privacy protections. The researchers confirmed this vulnerability on real Meizu devices, where apps could retrieve IMEI numbers even on Android 11, despite Google’s strict prohibition of such access.
These behaviors can occur without user knowledge, compromising trust in the Android ecosystem, in some cases, even violating strict policy rules and failing to comply to GDPR standards and HIPAA rules.
While these practices expose real privacy risks, it’s important to recognize that Android has evolved. Google’s focus has shifted sharply from openness to enforcement. With recent versions, Android has made privacy restrictions so strict that even legitimate functionality is often a challenge to implement.
For example, since Android 11, Scoped Storage is mandatory, making file access significantly more complex than in the past. Once straightforward features—like retrieving the current Wi-Fi SSID—now require not only location permissions but also disclosure in Play Store privacy forms, even if the use case is entirely valid.
Rather than feeling insecure, many developers now see Android as overly locked down, with legitimate features caught in the crossfire of privacy hardening.
Google’s modularization push has accelerated OS updates for many devices, but there’s still a long tail of active Android versions in the wild. For most teams, this means supporting everything from Android 7 to the latest release.
A crucial challenge not fully covered in the original research is API-level fragmentation. While Google’s modularization efforts have accelerated OS updates for many devices, a long tail remains: developers still need to support a wide spread of Android versions, sometimes spanning from Android 7 to the latest release.
The reality? Multiple code paths for critical features. For instance, in our own Acrobits SDK, we maintain eight distinct audio routing strategies to cover the wild range of device and OS behaviors.
Audio device enumeration, Bluetooth support, and background task management all demand careful tailoring by API level and device family. There’s no abstraction library for some of these low-level gaps—deep platform knowledge is a must.
Supporting such a spectrum doesn’t just increase complexity; it demands ongoing testing, larger binaries, and constant vigilance for subtle new incompatibilities.
At the same time, Google’s Play policy increasingly forces the issue: every new app and update must target recent APIs, implement new features, and comply with evolving privacy and security mandates. Falling behind is no longer an option.
The study reveals that implementing device-specific behaviors is extraordinarily challenging for individual developers. Most apps managed to implement only 1-2 types of device-specific behaviors on average, reflecting the practical difficulties involved. Consequently, 83% of device-specific behaviors originate from third-party SDKs rather than developer-written code.
These SDKs fall into two categories: well-established platforms that include device-specific adaptations to ensure functionality (like Facebook’s SDK), and specialized SDKs designed specifically for device-specific challenges (like ShortcutBadger for home screen badges or AutoStarter for self-start permissions).
The researchers investigated manufacturer documentation and found it severely lacking. Samsung’s official documentation covered only 5 out of 22 relevant behaviors, while Xiaomi and OPPO performed slightly better with 9/18 and 10/17, respectively.
Critical information about compatibility fixes and system customizations was largely absent from official sources, forcing developers to seek scattered information across technical forums, GitHub issues, and Stack Overflow discussions. Furthermore, searching unofficial sources like the ones mentioned or even consulting AI (unofficial sources) may pose other hidden issues.
This research illuminates several critical issues affecting the Android ecosystem:
For Developers: The findings suggest many apps may be experiencing undiagnosed compatibility issues or missing opportunities to leverage manufacturer-specific features. Developers need better awareness of these challenges and more comprehensive resources for addressing them.
For Manufacturers: The study highlights the need for improved documentation and more careful consideration of security implications during system customization. The privacy vulnerabilities discovered demonstrate how customizations can inadvertently undermine Android’s security model.
For Users: The prevalence of privacy-violating behaviors in popular apps underscores the importance of manufacturer responsibility in maintaining system security. Users may be unknowingly exposed to unauthorized data collection through these system-level vulnerabilities.
To their credit, Google has made real progress. The Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) and Vendor Test Suite (VTS) give the ecosystem some guardrails. But the reality is that Android remains less tightly controlled than Apple’s ecosystem. OEMs have significant freedom, which means developer headaches persist—albeit in new forms.
For those in real-time communications, even Google’s advanced cloud testing tools (like Firebase Test Lab) aren’t a cure-all. Testing with actual devices—touch, display, mic, and camera in hand—remains critical for catching subtle issues that automation can’t spot.
While the research highlights the widespread challenges of device-specific behaviors, the Acrobits Cloud Softphone app represents our innovative approach to tackling Android fragmentation through a unified framework approach.
Rather than building separate apps for different manufacturers or markets, Acrobits has created a single, highly customizable softphone application that intelligently adapts to the unique characteristics of different Android devices. This framework-based solution serves 160 million users across 78 countries, demonstrating the viability of addressing device-specific challenges at scale.
Instead of requiring every telecommunications provider or enterprise to independently solve device-specific audio, networking, and system integration challenges, Acrobits consolidates this expertise into a single, continuously updated platform called Cloud Softphone.
With users spanning 78 countries, the platform has encountered and solved compatibility issues across an enormous range of devices, manufacturers, and regional variations, from mainstream Samsung and Huawei devices to specialized regional brands.
The framework allows deep customization for different operators and use cases while maintaining a unified codebase that can intelligently handle manufacturer-specific behaviors like audio routing, power management, and push notification adaptations.
Also, no matter whether your SIP backend is Asterisk-based, FreeSwitch, NetSapiens, MetaSwitch, or something completely different, no matter what Android device is being used, there will be no issues
As new devices and Android versions emerge, the centralized platform can rapidly implement and distribute device-specific fixes to all users, rather than requiring individual developers to discover and implement solutions independently.
This approach effectively transforms device-specific behavior management from a distributed problem, where thousands of developers must individually solve the same compatibility issues, into a centralized solution where specialized expertise can be leveraged at scale.
Create a custom white-label softphone with Cloud Softphone.
As Android continues to evolve and manufacturers push the boundaries of customization, device-specific behaviors will likely become even more prevalent. The research suggests several areas for improvement, and emerging solutions like Acrobits’ framework approach point toward potential pathways:
Framework-Based Solutions: The success of platforms like Acrobits Cloud Softphone demonstrates how centralized frameworks can effectively manage device-specific complexities while serving millions of users globally. This model could inspire similar approaches in other app categories.
Manufacturer Responsibility: Manufacturers should prioritize comprehensive documentation that covers not just new features but also compatibility considerations and security implications. They must also ensure that system customizations don’t inadvertently create new attack vectors for privacy violations.
Community Resource Development: The development community needs better tools and resources for identifying and implementing device-specific behaviors. The current reliance on scattered, informal information sources creates unnecessary barriers to proper implementation.
Enhanced Security Measures: Most critically, the Android ecosystem needs stronger mechanisms to prevent the kind of privacy violations identified in this study. Whether through improved permission models, better system property access controls, or enhanced verification processes for app stores, protecting user privacy must remain paramount.
Android fragmentation isn’t going away—it’s just evolving. Each year brings new APIs, new privacy and policy rules, and new device form factors. The winning teams are those who build continuous adaptation and deep device knowledge into their process, leverage real hardware for testing, and communicate transparently with users about potential limitations.
For developers and product leaders, Android’s diversity is both its curse and its competitive advantage. Mastering that complexity is what separates robust, trusted apps from the rest.
Create a custom white-label softphone with Cloud Softphone.
The Customer Acquisition Challenge In today’s digital marketplace, ESIM providers face an increasingly difficult challenge when it comes to customer acquisition. As the industry matures, competition for keywords in digital advertising has intensified dramatically, resulting in higher customer acquisition costs across the board. Major players and emerging startups alike find themselves trapped in bidding wars […]
With more businesses relying on softphones for internal and external communication, the security of your VoIP system has never been more critical. As VoIP adoption grows, so do threats like VoIP hacks, toll fraud, and denial-of-service attacks, putting your business communications and data at risk. To stay protected, it’s essential to implement tools like SBCs […]
Communication is the heart of any business, including working with people who aren’t in the office or even the same region. Whether this means remote workers, suppliers, clients, or customers — your business relies on phone systems that work without issue. Two types of softswitches are at the heart of reliable communication but often go […]
Softswitches play an important role in all forms of communications, both personally and professionally. But what is a softswitch exactly? A softswitch is a component of a software-defined network (SDN) that helps connect different technologies, ensure call quality, and gather any necessary metrics by establishing, maintaining, routing, and terminating sessions in VoIP networks. However, without […]
