[jreck]

I'm on the Android team and no, we don't. The current spec workstations are 128GB RAM, 1TB SSD, and 2x Xeon E5-2690 v4. But there's still a lot of the older 64GB & 96GB workstations in use as well.

The low clock speed of the Xeons (plus NUMA) means that for most things the machine isn't actually that fast, though, unless you can put the all the cores to use.

[esrauch]

I don't think that really refutes the point, the median public user of Android Studio is probably closer to 16GB of ram right? With a nontrivial percentage of people with 8GB? So you're still talking about an order of magnitude more ram than those people.

[tauntz]

Median 16GB? No way from my experience with dev agencies - most are on 8GB, some on 16GB, some on 4GB. I think I've only seen one Android dev with 32GB, ever.

[IA21]

Correct. There's a lot of Android devs from south asian countries (India, Pakistan) too which tend to use cheap machine with 4-8 gigs of RAM.

[jreck]

Quite a few of us run Android Studio on 16GB laptops as well and it works fine there, too. It doesn't seem to be particularly RAM hungry.

[Joeri]

I’ve never used a machine with more than 32 gb of ram. I suspect if one did a survey the average android app developer is on an 8 gb dual core laptop.

[ng12]

Wow, I thought 256GB was a typo.

I don't think I've ever used a machine with more than 32GB.

[pjmlp]

Really?!? No wonder that Android Studio is so sluggish when compared with the former Eclipse tooling.

In many parts of the world having access to a 8 GB and SSD drives is still considered a luxury.

[foobaw]

I wasn't on the Android development team but rather I was in management, but my colleague was and that's the information I got when I tried using his workstation (he specifically works on Android framework). I actually never checked myself so that's my mistake, so I apologize if I am spreading misinformation.