Slate reposted an article that presented an analysis of income disparity and developer support between apple (iOS) and Android.
One question presented to be answered was:
Android has about an 80 percent market share in some areas of the world. "Android is the dominant platform of the next decade. Why aren't designers paying it more attention?" Bowles asked.
By using a site called mapbox the author attempted to make the point that developers are less interested in Android because Android users tend to have lower incomes.
As a developer do we really look at these types of issues when making decisions regarding what or where we code? Rather, do we make decisions based on familiarity of coding environment and topic? Jane knows Objective C so she codes for iOS while Bob knows Java so he codes for Android. The general view is that the theory is just hokem, but the more interesting result of the Business Insider article was learning about Mapbox.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday April 25 2014, @11:22PM
Developing at the pleasure of the king rarely ends well for anyone but the king. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by goody on Saturday April 26 2014, @12:28AM
Which king, Apple or Google?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday April 26 2014, @12:40AM
One of these requires you to have your applications "approved", one doesn't. If you can't load arbitrary applications on a platform, you don't own it.
(Score: 1) by Teckla on Saturday April 26 2014, @12:27PM
I agree with your concerns, but in my admittedly anecdotal experience, non-technical people prefer the safety of applications that are pre-vetted by the platform owner.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Friday April 25 2014, @11:36PM
Disclaimer: I am not an Android or iOS "developer", though I have done work for a client on both platforms.
When I develop software for clients, or when trying to develop something that I will later try to sell (to existing or new clients) I take the market and the price point into consideration. If it's not going to be worth my time or trouble I should really focus on something else. But ...
... when it comes to developing apps that will sell for under $5 I think ignoring the biggest market is not a smart. Cheap apps are going to be bought by anyone who believes that they are worth the low cost no matter what platform they are on. If iOS users buy more apps, but the Android market is so much bigger, then Android may actually be a larger revenue stream.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Saturday April 26 2014, @11:47AM
The biggest market by population, or the biggest market by gross amount?
By population then, but you forgot a very important point, Android users seem to take pride in NOT SPENDING A CENT on apps, at all. Not a very use "market" if no one is paying, uh?
(Score: 2) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday April 26 2014, @01:03PM
No one paying? Isn't that just a tad bit of an overly broad generalization? The percentage of Android users who are buying apps may be smaller, but it number of Android users buying apps is not small.
(Score: 2) by khchung on Sunday April 27 2014, @02:23AM
It is not small, but yet the gross sales of Android platform is still behind that of iOS platform, even though it has a bigger portion of users. It goes back to the point - developers should target the largest market - which would be iOS if you go by gross sales.
And more importantly, see this poll and the comments (even though it was in the other site): http://slashdot.org/poll/2735 [slashdot.org] See the amount of derision at the idea of paying for apps? E.g. "If it's not free, it's not for me!" got modded +5 Informative. These people bought a computing device in the range of $200-$600, and won't spend more than $10 last year for its software?!
The problem for app developers who hoped to make some money is that a (vocal) portion of Android users are against the very idea of paying for apps! And they take pride in not spending money on apps. How are you going to sell to a market of people that don't want to pay?
People working in computers 30 years ago may remember this situation, many companies who bought PCs in the workplace never budgeted for the software! They thought they just spent $thousands for the machines, why should they spend another dime? But the usual experts would say they should budget just as much for software as they did for hardware.
So what did software companies do? Did they target the "largest market (by population)" who didn't budget any money for software? NO! Those that survived wrote expensive software for the small portion of companies that were willing to pay, at least until the time the attitude of most companies changed and made budgets for software.
Until the attitude of a significant portion of Android users change and become more willing to spend money on apps, we can't expect apps developers to target the Android platform as the primary platform.
(Score: 2) by Horse With Stripes on Sunday April 27 2014, @11:50AM
Well, if all the apps that were available for iOS were available for Android, would the overall sales for Android go up? I think so.
What it comes down to is knowing where your product fits into your market. If the Android market is a good fit for your app then you have an Android version.
The bigger question with today's apps is: what is the disparity in in-app purchases between platforms? If your app relies on in-app purchases and the Android market has a very low percentage of in-app purchasers, then either you rethink your approach for Android or you don't go into the Android market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 21 2014, @07:30PM
QaaNrP http://www.qs3pe5zgdxc9iovktapt2dbyppkmkqfz.com/ [qs3pe5zgdx...kmkqfz.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Saturday April 26 2014, @12:24AM
Follow the money.
Better still, follow those with the money.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sl4shd0rk on Saturday April 26 2014, @01:42AM
You could also argue that Android users tend to be more technically savvy and innovative than iOS users. I know a lot of people who choose Android over iOS for it's "hackability". These guys get a real charge out of rooting the device and hacking the crap out of it. I know a lot of iOS users who purchase Apple stuff simply for the purpose of "fitting in". As long as we are stereotyping, let's also mention you will never see an iOS device hanging by it's USB port (oh wait, there ain't one) to some Rube Goldberg contraption that performs some commendable feat of creativity for the sake of sheer amusement. Why? Becuase that's not the way Steve wanted you to do it; it's not "the way Apple does things".
The iOS model is stereotypically based on spending a premium purchasing an already made product constructed out of brushed aluminum and polished acrylic, which performs the same mundane task as a $20 Rosewill widget from Newegg. At the end of the day however, the stereotypical iOS crowd feels they have a superior product based on the principle of "look and feel" rather than rational logic of usability, form or function.
Granted there is plenty to be garnered from both platforms which could be "mashed" into a superior system, but on their own, both system leave much to be desired. Talking down to Android users like they are some kind of second class scum is just a symptom of a bigger social problem at larger scale.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hamsterdan on Saturday April 26 2014, @02:12AM
"you will never see an iOS device hanging by it's USB port (oh wait, there ain't one) to some Rube Goldberg contraption that performs some commendable feat of creativity for the sake of sheer amusement. Why? Becuase that's not the way Steve wanted you to do it; it's not "the way Apple does things"."
And yet people used to interface about anything with Apple ][s (a teacher of mine used 35mm film rolls with switches to build a chronometer for school olympics). That's the difference between old Apple (Woz) and modern Apple (Jobs and after). They gave you the machine's schematics when you bought one, quite different than today...
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Saturday April 26 2014, @09:28AM
Translation: Apple already lubed up the arse holes of iOS users, so they are more likely to just accept further arse-rape on expensive but basic accessories like cables and apps.
This is a well understood phenomenon. Once a person has bought in to an expensive product they are more likely accept higher prices on other stuff related to it, even if there is no reason why that other stuff should also be expensive.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:55PM
Right. So you're allowed to be a happy user of your chosen smartphone, but people who chose something else must be irrational arse-rape victims.
Sucked many Android cocks lately? /s
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Saturday April 26 2014, @03:52PM
Hmm. Talking down is only verboten if it's to people who share you particular preference, it appears.
You don't know any such iOS users. That's simply how you choose to misrepresent them. You're a hypocrite.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26 2014, @10:27AM
I'm an Android programmer who got into it because I knew Java. I keep trying to get out, but Android programmers are rare compared to iOS and people keep wanting me to do it.
You always see announcements about a company releasing an iOS app and saying an Android app is coming later. That's because Android is 100x harder to develop for. Given the marginal nature of the app world, which has more supply than demand as it is and almost zero chance of making a successful app, I can't blame companies that give up on Android or don't bother in the first place. Android is low-level (it's like assembler if iOS is Visual Basic - you have to write a lot of code to do something simple in Android), difficult, over-engineered, mind-bending with asynchronous behavior (I think half of all Android code is checking to see if objects are null because you never know if they're available or not), and has a lot of permanent-beta weird design decisions that make life difficult. From a platform standpoint, about all that Android has going for it is that it's free.
I don't know how many programmers are out there who can write non-trivial Android apps. You have to specialize in it and learn its quirks, and I don't see a lot of reasons to do that since any app idea you can come up with already has a dozen free apps that do the same thing, or would take more development time and effort than it would ever earn in revenues.
The recipe for success with Android is a company needing an app to either access some kind of content they own, or collect data in the field on an Android device. If you're a good Android developer and get involved with this kind of thing, you'll do okay.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26 2014, @10:31AM
Oh, and I forgot one other thing. Android is in a constant state of churn. Pick an API level that has broad device support, and you can't use new features. All that Android 1 and 2 code you wrote? Scrap it and use the new fragment APIs. Like a new feature? Sorry, it's in a point release of Android 4 and you can't use it unless you want to either (1) cut off all previous point releases and lose your user base, or (2) write code twice to do the same thing with and without the feature.
Will Android settle down? Android 5 is supposed to have an overhauled UI - wow, that's just what Android needs, more churn.
Google can afford to hire programmers to write its core apps (music, store, etc) and rewrite them every time they iterate more Android churn. Not everyone is in that position. Frustrating!
(Score: 1) by mrMagoo on Saturday April 26 2014, @12:25PM
Thanks for that relevant, fact-based response, without the usual platform jingoism.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." -Originally attributed to Nasrudin