[credo]

imo the "Code for Android first, and iPhone/iPad second" suggestion to "Apple developers" has very little merit for most Apple developers

For developers, it will make more sense to distinguish between ideology/opinions of bloggers and cold market realities.

For starters, revenue returns of Android apps are generally a small fraction of revenue returns for identical iPhone apps in spite of the fact that iPhone owners have a lot more apps to choose from. For another, the Android fragmentation problem makes life even more difficult for developers. As an example, when Twitter released their official Android Twitter app, only 27.3% of Android owners could even consider downloading it. The app wouldn't run on 82.7 of devices because of the fragmentation problem.

Now it does make sense for some apps to be released only on Android. For instance, if you think that your app may be rejected by Apple, it will make more sense to just create an Android app. If you're not comfortable with Objective-C, it makes sense to go with Android because Android apps are a lot easier to develop.

Btw If first-mover advantage is really the goal, Windows Phone 7 will be a much better option. However, many Android enthusiasts don't like Microsoft. So I suspect that they won't concede this as a great reason for Android developers to do Windows Phone 7 development first and the do Android second :)

[pyre]

> As an example, when Twitter released their official Android Twitter app, only 27.3% of Android owners could even consider downloading it. The app wouldn't run on 82.7 of devices because of the fragmentation problem.

Hopefully Twitter will get motivated enough to support Android 110%!

[SkyMarshal]

Hopefully Google and the Android kit makers will get motivated enough to standardize Android a bit more, enough to at least provide platform consistency across brand implementations.

Also, hopefully they do it in collaboration with the hardware manufacturers, instead of in spite of them.

[dagw]

I doubt it will happen. One of Android's big selling points for phone manufacturers was that they could use Android as a free and solid base to add their own unique additions to. There really is little interest from them to make Android phones generic and interchangeable. If the platforms are too consistent then there is no reason people won't replace their Samsung Android phone with an HTC Android phone next time they upgrade, and Samsung certainly doesn't want that.

[SkyMarshal]

All true, but it's also true that it's ultimately in all their best interests to build a strong app ecosystem for the platform as a necessary but not sufficient requisite for competing with Apple.

The individual hardware makers may not think that way, but Google certainly should be, and is in a position to frame that problem and take the lead in solving it.

[gte910h]

Additionally, handset makers have a contrary interest to keeping things updated. They literally make money when you decide you have to buy a new phone because your old one can't run the newest apps.

[theBobMcCormick]

The problem isn't platform consistency. From an app developer (or app purchaser I suppose) perspective there's a great deal of consistency between any Android phones running the same version of the Android OS. The problem is how many phones are not only running older versions of the Android OS, but even worse how many manufacturers are currently shipping phones running older versions of the OS.

[gte910h]

More likely, they'll wait until you all upgrade to 2.1 or 2.2.

Planned obsolescence is baked into the android ecosystem. Plan on buying a new andoid phone every 18 months to get all the new apps if you want to stay with the platform, it's all google is supporting (the newest stuff).

[louismg]

Sometimes ideologies and opinions are all we poor bloggers can bring to the table. :)

Yes, the revenue realities of today are true today. I am hoping that Google can work on the fragmentation issue and get that solved very soon, or at least made much more clear. Second, I think the Chrome Web Store will be a major help toward promoting the discovery and purchase of Android applications.

I know first-mover advantage has some weaknesses, but what I see is a growing user base with some needs. Where needs can be met, there is money to be made.

[theBobMcCormick]

You make it sound like Twitter won't work on some Android phones because of hardware differences, etc. Which is completely not true.

The Twitter app will work on any Android phone running the current version of Android (2.1) and above. It won't work on older versions of the OS. That's not so complicated or unusual is it?

[gte910h]

> If you're not comfortable with Objective-C, it makes sense to go with Android because Android apps are a lot easier to develop.

I disagree here. Unless you're a java developer, objective C apps are a lot easier to develop. If you're not, the iPhone tools blow away the Android ones. It's only third party toolkits like Air for Android (which is quite sexy, and about to be publicly available soon), etc, which makes android easier. Android development is possible, sure, but it's not easier, especially when you look at all the screen resolutions, OS versions, etc.

[crocowhile]

What made the twitter app work on only 27% of phones? I Doubt is the display resolution or the buttons configuration. Must be simply the OS version. In that case, it's quite a universal problem, one that apple is going to have too now that people have to deal with two OS versions and at least 4 devices (iphone 3g, iphone 4g, ipad, itouch).

A wise developer would just code something that would work on any version above 1.6

If I were making mobile apps, I'd probably make an iphone version and an android version.