11 ms·

Where Are the Android Killer Apps?

127 points by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

evanchen 16y ago
Is there an exclusive app to OSX that doesn't exist on Windows? If you make it for Android or OSX, it will eventually be done on Windows/iOS because of the larger user base (more profits).
Garbage 16y ago
"If quantity of app titles were all that mattered, we’d all be using Windows, not Mac OS X, right?" Err... Wait, are we all using Mac OS X?
- knurdle 16y ago
  In Gruber's world we are.
  - DeusExMachina 16y ago
    No, I think this is not correct. Most of the Gruber audience are, but he is of course well aware that OS X does not reach the two digits in market share. EDIT: spelling.
- bitwize 16y ago
  If you confine your worldview to right-thinking people, yes. There are savages outside of city walls, who breed via biological means and use (shudder) Windows. We try not to think about or discuss them in polite society.
- dreyfiz 16y ago
  The audience he's been speaking to since August 2002 are.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Also, where are the killer games for OS X?
  - richbradshaw 16y ago
    Killer apps exist.
  - elblanco 16y ago
    They used to have them, most of them were made by Adobe.
- necubi 16y ago
  His logic is sound, but you're misreading him: he's saying that (quantity of app titles all that matters) => (we're all using windows). We're not all using windows, so by contradiction quantity of apps is not all that matters. He's not saying that everybody is using OS X, just that not everybody is using windows.
  - DeusExMachina 16y ago
    Exactly. This is a logical error that I keep seeing being made from people, and having a logics background I can't help to notice. A implies B does not imply that not B implies not A.
    - ddlatham 16y ago
      Actually, (A implies B) does imply (!B implies !A). It's the contrapositive. For example, from Wikipedia, "All birds are animals" does imply "All non-animals are non-birds". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
      - StavrosK 16y ago
        Apparently he meant "(A implies B) does not imply (B implies A)". Affirming the consequent and all that.
    - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
      >A implies B does not imply that not B implies not A. Wait, what? Every time I eat a hard candy, I get a toothache. I don't have a toothache, therefore I didn't eat a hard candy.
      - DeusExMachina 16y ago
        Actually I made a mistake there. Going on mere memory and without checking, I put the double negation, which comes from an axiom. So yes, what I meant is "If I eat hard candy, I get toothache" does not imply "I have a toothache, so I ate hard candies". Which is the form I was commenting on. I should have provided an example (and double checked!).
- chc 16y ago
  "We are all" is not the same as "everybody is…" — it just means that everybody in some group that the speaker counts himself a part of shares the following attribute. But even that is a stronger claim than Gruber made. He simply said that not everybody in the group he was talking about preferred Windows — a majority could even prefer Windows and his point (that the Mac's software selection appeals to some people even though it's unquestionably smaller) would stand.
Tichy 16y ago
Funny, my impression is that all the useful apps tend to be on Android. For example, I use Google Talk a lot, as it saves costs for sending SMS. I keep begging my iPhone 4 friend to use it, but he never even comments. I am not sure if it is not available on iPhone (multitasking problem?), or if he just doesn't care enough. Alternatively Twitter DMs are free, too. What am I missing out on by staying on Android (except eye candy)? Fireball says he could go on forever, but doesn't mention anything besides games.
- kyleslattery 16y ago
  Looks like Google Talk is available as a web app: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iphone.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iph... There are similar tools like Kik (which I actually like better than Google Talk), that are available for all platforms: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iphone.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iph...
  - Tichy 16y ago
    I don't see how it would work as a web app. It has to have background notifications to be able to replace SMS. Of course for direct chatting a web app would be OK.
- irons 16y ago
  His point is about the third-party app ecosystem; you're talking about first-party Google products, which he acknowledges and excluded. There's nothing wrong with targeting multiple major platforms, but a market-leading platform without at least some desirable, exclusive software titles to its name is an historical anomaly.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    I don't care who the vendor of the app is, to be honest. What is the difference if the app comes from Google or somebody else? The point is, what are the useful apps.
- 16y ago
mcantelon 16y ago
It's not that hard to unsterstand. iPhone had a lead on the Android and a lot of people invested heavily in iPhone. Now that Android has caught up in terms of marketshare it will take awhile for these people to catch up on their Android investment. As Android outpaces iPhone in the market, the app situation may end up reversed.
- dreyfiz 16y ago
  Did you see this part at the end, and if so, does that affect your judgement? > A final thought, regarding Android’s relative weakness as a software platform. iOS’s exclusivity for a bunch of big-name mobile games — Need for Speed Undercover, Star Wars: Battle for Hoth, Monopoly, Tetris, The Sims, Assassin’s Creed — has been broken. Not by Android, where none of these games exist, but by Windows Phone 7, a one-month-old platform.
  - arron61 16y ago
    Windows paid for all these companies to create the games. They funded the development - that's the only reason why.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      So, why doesn't Google fund those same players? There must be a value judgement there because I gotta assume Google thought of that as an option.
      - yawn 16y ago
        Why incentive do they have to do this? Android has surpassed the iPhone in numbers--it's just a matter of time before developers switch to building Android first, then iOS.
        protomyth 16y ago
        Symbian has more units than iPhone but the iPhone has more apps. Number does not equal app sales.
Kylekramer 16y ago
The problem I have with this article is the premise that if an app either started or is just also on iOS, somehow that invalidates its presence on Android. The iPhone had a huge lead in time and customer base. Any mobile app developer who calls themselves a mobile app developer is at least going to think about an iPhone app. Of course nearly every Android app is going to have an iOS equivalent. Saying an app needs to be exclusive is a weird statement that is designed to slag Android. Same thing for not counting Google apps/apps that do things iOS can't do. The real question I have is "What thing do you want to do on your phone that Android can't?" Also, citing a crap TechCrunch article as fact because it was written by the guy behind a site named AndroidApps? You are better than that, Gruber.
- throwaway111222 16y ago
  He's not better than that. You have to remember, he caters to an Apple audience. Because of this, when he is critical of Apple, his tone is soft and non-threatening so as to not offend his audience. When he is critical of his competitors, he often takes a hard, holier-than-thou tone in his posts to enforce his audience's affinity for Apple. In other words, his blog is highly polarizing by design. This isn't a bad thing, every product needs their evangelists, but we must not confuse evangelism with journalism (not saying you did that, but I mean in general).
- brownleej 16y ago
  I think Gruber's underlying point is that exclusive apps are one of the things that helps a platform maintain success, because they are a barrier to exit. You ask, "What thing do you want to do on your phone that Android can't?" This is a perfectly fair question. I think the response from the Apple camp would be that it is the wrong question. The question they're more interested in is how things are done, not what features are available. This is why they focus so much on design, polish, and experience, and less on providing the widest possible functionality. Along the same lines, notice that Gruber criticizes several Android apps for being knock-offs of iPhone apps, or for having relatively poor quality compared to their iPhone counterparts. I think this shows that his focus is on the how rather than the what, and that his discussion of exclusive apps has less to do with functionality, and more to do with how sticky the platform is. Neither side is necessarily right or wrong, but it's important to recognize that they are asking fundamentally different questions.
marze 16y ago
Ok, now that's funny... "The first app in the list that’s exclusive to Android is #6, Lookout — an anti-virus app."
- trjordan 16y ago
  Sure, that's one thing it does. But it also lets you track your phone from the web (even if it's off -- it'll email you when it wakes up), and it'll let you force the phone play a loud sound so you can locate it (and potentially the person who took it). It's an interesting app, and I really like the idea of being able to locate my phone if I lose it by forcing it to wake up and email me. Dismissing it as just an anti-virus app is willfully ignoring how useful this app is (and that it could only be built on Android).
lukeschlather 16y ago
The entire article reads a bit like the scene in The Life of Brian where the Jewish rebels enumerate all the things the Romans have done for them, and then say "but aside from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?" I get where Gruber's coming from, and there seems to be a legitimate point in here about the difference between consoles and ordinary computers. But I'm not really seeing anything listed under the iPhone-exclusive category that is worthwhile. It's clear that it's going to be a profit center for Apple, and it's clear that some people enjoy it, but Gruber's assertion that it's intrinsically better doesn't have a lot of weight to it.
- dejb 16y ago
  > there seems to be a legitimate point in here about the difference between consoles and ordinary computers I still can't for the life of me understand why any self respecting geek would cheer on the 'console' model as the future of mobile computing. Sure, as a developer you have to make practical decisions about which platform to develop for. But as the platform you chose to use yourself? It's like saying that you've decided to use xBox as your main environment instead of Windows/OSX/Linux.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    It's specialized computation -- not that difficult to understand. The iPhone certainly isn't my development environment, either.
    - dejb 16y ago
      > It's specialized computation No it's not. The whole purpose of having an app store is to make it more general purpose. Why should anything be 'off limits' just because the device is small? Why is this not obvious to you? > The iPhone certainly isn't my development environment, either. .. and it never will be. But you added the word 'development', not me. I prefer to decide how I can use my computation devices and when they do not allow this then they should be regarded as toys.
      - 16y ago
cheald 16y ago
Gruber seems to make the assertion that a platform only has worth based on its exclusive "killer apps". He goes wrong there and never really recovers. Android's strength is not its suite apps, it's its flexibility. It runs on an enormous range of hardware, and doesn't require that you buy into a single vendor's toolchain to use it. The core philosophical difference between the two platforms is "Steve Jobs decides what's best for me" versus "I decide what's best for me". So what are the killer apps? How about things like Launcher Pro, Swype, SwiftKey, and AppBrain? Why don't we talk about Chrome To Phone or the FM Radio listener (via Cyanogen)? Those are all things that just don't - and can't - exist on the iPhone, but the glory of them is that I get to choose them. I can pick my own homescreen app and tweak the heck out of it. I can pick an input method that I want (SwiftKey has made my iPhone-using friends turn green with envy on more than occassion). I can install new apps without ever having to tether to my computer with iTunes. I can send a map or recipe from my computer to my phone and take my work with me seamlessly. These are all "killer features", but they aren't "apps" in the Apple sense of the word - they're features, extensions of the platform, which let me use my device as best I see fit. If everything Apple does is exactly what you want, Android probably doesn't have any "killer features" worth talking about, but as soon as you want to do something that diverges from the Cupertino Grand Unified Vision, Android starts to become a lot more attractive. Given Gruber's leanings, it's little wonder that he's not enamored with Android. Doesn't mean that's the case for everyone - and the market bears that out quite well.
- callahad 16y ago
  But you have to admit, there's a cultural divide between Android and iOS. Android is extremely well suited for working, passing data seamlessly between applications, etc. It makes it easy to get things done in the same way you might interact with a desktop computer. iOS, however, takes a different tack, focusing on self-contained, bite-sized apps. You hop into something, use it, then leave. And when you're in that app, it completely owns the experience. In that world, things like intents, task killers, and filesystem browsers just don't make sense. Which almost by definition precludes things like Chrome-to-Phone or Swype. In that way, I see Android and iOS relating very similarly to Windows and OS X. "Beautiful" simply isn't part of the Windows application lexicon, and yet, it's used frequently in reviews of OS X software, along with terms like "polished," "lovely," "stunning," and "gorgeous." What allows OS X to have beautiful apps? What's preventing Windows from having beautiful applications? And are those same factors at work in Android and iOS?
callahad 16y ago
I can't help but feel that iOS would have crushed Android in the United States precisely because of its superior software catalog and attention to design, if only it had been available outside of AT&T's walls.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Perhaps. But a large part of the iPhone's "attention to design" is lack of carrier-mandated crapware, which is why it's not available on Verizon. Similarly, the average quality of Android phones would go up substantially if the carriers would stop crippling them, but that's the price Google had to pay to get the carriers to support them at all.
ddlatham 16y ago
So he is asking, where are the apps that are available for Android, but not iPhone that meet the following criteria 1. Not made by Google or built-in 2. Popular and well made (no long tail) 3. Don't take advantage of things Android can do but iPhone can't (home screens, notifications, deep integration, background services, etc.) Suppose you had such an app, or were developing one. While Android has passed iOS in new phones sold, it's still catching up on existing userbase. Why wouldn't you have an iPhone version too, since by definition your app already would run fine there?
- wccrawford 16y ago
  Since the definition of 'Killer App' is an app that makes people buy it because it's not available on other devices, it doesn't make any sense to eliminate the ones that rely on Android-only features. That's what enables a Killer App.
- ericb 16y ago
  In terms of deep integration, anyone know if an Android app can access the phone's text messages? I don't think an iPhone can, right?
  - mgcross 16y ago
    SwiftKey (on Android) scans previous text and email messages, if I'm not mistaken. The result is usually convenient, but it can be disconcerting - I had a friend borrow my phone to text someone and as he was composing his message, he continued to select the most suggested word until he'd completed an entire email I'd sent a week earlier verbatim...
  - Raphael 16y ago
    Yes, there are many SMS clients, such as Handcent.
- tomkarlo 16y ago
  A "Killer App" is by common definition one that is not available on other platforms and drives adoption of a particular platform so it can be used. If an app is available on both iPhone and Android, it's not going to drive purchase decisions one way or the other in the way a Killer App would.
shib71 16y ago
There is a killer app for me: Tasker (http://tasker.dinglisch.net/ http://tasker.dinglisch.net/). Being able to set up different configurations of my phone based on where I am, what time it is, what apps I'm running is very useful.
- smhinsey 16y ago
  Have you used Locale? I've used it for awhile and haven't seen Tasker before.
  - shib71 16y ago
    I haven't, thanks for pointing it out. A superficial look suggests that Locale is simpler and more polished, while Tasker has a wider range of options.
    - smhinsey 16y ago
      Yeah, that seems like a fair assessment. One big win Locale has (unique at least as far as I can tell) is that it has a plugin API, so you'll find it can integrate with a few other apps. Using Locale has made a huge difference to me. My set up is that I have two major modes, plugged in and unplugged. When I'm in plugged in mode, it turns on bluetooth and wifi, connects to my bluetooth speakerphone, and sends notifications to Android Notifier which I have running on most of my PCs. This allows me to have my ringer off and get an IM-style Growl notification when someone calls or texts, which is awesome for work. The unplugged mode is basically a typical cellphone configuration.
      - dtwwtd 16y ago
        Tasker has been built such that it allows similar plugins and also claims compatibility with Locale plugins. I've tried Tasker and PhoneWeaver but not Locale as of yet. I couldn't live without this functionality anymore.
        smhinsey 16y ago
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
.Interesting shift from unappealing or irrelevant to iOS users to the only ones Android has are ones that Apple doesn't want. It seems he thinks those are the same thing. Why would an alternative home screen or keyboard stop being a killer app or appealing to iOS users because Apple doesn't want or allow it?
mitemitreski 16y ago
Gruber lives from the blood of iPhone users
unoti 16y ago
I, too have been amazed at the crappy quality of available games for Android. It's why I quit my wonderful job at Linden Lab, makers of Second Life, and started working full time on Android games. You can see my work in progress on my RPG here in a couple of videos here http://tango11.com/?cat=6 http://tango11.com/?cat=6. I'm not really sure why there aren't better games out there yet. Certainly one problem I've had with Android that I suspect would be better with iOS is the limited amount of memory that I have to work with on Android. Android doesn't give you all the available memory to work with, so it's an adventure to make a 2d game (bitmaps with a transparency layer get big fast). This might explain part of the delay on better games. I think better games are coming, but I can't really explain why they're not already here.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  To express my support, I will buy well-made Android games even if I don't need them that much.
- mgcross 16y ago
  I'm envious of iPhone games, but primarily due to the aesthetics of the games rather than gameplay. Developers (and designers) are still chasing iOS money. I think Android will get there. I'm hoping Unity3D will result in more cross-platform game development.
bitsm 16y ago
As I read it, what Gruber's exploring is the idea that it's the app store ("app console") that matters now, not the OS. Every week seems to bring another article about how Android is kicking ass in market penetration, but who really benefits outside of the carriers who get a free OS for their phones? The Android market is so fragmented that these market stats are meaningless. Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple has been incredibly successful with iOS. They have lots of apps, lots of paying customers, generating lots of money for developers and Apple. That's something worth emulating on Android. The more money going to Android developers, the better for the platform. The Android Market is far behind and that needs to be fixed. You can't even get to it without an Android phone. And where are the "Get it in the Android Market" buttons? Google's branding guidelines state that you can't use the Android logo to promote your app. How does that even make sense? Google's dropped the ball on Android Market, big time.
- arron61 16y ago
  This is all getting fixed probably really soon. Android developers have been getting constant emails about upcoming Market changes.
  - 201studio 16y ago
    The updates to the market were outlined in the emails that were sent out. They included sorely needed elements such as version update notes and more promotional information such as app promo text and graphics. Really though, these seem like changes that should have been implemented a long time ago. I'm waiting for the update where they follow through on the promises of the 2010 google IO.
- thwarted 16y ago
  You can't even view the iTunes store without iTunes.
  - rchowe 16y ago
    You can view apps online.
runjake 16y ago
Here's a list to start off with: Any home screen widget, because you can. ConnectBot PDAnet (no shady jailbreak needed) Barcode Scanner My Tracks Swype Google Navigation Google Voice (better than the new iPhone version) Layar Scripting Layer 4 Android Google Speech To Text (Voice Search) Slide Screen Chrome To Phone Dropbox (whoah, not limited by a weird file sandbox!?) Whatever system software that allows you to mount an Android device as USB storage
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  ConnectBot has saved my bacon on more than one occasion!
- Estragon 16y ago
  Yeah, Scripting Layer 4 Android is what I came over here to say. Why does he distinguish google-developed apps from 3rd party apps? In terms of the "killer-app" criterion, it makes no difference.
  - callahad 16y ago
    It's pretty crazy that Android has a less restricted development model, yet only first party applications seem to have anything approaching design parity with the bulk of third party iOS applications.
- Xuzz 16y ago
  I'm not sure what's so "shady" about jailbreaking: the processes is very streamlined, and while you can find malicious software, the Cydia Store is about as curated -- if not more -- than the App Store.
  - runjake 16y ago
    Shady == replacing a system framework with your own hex edited version, poor source code, and installing .git dirs on end user devices. You should really examine what those jail breaking apps you use do. It's ugly.
darklajid 16y ago
I would like to suggest to the author that he should give "SpecTrek" (not affiliated, just a user) a try. I cannot comment on iOS apps (don't own a device, don't care much), but this game should've been the one that leads the android top 10 game list. And I guess it's unique to android as well. Killer app? Nope. Interesting and a good example for something "different"? Yep.
mechanical_fish 16y ago
My suspicion is that the "killer app" is an artifact of the super-balkanized era of computing, the era when every vendor's machines ran a different bespoke operating system. That was true in the mainframe era, and it was true in spades in the early PC era, when the IBM PC and the Mac and the Apple II and the Amiga and the C64 and several dozen vendor-specific flavors of Unix all coexisted, all with different OSes and radically different hardware. Just from the evidence, it seems clear that porting software is still hard, but nowhere near as hard as it used to be. There's been some convergence in hardware and operating systems. The rate of turnover in these things has slowed way down. But perhaps the biggest reason is that our hardware and the abstractions built on top of it are now so powerful that large classes of apps -- the ones that don't push the limits of the hardware -- have become trivial to port. The term "killer app" was invented around the time of Visicalc; Visicalc was written in highly tuned assembly language so that it would fit in 20K of RAM (no, that is not a typo!): http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=ImplementingVisiCalc http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=ImplementingVisiCalc Nowadays you can implement Visicalc in Javascript and run it on any platform with a customer base larger than five, while routinely creating temporary variables that are ten times the size of Visicalc's entire codebase. So the modern strategy is to test your software on one platform, and then if it takes off port it to the others. So why don't more people start on Android and port to iOS, rather than vice versa? Maybe it's the vaunted fragmentation problem, but I'd guess that it's mostly because iOS is where the money is. There's an app distribution model and a store. That makes it easier to iterate there. Release the app on iOS and see if it floats or sinks. Then spend your Android-porting energy -- figuring out an ad-based model, testing on many different devices, marketing to all those Android users who don't know what "Android" means -- on the winners. There are other potential sources of killer-app lock-in. Hardware is one. People who want hardware keyboards can't choose iOS. But that market doesn't seem to have enough size for its killer apps to make news -- particularly because only a subset of Android phones have keyboards, and those keyboards are all different. There's one very obvious Android killer app: Verizon. Not exclusive for much longer, though, if the rumor mill is accurate.
elblanco 16y ago
Android is the killer app.
- jwhitlark 16y ago
  With the Intent system, this is quite literally true. Android is much more in line with the unix "small, sharp tools" philosophy, while iOS apps seem like they would fall victim to Zawinski's Law. AFAIK, in iOS you interact with yourself or the OS, while on Android, you can interact with anyone who registers an intent.
  - rahoulb 16y ago
    The thing is that this has always been Apple's design decision - the OS marks very clear distinctions between applications (as described here in another Gruber piece about the OSX - and MacOS - window manager http://daringfireball.net/2003/05/the_problems_with_clickthrough http://daringfireball.net/2003/05/the_problems_with_clickthr...) The difference being the Mac allowed you to follow the same unix style philosophy through pervasive scripting, which you can't do on iOS. EDIT: typos
bradfordw 16y ago
Shouldn't this read, what are the Android "Force Kill"(er) apps?
syllogism 16y ago
The real question for me is, why are the Google apps closed source? The easiest way for Google to increase the quality of Android apps is to make development easy by providing great examples of how to do it right. Why can't we look at the code behind the gmail app or the maps app --- they'd all be great tutorials.
dadro 16y ago
1. Buy an Android phone on verizon and use for 1 year. 2. Cancel contract and get an Android phone on T-mobile. 3. Sync contacts/emails and never skip a beat. You get a standardized platform that transcends mobile carriers.
lusis 16y ago
I'd rather ask a different question. Who the hell cares? Seriously. Why is all this attention being paid to Android by various Apple-centric/Apple-leaning outlets? I'm not trying to be combative. If iOS is the superior platform then why keep drawing attention to something that, in your opinion, is inferior? Technically speaking Android and iOS are fairly even in features. Android has some things that iOS doesn't and iOS has some things that Android doesn't. It's pretty much a wash. What it boils down to is what people want to use. I use android because I honestly prefer the interface and interactions over iOS, it ties better into my Google-centric workflow and I'm a geek. Apple isn't losing a sale to me because I don't like what they have to offer. All the arguments over which is better are entirely over subjective aspects. iPhone/iOS looks prettier. Android has better notification handling. These are all fairly end-user perspectives.
- YooLi 16y ago
  Did you read the post? He doesn't phrase it at all as an iOS is better than Android argument. He's saying it's interesting that as large as Android is, why there isn't any good 3rd party apps exclusively for it. There are no "I must get an Android phone so I can run this" apps.
  - gazrogers 16y ago
    "I must get an Android phone so I can run this" apps, such as Swype (since the discussion only includes iOS and Android), are excluded from the argument by Gruber.
    - YooLi 16y ago
      Of course, that's an edge case. That's not a critical mass app. You aren't going to go to the mall and hear a someone talking about swype for android.
      - georgemcbay 16y ago
        I actually have heard random people I do not know discussing Swype in public. It is actually a fairly big deal for hardcore texters (read: people ages 12-22 who use cellphones).
generalk 16y ago
Gruber's whole premise is flawed. Android doesn't need killer apps. iOS has to have "killer apps" because that's how Apple locks folks into their system. If you can get the iOS experience somewhere else, there's no reason to pay the Apple premium. Thankfully for Apple their UX is amazingly polished, and attracts a lot of third-party developers who also care highly about polish. Android, on the other hand, is a portal to Google's cloud offerings. First thing you do is create or utilize your Google account. Then you check your Gmail and your Google Voice. Maybe get some navigations from Google Maps, or a recommendation from Google Places. And of course, since you have a smartphone, you might as well buy some apps. A lot of common apps that exist for iOS also exist for Android (Kindle Reader and Angry Birds come to mind), and Google gets their cut of the sale.
PostOnce 16y ago
I mentioned SL4A somewhere else, but I think it deserves its own comment. http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/ http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/ Python/Lua/Ruby/Perl/etc interpreters and scripts in your pocket. Imagine the potential. [Obviously not a Killer App for the general public, but maybe for the HN crowd...]
gcb 16y ago
anyone who praises the google apps like this article does must be nuts. They are the least consistent ones in terms of UI. just like office in microsoft windows. compare gmail, maps, navigator, translate... and they hardly work out of the main use case. e.g. the car home will not do anything if the phone is not in an expensive car-dock (your calls will not go automaticaly to the speaker for example). navigator will only show routes via major streets (thankfully now there's now ONE route option --to rule out highways)
PostOnce 16y ago
Being able to point my phone at a sign written in a foreign language and having it translated into English instantly is not only a killer app for me, it blows my mind that we've gone from no cellphones 20 years ago to this. I can also point it at the sky and know which star I'm looking at, or at the cover a book, not the barcode, and have it tell me the lowest price nationally. It can tell me exactly where on Earth I am, for free. I have SL4A on my phone also, so not only can I call anyone anywhere on earth at any time, I can solve ridiculously complex problems in a few moments that would've taken people years to do by hand less than a century ago. It takes pictures of people, has a compass, an entire encyclopedia and set of maps without being connected to any cell or wifi network, and can tell me exchange rates, how far it is to the nearest Chinese restaurant and theater, and play complex, interactive, three dimensional games. I don't know what other people consider a killer app, but I just can't get over the fact that I'm living in the future right now. This is so crazy. I can't believe all this crap fits in my pocket. It feels like between this and a multitool, I can accomplish pretty much anything. The device itself is the killer app for me. I'm glad we as a species have made these ridiculous advances possible. 20 years ago, phones didn't have screens on them. If you had caller ID, you were pretty much on the cutting edge.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  Being able to point my phone at a sign written in a foreign language and having it translated into English instantly is not only a killer app for me, it blows my mind that we've gone from no cellphones 20 years ago to this. For those of us that don't use Android - which app is this?
  - georgemcbay 16y ago
    I would assume he is talking about Google Goggles, which IIRC is also available as an iPhone app these days. Despite the availability of that particular app on iOS, the immediate availability of any Google mobile app on Android (without having to wait for the long delays that plagued Google Voice, etc) and the integration of them all is the killer Android app for me. Having things like Android Car Mode and Voice Search out of the box and having them all work together is really nice, and while you can get similar functionality out of iOS by piecing many apps together, it isn't quite the same seamless experience. YMMV depending upon how much you consume Google services. Android certainly suffers on the games front and is a second class citizen for other types of utility apps from non-Google vendors.
satoimo 16y ago
Isn't the difference here that Google sees Android, long term, as a web console rather that a (native) app console? The browser is the killer app.
ergo98 16y ago
I have no disagreement with Gruber here -- he is generally on the mark. However I think it is a short-sighted perspective. The products that are in the market today often had many months to years of incubation end evolution time on them. A mere four months ago, iOS was still overwhelmingly where it was at, and on sites of the people making the apps -- like HN -- it had the dominant mindspace. That has profoundly changed. On my Android I've noticed the pace of iterations of the top tier apps is reaching an incredible pace, as obviously what was an afterthought is starting to get equal billing to their iOS product. Gruber is unquestionably right today. In three months, or six months, I think the equation will have dramatically changed. Though it will never be about "killer apps" (where exclusivity is the definition). That antiquated notion has no place in modern computing. Note that Google makes all of their "killer apps" available on iOS as well, which is exactly how it should be. In an ideal every top tier app exists on multiple platforms.

127 points by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

Is there an exclusive app to OSX that doesn't exist on Windows? If you make it for Android or OSX, it will eventually be done on Windows/iOS because of the larger user base (more profits).

Garbage 16y ago

"If quantity of app titles were all that mattered, we’d all be using Windows, not Mac OS X, right?" Err... Wait, are we all using Mac OS X?

knurdle 16y ago
In Gruber's world we are.
- DeusExMachina 16y ago
  No, I think this is not correct. Most of the Gruber audience are, but he is of course well aware that OS X does not reach the two digits in market share. EDIT: spelling.
bitwize 16y ago
If you confine your worldview to right-thinking people, yes. There are savages outside of city walls, who breed via biological means and use (shudder) Windows. We try not to think about or discuss them in polite society.
dreyfiz 16y ago
The audience he's been speaking to since August 2002 are.
Tichy 16y ago
Also, where are the killer games for OS X?
- richbradshaw 16y ago
  Killer apps exist.
- elblanco 16y ago
  They used to have them, most of them were made by Adobe.
necubi 16y ago
His logic is sound, but you're misreading him: he's saying that (quantity of app titles all that matters) => (we're all using windows). We're not all using windows, so by contradiction quantity of apps is not all that matters. He's not saying that everybody is using OS X, just that not everybody is using windows.
- DeusExMachina 16y ago
  Exactly. This is a logical error that I keep seeing being made from people, and having a logics background I can't help to notice. A implies B does not imply that not B implies not A.
  - ddlatham 16y ago
    Actually, (A implies B) does imply (!B implies !A). It's the contrapositive. For example, from Wikipedia, "All birds are animals" does imply "All non-animals are non-birds". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
    - StavrosK 16y ago
      Apparently he meant "(A implies B) does not imply (B implies A)". Affirming the consequent and all that.
  - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
    >A implies B does not imply that not B implies not A. Wait, what? Every time I eat a hard candy, I get a toothache. I don't have a toothache, therefore I didn't eat a hard candy.
    - DeusExMachina 16y ago
      Actually I made a mistake there. Going on mere memory and without checking, I put the double negation, which comes from an axiom. So yes, what I meant is "If I eat hard candy, I get toothache" does not imply "I have a toothache, so I ate hard candies". Which is the form I was commenting on. I should have provided an example (and double checked!).
chc 16y ago
"We are all" is not the same as "everybody is…" — it just means that everybody in some group that the speaker counts himself a part of shares the following attribute. But even that is a stronger claim than Gruber made. He simply said that not everybody in the group he was talking about preferred Windows — a majority could even prefer Windows and his point (that the Mac's software selection appeals to some people even though it's unquestionably smaller) would stand.

Tichy 16y ago

Funny, my impression is that all the useful apps tend to be on Android. For example, I use Google Talk a lot, as it saves costs for sending SMS. I keep begging my iPhone 4 friend to use it, but he never even comments. I am not sure if it is not available on iPhone (multitasking problem?), or if he just doesn't care enough. Alternatively Twitter DMs are free, too. What am I missing out on by staying on Android (except eye candy)? Fireball says he could go on forever, but doesn't mention anything besides games.

kyleslattery 16y ago
Looks like Google Talk is available as a web app: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iphone.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iph... There are similar tools like Kik (which I actually like better than Google Talk), that are available for all platforms: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iphone.html http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/07/google-talk-for-iph...
- Tichy 16y ago
  I don't see how it would work as a web app. It has to have background notifications to be able to replace SMS. Of course for direct chatting a web app would be OK.
irons 16y ago
His point is about the third-party app ecosystem; you're talking about first-party Google products, which he acknowledges and excluded. There's nothing wrong with targeting multiple major platforms, but a market-leading platform without at least some desirable, exclusive software titles to its name is an historical anomaly.
- Tichy 16y ago
  I don't care who the vendor of the app is, to be honest. What is the difference if the app comes from Google or somebody else? The point is, what are the useful apps.
16y ago

mcantelon 16y ago

It's not that hard to unsterstand. iPhone had a lead on the Android and a lot of people invested heavily in iPhone. Now that Android has caught up in terms of marketshare it will take awhile for these people to catch up on their Android investment. As Android outpaces iPhone in the market, the app situation may end up reversed.

dreyfiz 16y ago
Did you see this part at the end, and if so, does that affect your judgement? > A final thought, regarding Android’s relative weakness as a software platform. iOS’s exclusivity for a bunch of big-name mobile games — Need for Speed Undercover, Star Wars: Battle for Hoth, Monopoly, Tetris, The Sims, Assassin’s Creed — has been broken. Not by Android, where none of these games exist, but by Windows Phone 7, a one-month-old platform.
- arron61 16y ago
  Windows paid for all these companies to create the games. They funded the development - that's the only reason why.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    So, why doesn't Google fund those same players? There must be a value judgement there because I gotta assume Google thought of that as an option.
    - yawn 16y ago
      Why incentive do they have to do this? Android has surpassed the iPhone in numbers--it's just a matter of time before developers switch to building Android first, then iOS.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        Symbian has more units than iPhone but the iPhone has more apps. Number does not equal app sales.

Kylekramer 16y ago

The problem I have with this article is the premise that if an app either started or is just also on iOS, somehow that invalidates its presence on Android. The iPhone had a huge lead in time and customer base. Any mobile app developer who calls themselves a mobile app developer is at least going to think about an iPhone app. Of course nearly every Android app is going to have an iOS equivalent. Saying an app needs to be exclusive is a weird statement that is designed to slag Android. Same thing for not counting Google apps/apps that do things iOS can't do. The real question I have is "What thing do you want to do on your phone that Android can't?" Also, citing a crap TechCrunch article as fact because it was written by the guy behind a site named AndroidApps? You are better than that, Gruber.

throwaway111222 16y ago
He's not better than that. You have to remember, he caters to an Apple audience. Because of this, when he is critical of Apple, his tone is soft and non-threatening so as to not offend his audience. When he is critical of his competitors, he often takes a hard, holier-than-thou tone in his posts to enforce his audience's affinity for Apple. In other words, his blog is highly polarizing by design. This isn't a bad thing, every product needs their evangelists, but we must not confuse evangelism with journalism (not saying you did that, but I mean in general).
brownleej 16y ago
I think Gruber's underlying point is that exclusive apps are one of the things that helps a platform maintain success, because they are a barrier to exit. You ask, "What thing do you want to do on your phone that Android can't?" This is a perfectly fair question. I think the response from the Apple camp would be that it is the wrong question. The question they're more interested in is how things are done, not what features are available. This is why they focus so much on design, polish, and experience, and less on providing the widest possible functionality. Along the same lines, notice that Gruber criticizes several Android apps for being knock-offs of iPhone apps, or for having relatively poor quality compared to their iPhone counterparts. I think this shows that his focus is on the how rather than the what, and that his discussion of exclusive apps has less to do with functionality, and more to do with how sticky the platform is. Neither side is necessarily right or wrong, but it's important to recognize that they are asking fundamentally different questions.

marze 16y ago

Ok, now that's funny... "The first app in the list that’s exclusive to Android is #6, Lookout — an anti-virus app."

trjordan 16y ago
Sure, that's one thing it does. But it also lets you track your phone from the web (even if it's off -- it'll email you when it wakes up), and it'll let you force the phone play a loud sound so you can locate it (and potentially the person who took it). It's an interesting app, and I really like the idea of being able to locate my phone if I lose it by forcing it to wake up and email me. Dismissing it as just an anti-virus app is willfully ignoring how useful this app is (and that it could only be built on Android).

lukeschlather 16y ago

The entire article reads a bit like the scene in The Life of Brian where the Jewish rebels enumerate all the things the Romans have done for them, and then say "but aside from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?" I get where Gruber's coming from, and there seems to be a legitimate point in here about the difference between consoles and ordinary computers. But I'm not really seeing anything listed under the iPhone-exclusive category that is worthwhile. It's clear that it's going to be a profit center for Apple, and it's clear that some people enjoy it, but Gruber's assertion that it's intrinsically better doesn't have a lot of weight to it.

dejb 16y ago
> there seems to be a legitimate point in here about the difference between consoles and ordinary computers I still can't for the life of me understand why any self respecting geek would cheer on the 'console' model as the future of mobile computing. Sure, as a developer you have to make practical decisions about which platform to develop for. But as the platform you chose to use yourself? It's like saying that you've decided to use xBox as your main environment instead of Windows/OSX/Linux.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  It's specialized computation -- not that difficult to understand. The iPhone certainly isn't my development environment, either.
  - dejb 16y ago
    > It's specialized computation No it's not. The whole purpose of having an app store is to make it more general purpose. Why should anything be 'off limits' just because the device is small? Why is this not obvious to you? > The iPhone certainly isn't my development environment, either. .. and it never will be. But you added the word 'development', not me. I prefer to decide how I can use my computation devices and when they do not allow this then they should be regarded as toys.
    - 16y ago

cheald 16y ago

Gruber seems to make the assertion that a platform only has worth based on its exclusive "killer apps". He goes wrong there and never really recovers. Android's strength is not its suite apps, it's its flexibility. It runs on an enormous range of hardware, and doesn't require that you buy into a single vendor's toolchain to use it. The core philosophical difference between the two platforms is "Steve Jobs decides what's best for me" versus "I decide what's best for me". So what are the killer apps? How about things like Launcher Pro, Swype, SwiftKey, and AppBrain? Why don't we talk about Chrome To Phone or the FM Radio listener (via Cyanogen)? Those are all things that just don't - and can't - exist on the iPhone, but the glory of them is that I get to choose them. I can pick my own homescreen app and tweak the heck out of it. I can pick an input method that I want (SwiftKey has made my iPhone-using friends turn green with envy on more than occassion). I can install new apps without ever having to tether to my computer with iTunes. I can send a map or recipe from my computer to my phone and take my work with me seamlessly. These are all "killer features", but they aren't "apps" in the Apple sense of the word - they're features, extensions of the platform, which let me use my device as best I see fit. If everything Apple does is exactly what you want, Android probably doesn't have any "killer features" worth talking about, but as soon as you want to do something that diverges from the Cupertino Grand Unified Vision, Android starts to become a lot more attractive. Given Gruber's leanings, it's little wonder that he's not enamored with Android. Doesn't mean that's the case for everyone - and the market bears that out quite well.

callahad 16y ago
But you have to admit, there's a cultural divide between Android and iOS. Android is extremely well suited for working, passing data seamlessly between applications, etc. It makes it easy to get things done in the same way you might interact with a desktop computer. iOS, however, takes a different tack, focusing on self-contained, bite-sized apps. You hop into something, use it, then leave. And when you're in that app, it completely owns the experience. In that world, things like intents, task killers, and filesystem browsers just don't make sense. Which almost by definition precludes things like Chrome-to-Phone or Swype. In that way, I see Android and iOS relating very similarly to Windows and OS X. "Beautiful" simply isn't part of the Windows application lexicon, and yet, it's used frequently in reviews of OS X software, along with terms like "polished," "lovely," "stunning," and "gorgeous." What allows OS X to have beautiful apps? What's preventing Windows from having beautiful applications? And are those same factors at work in Android and iOS?

callahad 16y ago

I can't help but feel that iOS would have crushed Android in the United States precisely because of its superior software catalog and attention to design, if only it had been available outside of AT&T's walls.

orangecat 16y ago
Perhaps. But a large part of the iPhone's "attention to design" is lack of carrier-mandated crapware, which is why it's not available on Verizon. Similarly, the average quality of Android phones would go up substantially if the carriers would stop crippling them, but that's the price Google had to pay to get the carriers to support them at all.

ddlatham 16y ago

So he is asking, where are the apps that are available for Android, but not iPhone that meet the following criteria 1. Not made by Google or built-in 2. Popular and well made (no long tail) 3. Don't take advantage of things Android can do but iPhone can't (home screens, notifications, deep integration, background services, etc.) Suppose you had such an app, or were developing one. While Android has passed iOS in new phones sold, it's still catching up on existing userbase. Why wouldn't you have an iPhone version too, since by definition your app already would run fine there?

wccrawford 16y ago
Since the definition of 'Killer App' is an app that makes people buy it because it's not available on other devices, it doesn't make any sense to eliminate the ones that rely on Android-only features. That's what enables a Killer App.
ericb 16y ago
In terms of deep integration, anyone know if an Android app can access the phone's text messages? I don't think an iPhone can, right?
- mgcross 16y ago
  SwiftKey (on Android) scans previous text and email messages, if I'm not mistaken. The result is usually convenient, but it can be disconcerting - I had a friend borrow my phone to text someone and as he was composing his message, he continued to select the most suggested word until he'd completed an entire email I'd sent a week earlier verbatim...
- Raphael 16y ago
  Yes, there are many SMS clients, such as Handcent.
tomkarlo 16y ago
A "Killer App" is by common definition one that is not available on other platforms and drives adoption of a particular platform so it can be used. If an app is available on both iPhone and Android, it's not going to drive purchase decisions one way or the other in the way a Killer App would.

shib71 16y ago

There is a killer app for me: Tasker (http://tasker.dinglisch.net/ http://tasker.dinglisch.net/). Being able to set up different configurations of my phone based on where I am, what time it is, what apps I'm running is very useful.

smhinsey 16y ago
Have you used Locale? I've used it for awhile and haven't seen Tasker before.
- shib71 16y ago
  I haven't, thanks for pointing it out. A superficial look suggests that Locale is simpler and more polished, while Tasker has a wider range of options.
  - smhinsey 16y ago
    Yeah, that seems like a fair assessment. One big win Locale has (unique at least as far as I can tell) is that it has a plugin API, so you'll find it can integrate with a few other apps. Using Locale has made a huge difference to me. My set up is that I have two major modes, plugged in and unplugged. When I'm in plugged in mode, it turns on bluetooth and wifi, connects to my bluetooth speakerphone, and sends notifications to Android Notifier which I have running on most of my PCs. This allows me to have my ringer off and get an IM-style Growl notification when someone calls or texts, which is awesome for work. The unplugged mode is basically a typical cellphone configuration.
    - dtwwtd 16y ago
      Tasker has been built such that it allows similar plugins and also claims compatibility with Locale plugins. I've tried Tasker and PhoneWeaver but not Locale as of yet. I couldn't live without this functionality anymore.
      - smhinsey 16y ago

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

.Interesting shift from unappealing or irrelevant to iOS users to the only ones Android has are ones that Apple doesn't want. It seems he thinks those are the same thing. Why would an alternative home screen or keyboard stop being a killer app or appealing to iOS users because Apple doesn't want or allow it?

mitemitreski 16y ago

Gruber lives from the blood of iPhone users

unoti 16y ago

I, too have been amazed at the crappy quality of available games for Android. It's why I quit my wonderful job at Linden Lab, makers of Second Life, and started working full time on Android games. You can see my work in progress on my RPG here in a couple of videos here http://tango11.com/?cat=6 http://tango11.com/?cat=6. I'm not really sure why there aren't better games out there yet. Certainly one problem I've had with Android that I suspect would be better with iOS is the limited amount of memory that I have to work with on Android. Android doesn't give you all the available memory to work with, so it's an adventure to make a 2d game (bitmaps with a transparency layer get big fast). This might explain part of the delay on better games. I think better games are coming, but I can't really explain why they're not already here.

StavrosK 16y ago
To express my support, I will buy well-made Android games even if I don't need them that much.
mgcross 16y ago
I'm envious of iPhone games, but primarily due to the aesthetics of the games rather than gameplay. Developers (and designers) are still chasing iOS money. I think Android will get there. I'm hoping Unity3D will result in more cross-platform game development.

bitsm 16y ago

As I read it, what Gruber's exploring is the idea that it's the app store ("app console") that matters now, not the OS. Every week seems to bring another article about how Android is kicking ass in market penetration, but who really benefits outside of the carriers who get a free OS for their phones? The Android market is so fragmented that these market stats are meaningless. Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple has been incredibly successful with iOS. They have lots of apps, lots of paying customers, generating lots of money for developers and Apple. That's something worth emulating on Android. The more money going to Android developers, the better for the platform. The Android Market is far behind and that needs to be fixed. You can't even get to it without an Android phone. And where are the "Get it in the Android Market" buttons? Google's branding guidelines state that you can't use the Android logo to promote your app. How does that even make sense? Google's dropped the ball on Android Market, big time.

arron61 16y ago
This is all getting fixed probably really soon. Android developers have been getting constant emails about upcoming Market changes.
- 201studio 16y ago
  The updates to the market were outlined in the emails that were sent out. They included sorely needed elements such as version update notes and more promotional information such as app promo text and graphics. Really though, these seem like changes that should have been implemented a long time ago. I'm waiting for the update where they follow through on the promises of the 2010 google IO.
thwarted 16y ago
You can't even view the iTunes store without iTunes.
- rchowe 16y ago
  You can view apps online.

runjake 16y ago

Here's a list to start off with: Any home screen widget, because you can. ConnectBot PDAnet (no shady jailbreak needed) Barcode Scanner My Tracks Swype Google Navigation Google Voice (better than the new iPhone version) Layar Scripting Layer 4 Android Google Speech To Text (Voice Search) Slide Screen Chrome To Phone Dropbox (whoah, not limited by a weird file sandbox!?) Whatever system software that allows you to mount an Android device as USB storage

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
ConnectBot has saved my bacon on more than one occasion!
Estragon 16y ago
Yeah, Scripting Layer 4 Android is what I came over here to say. Why does he distinguish google-developed apps from 3rd party apps? In terms of the "killer-app" criterion, it makes no difference.
- callahad 16y ago
  It's pretty crazy that Android has a less restricted development model, yet only first party applications seem to have anything approaching design parity with the bulk of third party iOS applications.
Xuzz 16y ago
I'm not sure what's so "shady" about jailbreaking: the processes is very streamlined, and while you can find malicious software, the Cydia Store is about as curated -- if not more -- than the App Store.
- runjake 16y ago
  Shady == replacing a system framework with your own hex edited version, poor source code, and installing .git dirs on end user devices. You should really examine what those jail breaking apps you use do. It's ugly.

darklajid 16y ago

I would like to suggest to the author that he should give "SpecTrek" (not affiliated, just a user) a try. I cannot comment on iOS apps (don't own a device, don't care much), but this game should've been the one that leads the android top 10 game list. And I guess it's unique to android as well. Killer app? Nope. Interesting and a good example for something "different"? Yep.

mechanical_fish 16y ago

My suspicion is that the "killer app" is an artifact of the super-balkanized era of computing, the era when every vendor's machines ran a different bespoke operating system. That was true in the mainframe era, and it was true in spades in the early PC era, when the IBM PC and the Mac and the Apple II and the Amiga and the C64 and several dozen vendor-specific flavors of Unix all coexisted, all with different OSes and radically different hardware. Just from the evidence, it seems clear that porting software is still hard, but nowhere near as hard as it used to be. There's been some convergence in hardware and operating systems. The rate of turnover in these things has slowed way down. But perhaps the biggest reason is that our hardware and the abstractions built on top of it are now so powerful that large classes of apps -- the ones that don't push the limits of the hardware -- have become trivial to port. The term "killer app" was invented around the time of Visicalc; Visicalc was written in highly tuned assembly language so that it would fit in 20K of RAM (no, that is not a typo!): http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=ImplementingVisiCalc http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=ImplementingVisiCalc Nowadays you can implement Visicalc in Javascript and run it on any platform with a customer base larger than five, while routinely creating temporary variables that are ten times the size of Visicalc's entire codebase. So the modern strategy is to test your software on one platform, and then if it takes off port it to the others. So why don't more people start on Android and port to iOS, rather than vice versa? Maybe it's the vaunted fragmentation problem, but I'd guess that it's mostly because iOS is where the money is. There's an app distribution model and a store. That makes it easier to iterate there. Release the app on iOS and see if it floats or sinks. Then spend your Android-porting energy -- figuring out an ad-based model, testing on many different devices, marketing to all those Android users who don't know what "Android" means -- on the winners. There are other potential sources of killer-app lock-in. Hardware is one. People who want hardware keyboards can't choose iOS. But that market doesn't seem to have enough size for its killer apps to make news -- particularly because only a subset of Android phones have keyboards, and those keyboards are all different. There's one very obvious Android killer app: Verizon. Not exclusive for much longer, though, if the rumor mill is accurate.

elblanco 16y ago

Android is the killer app.

jwhitlark 16y ago
With the Intent system, this is quite literally true. Android is much more in line with the unix "small, sharp tools" philosophy, while iOS apps seem like they would fall victim to Zawinski's Law. AFAIK, in iOS you interact with yourself or the OS, while on Android, you can interact with anyone who registers an intent.
- rahoulb 16y ago
  The thing is that this has always been Apple's design decision - the OS marks very clear distinctions between applications (as described here in another Gruber piece about the OSX - and MacOS - window manager http://daringfireball.net/2003/05/the_problems_with_clickthrough http://daringfireball.net/2003/05/the_problems_with_clickthr...) The difference being the Mac allowed you to follow the same unix style philosophy through pervasive scripting, which you can't do on iOS. EDIT: typos

bradfordw 16y ago

Shouldn't this read, what are the Android "Force Kill"(er) apps?

syllogism 16y ago

The real question for me is, why are the Google apps closed source? The easiest way for Google to increase the quality of Android apps is to make development easy by providing great examples of how to do it right. Why can't we look at the code behind the gmail app or the maps app --- they'd all be great tutorials.

dadro 16y ago

1. Buy an Android phone on verizon and use for 1 year. 2. Cancel contract and get an Android phone on T-mobile. 3. Sync contacts/emails and never skip a beat. You get a standardized platform that transcends mobile carriers.

lusis 16y ago

I'd rather ask a different question. Who the hell cares? Seriously. Why is all this attention being paid to Android by various Apple-centric/Apple-leaning outlets? I'm not trying to be combative. If iOS is the superior platform then why keep drawing attention to something that, in your opinion, is inferior? Technically speaking Android and iOS are fairly even in features. Android has some things that iOS doesn't and iOS has some things that Android doesn't. It's pretty much a wash. What it boils down to is what people want to use. I use android because I honestly prefer the interface and interactions over iOS, it ties better into my Google-centric workflow and I'm a geek. Apple isn't losing a sale to me because I don't like what they have to offer. All the arguments over which is better are entirely over subjective aspects. iPhone/iOS looks prettier. Android has better notification handling. These are all fairly end-user perspectives.

YooLi 16y ago
Did you read the post? He doesn't phrase it at all as an iOS is better than Android argument. He's saying it's interesting that as large as Android is, why there isn't any good 3rd party apps exclusively for it. There are no "I must get an Android phone so I can run this" apps.
- gazrogers 16y ago
  "I must get an Android phone so I can run this" apps, such as Swype (since the discussion only includes iOS and Android), are excluded from the argument by Gruber.
  - YooLi 16y ago
    Of course, that's an edge case. That's not a critical mass app. You aren't going to go to the mall and hear a someone talking about swype for android.
    - georgemcbay 16y ago
      I actually have heard random people I do not know discussing Swype in public. It is actually a fairly big deal for hardcore texters (read: people ages 12-22 who use cellphones).

generalk 16y ago

Gruber's whole premise is flawed. Android doesn't need killer apps. iOS has to have "killer apps" because that's how Apple locks folks into their system. If you can get the iOS experience somewhere else, there's no reason to pay the Apple premium. Thankfully for Apple their UX is amazingly polished, and attracts a lot of third-party developers who also care highly about polish. Android, on the other hand, is a portal to Google's cloud offerings. First thing you do is create or utilize your Google account. Then you check your Gmail and your Google Voice. Maybe get some navigations from Google Maps, or a recommendation from Google Places. And of course, since you have a smartphone, you might as well buy some apps. A lot of common apps that exist for iOS also exist for Android (Kindle Reader and Angry Birds come to mind), and Google gets their cut of the sale.

PostOnce 16y ago

I mentioned SL4A somewhere else, but I think it deserves its own comment. http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/ http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/ Python/Lua/Ruby/Perl/etc interpreters and scripts in your pocket. Imagine the potential. [Obviously not a Killer App for the general public, but maybe for the HN crowd...]

gcb 16y ago

anyone who praises the google apps like this article does must be nuts. They are the least consistent ones in terms of UI. just like office in microsoft windows. compare gmail, maps, navigator, translate... and they hardly work out of the main use case. e.g. the car home will not do anything if the phone is not in an expensive car-dock (your calls will not go automaticaly to the speaker for example). navigator will only show routes via major streets (thankfully now there's now ONE route option --to rule out highways)

PostOnce 16y ago

Being able to point my phone at a sign written in a foreign language and having it translated into English instantly is not only a killer app for me, it blows my mind that we've gone from no cellphones 20 years ago to this. I can also point it at the sky and know which star I'm looking at, or at the cover a book, not the barcode, and have it tell me the lowest price nationally. It can tell me exactly where on Earth I am, for free. I have SL4A on my phone also, so not only can I call anyone anywhere on earth at any time, I can solve ridiculously complex problems in a few moments that would've taken people years to do by hand less than a century ago. It takes pictures of people, has a compass, an entire encyclopedia and set of maps without being connected to any cell or wifi network, and can tell me exchange rates, how far it is to the nearest Chinese restaurant and theater, and play complex, interactive, three dimensional games. I don't know what other people consider a killer app, but I just can't get over the fact that I'm living in the future right now. This is so crazy. I can't believe all this crap fits in my pocket. It feels like between this and a multitool, I can accomplish pretty much anything. The device itself is the killer app for me. I'm glad we as a species have made these ridiculous advances possible. 20 years ago, phones didn't have screens on them. If you had caller ID, you were pretty much on the cutting edge.

brown9-2 16y ago
Being able to point my phone at a sign written in a foreign language and having it translated into English instantly is not only a killer app for me, it blows my mind that we've gone from no cellphones 20 years ago to this. For those of us that don't use Android - which app is this?
- georgemcbay 16y ago
  I would assume he is talking about Google Goggles, which IIRC is also available as an iPhone app these days. Despite the availability of that particular app on iOS, the immediate availability of any Google mobile app on Android (without having to wait for the long delays that plagued Google Voice, etc) and the integration of them all is the killer Android app for me. Having things like Android Car Mode and Voice Search out of the box and having them all work together is really nice, and while you can get similar functionality out of iOS by piecing many apps together, it isn't quite the same seamless experience. YMMV depending upon how much you consume Google services. Android certainly suffers on the games front and is a second class citizen for other types of utility apps from non-Google vendors.

satoimo 16y ago

Isn't the difference here that Google sees Android, long term, as a web console rather that a (native) app console? The browser is the killer app.

ergo98 16y ago

I have no disagreement with Gruber here -- he is generally on the mark. However I think it is a short-sighted perspective. The products that are in the market today often had many months to years of incubation end evolution time on them. A mere four months ago, iOS was still overwhelmingly where it was at, and on sites of the people making the apps -- like HN -- it had the dominant mindspace. That has profoundly changed. On my Android I've noticed the pace of iterations of the top tier apps is reaching an incredible pace, as obviously what was an afterthought is starting to get equal billing to their iOS product. Gruber is unquestionably right today. In three months, or six months, I think the equation will have dramatically changed. Though it will never be about "killer apps" (where exclusivity is the definition). That antiquated notion has no place in modern computing. Note that Google makes all of their "killer apps" available on iOS as well, which is exactly how it should be. In an ideal every top tier app exists on multiple platforms.