4 ms·

I think you're right. Or at least, they're not devoting a certain kind of talent to Android. Look at Google's efforts on web frontend - GWT, Polymer, Angular 1

by m_fayer 10y ago

I think you're right. Or at least, they're not devoting a certain kind of talent to Android. Look at Google's efforts on web frontend - GWT, Polymer, Angular 1/2, embracing TypeScript, RxJS, and so on. In other words, they've devoted significant resources to high-level application patterns, emerging paradigms, and in general - improving developer experience. The Chrome devtools are another example. On Android, not only is their policy to "remain neutral" on architecture and paradigms, but they don't even bother to update the platform enough to let the community take on the architectural work. The tooling is 1 step forward 2 steps back, new language features (or languages!) do not seem to be a priority, fixing fundamental design errors (multidex) is also not a priority, things like databinding are trotted out and then stagnate, and so on. The only conclusion I'm left to draw is that Android is the new Windows. Why should Google care about developer experience on Android when it owns 70% of the market.

digi_owl 10y ago
I wonder how much that has to do with Android originating from outside Google. Never mind that Google may well be Apple's biggest hardware customer (the Chromebook Pixel seems to have been an attempt at getting employees off their Macbook addiction). There seems to have been something of a civil war right around the launch of Android Honeycomb/3.0, as that was also when Chromebooks happened. All of a sudden you had two platforms, both angling for "landscape" devices.
- m_fayer 10y ago
  It's been over a decade and over 10 major releases since Google acquired Android. If they still haven't managed to completely absorb it, culturally and technically, then I've underestimated just how dysfunctional Google is.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Rubin may have been a big reason. I seem to recall that he was the one that insisted that Android was for phones, and thus devices without a mobile radio was unable to get a CDD certification.

by m_fayer 10y ago

digi_owl 10y ago

I wonder how much that has to do with Android originating from outside Google. Never mind that Google may well be Apple's biggest hardware customer (the Chromebook Pixel seems to have been an attempt at getting employees off their Macbook addiction). There seems to have been something of a civil war right around the launch of Android Honeycomb/3.0, as that was also when Chromebooks happened. All of a sudden you had two platforms, both angling for "landscape" devices.

m_fayer 10y ago
It's been over a decade and over 10 major releases since Google acquired Android. If they still haven't managed to completely absorb it, culturally and technically, then I've underestimated just how dysfunctional Google is.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Rubin may have been a big reason. I seem to recall that he was the one that insisted that Android was for phones, and thus devices without a mobile radio was unable to get a CDD certification.