I'm starting to get seriously worried about the fate of Android, the open-source smartphone OS that was supposed to bring democracy, uniformity, and competition to the mobile world. Instead, it's just bringing a lot of vaporware.

Android was supposed to appear on dozens of different devices from a bunch of different manufacturers. It was supposed to be more flexible than RIM's BlackBerry OS, more widely available than Apple's OS X, and less expensive than Microsoft's Windows Mobile.

But the Android pipeline seems terminally clogged. Six months after T-Mobile released the G1, there's a grand total of one more Android phone available: the HTC Magic, which looks like a G1 with the keyboard snapped off. That's not about to burn up the marketplace.

Android seems to be a perfect example of something that looks great on paper. An open-source, customizable, Linux-based OS with an app store and Google's backing? Sign me up. But to actually build devices, you need a solid SDK, a clear idea of Google's role, and a development ecosystem that's at least as cozy as Windows Mobile's.

Industry insiders have told me that Android makes better theory than practice. The SDK started out spotty, I've heard, and Google has taken a while to decide what its role should be in product development.

Google has just spun out the Android 1.5 SDK, which includes support for soft keyboards, speech recognition, and third-party widgets on the home screen. None of those features are game-changing blockbusters, so Android's strengths remain the same: It's meant to be cheaper, more customizable, and more flexible than other smartphone OSs.

If Android is so cheap and so customizable, why isn't anyone releasing Android phones? Google's hardware partners keep making polite noises, but none of them are showing off hot, upcoming Android devices. Huawei "showed" one in February that wouldn't turn on. Sony Ericsson has admitted that it has punted its Android phones off into the future. Motorola killed speculation last week that it was building an Android-powered set-top box.

Android's customizability was supposed to appeal to wireless carriers, but most carriers seem unimpressed. Verizon proclaimed support for Android in 2007 and never followed up. AT&T says it's still mulling it over. Sprint is focused on the Palm Pre, for now. That's a pretty weak show of support.

Android's proponents, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, now seem to be turning their attention to netbooks. Android on netbooks will be a giant stink bomb, because the OS combines the unfamiliarity of Linux with a total lack of desktop-class productivity applications. Even mainstream desktop Linux distros failed on netbooks, replaced by Windows XP because PC consumers wanted a more familiar user experience. Android, without even a desktop-class Web browser available, will fail even more quickly.

I understand that Android is designed to encourage cloud computing, but as long as 3G networks remain spotty, expensive, and data-capped, netbook owners are going to want to do a lot of work off-line. An OS that doesn't match Windows XP in browser and application capabilities is a nonstarter.

Mobile market expert Tim Bajarin seems to agree with me. Android's "base code is in no shape to be used on netbooks or laptops," though it could be whipped into shape by early 2010, he wrote in .

Google's supporters are now trying to toss the OS at other product categories, like set-top boxes and cars. But versions of Android for those devices would have to be so heavily customized that they'd be unrecognizable to consumers and would probably break compatibility with at least some third-party programs.

A big part of Android's problem seems to be that it doesn't have a real champion. Google's cheerleading for its own OS has been on again, off again at best: It's nothing compared with the relentless drumbeats of marketing that come from Palm, RIM, Apple, and Microsoft. If Android is to succeed, Google needs to be out there pushing it, promoting software development, running conferences, and reminding consumers why it's better than more established offerings. The company hasn't been doing that.

For Google's hardware partners, Android plays second or third fiddle. HTC does most of its business with Windows Mobile. LG just made a major commitment to Microsoft as well. Samsung is willing to try everything and see what works, which means it loathes having to play favorites. And you just heard about Sony Ericsson and Motorola.

This summer, mobile market watchers will be focusing on the Palm Pre, the new iPhone, and potentially some new BlackBerrys. Android has one last chance: It can wow us this fall. The CTIA Fall trade show in October needs to include a full-bore assault of Android models from multiple manufacturers, in multiple form factors. If that doesn't happen, we'll just have to toss Android into the big pile of Linux distributions that tried to breach the consumer market and failed.