[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).