I agree and actually profit from it. As a private developer I hate that I have to write Bugfixes for single devices/Android versions (just thinking of the Galaxy SI lagfix thing gets me goosebumbs) but in my professional life I am a software tester and we actually earn our money by offering our clients to have us test their apps on different devices/Android versions. As Dianne mentioned there are actually not _that_ many differences/ bugs, but they are real and they can get very expensive (again think lagfix).
Greetings from Zurich, Stephan Wiesner On 11 Jan., 23:31, Christopher Van Kirk <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with your assessment. > > Making software is a business. An investment. To reap maximum rewards on > that investment the product has to have as much reach as possible, > meaning the OP is absolutely on point about OS upgrades. Who is going to > spend 10k, 100k, 1m, etc, developing an app whose target market is less > than 1% of active installs? 4.0 won't be an attractive target for > developers until it commands at least 80% of the installed market, which > will likely take at least a year to occur, perhaps longer. > > Comparing handset differences with browser difference is just absurd. > How many browser versions are there? Five maybe six? An average Android > app has to deal with over 600 different devices today. That's a > difference of 100x. This number is also growing at an exponential rate, > so even if you can manage to test on all of those devices, in three > months you'll probably have to do the same number again. > > What you're apparently not appreciating is that unlike the PC/Mac world, > the Android world lacks strong compatibility standards and more > importantly, conformance testing. As a consequence, devices tend to have > niggling and chronic differences that in aggregate make for an > inconsistent and unstable feel for the platform. You really have to have > a very large operation or have a very unambitious app to make an app > with long reach in the Android world. > > By contrast, the Apple approach is that one size fits all. From a small > or independent developers perspective this really is preferable, because > you know if you test it and it works on one device it's going to work on > all of them, and there are millions of them out there. You simply don't > have that guarantee in Android. It's no accident that the most > profitable app market is to be found on Apple devices. > > Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Apple fan. But having spent considerable > time fighting with device peculiarities in the Android ecosystem instead > of adding features to my app, I find that I long for the simplicity that > the Apple ecosystem guarantees. > > On 10/28/2011 12:01 AM, Studio LFP wrote: > > > > > Eh, it's not that bad. > > > If you look at the history of developers, we're already use to having > > to deal with a lot worse fragmentation issues than Android. Anyone > > that's ever developed a website correctly knows that supporting the > > available web browsers is a lot more of a challenge than with Android > > versions. > > > Windows, Mac OSX, a ton of server technologies, databases, etc., they > > all have tons of different versions available to support. Most > > companies stick with older versions because it is what they have and > > it is working. When it comes to Android, I've been pleasantly > > surprised at the efforts Google has gone through to help manufacturers > > upgrade. Even though 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 are different, they aren't so > > much different that in most cases you can't treat them as 2.x. It > > seems to me that Android is more broken up in 1.x, 2.x, 3.x and now > > 4.x instead of the individual versions themselves. > > > I'd rather a little fragmentation in Android than for them to pull an > > Apple and everyone is the exact same, right down to the hardware > > level. Variety is something we need in the mobile market, not a one > > device fits all concept. > > > Steven > > Studio LFP > >http://www.studio-lfp.com > > > On Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:36:24 AM UTC-5, Greg Donald wrote: > > > http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans-visuali... > > > > <http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans-visuali...> > > > Wow.. I knew it was bad, but man. > > > "most app developers will end up targeting an ancient version of the > > OS in order to maximize market reach." > > > I totally agree.. It will literally be years before I will begin to > > care about the new 4.0. I'm still supporting devices running 2.1 and > > will be for some time to come. > > > -- > > Greg Donald > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Android Developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
