[w1ntermute]

Good to see someone (of relative authority) pushing back against the FUD spread by iOS fanboys, such as the likes of Marco Arment & co. Android development is not something to be afraid of, and thankfully a lot of developers are finally coming to that realization, and it seems that with the release of Android versions of previously iOS-only apps like Flipboard, Instagram, and Instapaper, the final vestiges of differences between the two markets have disappeared for users.

[g0atbutt]

I have to disagree. Marco recently laid out his (very rationale) reasons on why it took so long for Instapaper to hit Android. I encourage you to give it a read - http://www.marco.org/2012/06/06/instapaper-for-android.

Choice quote from the article: "Simply put, Instapaper needs to be on popular reading devices. That category now includes at least three 7” Android tablets, probably with more to come. I realized last winter that I needed to address this demand, but I couldn’t do it myself. "

[nl]

A lot of people see that as the worst form of hypocrisy.

Marco writes articles post with a headline "Why I hate Android"[1]. Then when it turns out that (despite his attitude) people are making money on Android he decided to jump on board.

[1] http://www.marco.org/2012/01/10/why-i-hate-android

[taligent]

Well those people are simply naive.

Many developers have hated the platforms they have developed on but do so because the platform allows them to make money.

It's worked this way since the beginning of industry i.e. decades.

[fpgeek]

> Many developers have hated the platforms they have developed on but do so because the platform allows them to make money.

The hate isn't the hypocrisy. Plenty of people, for example, hate Windows and develop for it without being hypocrites.

The hypocrisy is extensively claiming that the platform in question isn't profitable ("terrible development economics", "unlikely to recover those costs" [referring to development costs"), etc.), playing up issues like fragmentation and generally arguing in almost every way possible to other developers that you shouldn't be on this platform... and then turning around and jumping on board anyway.

In fact, given the timeframe Marco talked about (last winter), it is entirely possible he was publicly arguing against Android development while Instapaper for Android was being developed. I can understand why he'd do that from a business perspective: Marco wouldn't want to tip off competitors to his change in thinking (note that Readability launched on Android and ReadItLater had gone radio-silent before relaunching as Pocket during the period in question), but that doesn't make him less of a hypocrite.

[abraham]

The Nook and the Fire are "Android" devices not Android™ devices. While related and important they are not the Android ecosystem most people talk about.

[adambyrtek]

I would argue that this distinction is not that important from developers' point of view, as the same application can be made available on all "flavors" of Android.

[abraham]

It is important from a developers point of view because those devices don't get tested by Google for API/feature conformance and so potentially are more likely to have applications not run on them correctly.

[fpgeek]

Do you seriously think Amazon and B&N aren't internally running the publicly available Compatibility Test Suite (see: http://source.android.com/compatibility/cts-intro.html ) as part of their regular testing?

Given the wide variety of applications shared amongst the three markets (plus the successful installation of Google services including the Play Store on both), I think there's zero evidence that, from a developer's perspective, the Nook Color/Tablet and Kindle Fire are materially different from any Google-blessed Gingerbread-based tablet with the same specs, except that the Google-specific libraries and services are not installed.

I can understand compatibility worries about cheap, no-name non-Google-certified tablets, but that doesn't describe the Kindle Fire and Nook Color / Nook Tablet. The cheap, no-name tablets (and other devices) aren't a big part of the market outside the developing world. And the developing world is a whole different ball game for all sorts of reasons, not just Android device compatibility (e.g. the most significant competing platforms are Symbian and, arguably, SMS).

[taligent]

Right. Because everyone who dares criticise Android is an iOS fanboy.

The fact is that Google has handled the Android ecosystem poorly and reflects where their motivation lies. Microsoft for decades has shown that it is possible to support a wide variety of innovation on top of their core OS whilst still allowing updates to be made. People such as yourself who continue to make excuses for ineptitude do nobody any favours.

[georgemcbay]

"The fact is that Google has handled the Android ecosystem poorly and reflects where their motivation lies."

Google has handled the Android ecosystem neutrally, not poorly. It is the device makers and the carriers that are responsible for the situation you're talking about with updates.

It is in Google's interest for device makers to support updates to the latest Android release so long as the hardware is capable of supporting the newest versions (of course, limits to this sort of backward compatibility would always exist, just as they do in the iOS world).

[Karunamon]

>It is the device makers and the carriers that are responsible for the situation you're talking about with updates.

Google could have just as easily bargained for the same kind of terms that Apple gets on iOS devices with carriers. No pack-in garbage, no mucking about with the OS. If not with the G1, certainly with the later releases.

Their desire to have Android be "open" is also its greatest weakness.

[chrismsnz]

> Google could have just as easily bargained for the same kind of terms that Apple gets on iOS devices with carriers.

Right, and what about the hundreds of other manufacturers of Android phones?

[2muchcoffeeman]

I think Kuranamon is suggesting that they could have dropped the openness or prevented others from calling their phones "Android phones".

[Karunamon]

Exactly. As I said, the openness is also its greatest weakness. Fragmentation is still a huge issue (look at the average Market app for one star reviews of the format "Force Closes on $device")

I see what they were going for, but their execution frankly sucked.

[ZeroGravitas]

You appear to accusing Google of having different priorities from other platform vendors (the dreaded advertising perhaps? It's not clear) and of ineptitude in carrying out those priorities.

You can't really accuse them of both, either they were trying to copy Apple's business model and failed spectacularly, or they were following their own business model with great success. Personally I'd lean towards the latter, particularly as their own business model has found them providing search, video and maps by default to Apple's platform as well and getting map data in return.

(Also, one of Microsoft's biggest problems in recent times is... getting people to upgrade. This applies to the OS, the browser and Office. As a response they tried to move people to a model where they pay by subscription regardless of whether they upgrade or not, much like Google's advertising based model.)