3 ms·

I'm not sure where people get this idea. Chrome on my old Note 8 is as fast as Safari on my newer iPad, and doesn't need to reload tabs as I switch between them

by bsanr2 6y ago

I'm not sure where people get this idea. Chrome on my old Note 8 is as fast as Safari on my newer iPad, and doesn't need to reload tabs as I switch between them nearly as often. On top of that, the Safari interface is completely unintuitive ("I have to hold which button to access that? I can't just tap it?"). I wouldn't even bother owning an iOS device if it weren't for the third-party app selection (specifically for art production). Which is the most infuriating part: devs could do all of this stuff on Android, they just refuse to.

Miraste 6y ago
>devs could do all of this stuff on Android, they just refuse to. That's not fair. There are good reasons Android doesn't have art production apps. The biggest is that Android users don't pay for apps like that and devs like eating, but iOS has several other advantages like the Pencil, the better graphics APIs, the better graphics performance, etc.
- bsanr2 6y ago
  It is wholly fair. Developers have treated Android users like second-class citizens from Day 1. Android apps come out months after their iOS counterparts, with hobbled features that never reach parity. Customers have responded with second-class compensation (favoring advertising). Additionally, what you rationalize as "better" is better thought of as a result of expertise lock-in, as developers with more (exclusive?) experience developing for iOS favor that platform. Android is fundamentally more open as a platform, and Android apps would benefit if companies actually bothered to hire and incentivize Android developers as a priority. An especially damning example: the rapid development of ARKit-based technologies after YEARS of Google making its Project Tango resources available. ARCore still lags behind ARKit even though its underlying architecture had BEEN there for developers to explore and iterate on. They simply wrote off the very concept of SLAM-based interaction until Apple said, "Let's do this." It's embarrassing.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    > Customers have responded with second-class compensation (favoring advertising). This is more the result of Android being the budget option. You make it sound as though developers have some grand scheme against Android. Devs do prioritize iOS, but if you want it to change you (and Google) should understand the reasons for it. ARKit vs ARCore is a great example. Tango launched on a single phone that no one bought, it required specialized hardware, and it had serious performance issues. Google forged ahead with the hardware requirements for years, in which the market for Tango apps was zero. They gave it limited support and it was clearly not a priority. It was only after Apple launched ARKit all at once for every modern iDevice, in a big presentation to make it clear this would be a major iOS going forward, that Google killed off Tango and screwed over all the devs who had bought in (with a tweet, for the extra insult to injury). They launched ARCore instead, which still didn't run on the majority of Android phones and still didn't track as well as ARKit. ARCore isn't the only time Google has behaved this way, it happens with nearly all of their efforts. Do you see why developers don't engage with these kinds of practices?
    - bsanr2 6y ago
      >You make it sound as though developers have some grand scheme against Android. No, it's simply the same sort of tribalism that drives so much of American culture. The black-and-white, good-vs-evil format warring is nothing new; as always, it's driven by a kernel of legitimate difference and a whole lot of snowballing bias. What needs to happen is for developers to pull their heads out of their asses, realize just how enormous the Android market is, and supply experiences that justify paying for software (especially in a climate where most users don't see anywhere near the value they give in personal data returned in software utility). >Tango launched on a single phone that no one bought That doesn't matter. Tango was the cutting edge of mobile XR, which is a space that still won't be mature and profitable for years from now. The point would have been to get a jumpstart on developing port-able technologies and UX norms. Can you imagine how much more solid app development would have been if someone had showed up in 2003 and said, "In 10 years, multi-touch display smartphones will become the norm. Here's a dev kit that approximates what will be possible."? That's Tango. I don't know how you can argue that opportunities weren't missed or pushed back years because of this platform bias. Now the space is even contracting somewhat because Apple marketed ARKit (and forced Google to market ARCore) as a consumer-ready platform, and companies are realizing that it isn't (control isn't figured out, UX isn't figured out, applications aren't figured out; we're JUST getting the basic technology layer above ARKit/Core figured out). If we'd taken Tango seriously, we'd be so much farther ahead. This goes for so much in the iOS/Android dynamic. It's dumb.

by bsanr2 6y ago

Miraste 6y ago

>devs could do all of this stuff on Android, they just refuse to. That's not fair. There are good reasons Android doesn't have art production apps. The biggest is that Android users don't pay for apps like that and devs like eating, but iOS has several other advantages like the Pencil, the better graphics APIs, the better graphics performance, etc.

bsanr2 6y ago
It is wholly fair. Developers have treated Android users like second-class citizens from Day 1. Android apps come out months after their iOS counterparts, with hobbled features that never reach parity. Customers have responded with second-class compensation (favoring advertising). Additionally, what you rationalize as "better" is better thought of as a result of expertise lock-in, as developers with more (exclusive?) experience developing for iOS favor that platform. Android is fundamentally more open as a platform, and Android apps would benefit if companies actually bothered to hire and incentivize Android developers as a priority. An especially damning example: the rapid development of ARKit-based technologies after YEARS of Google making its Project Tango resources available. ARCore still lags behind ARKit even though its underlying architecture had BEEN there for developers to explore and iterate on. They simply wrote off the very concept of SLAM-based interaction until Apple said, "Let's do this." It's embarrassing.
- Miraste 6y ago
  > Customers have responded with second-class compensation (favoring advertising). This is more the result of Android being the budget option. You make it sound as though developers have some grand scheme against Android. Devs do prioritize iOS, but if you want it to change you (and Google) should understand the reasons for it. ARKit vs ARCore is a great example. Tango launched on a single phone that no one bought, it required specialized hardware, and it had serious performance issues. Google forged ahead with the hardware requirements for years, in which the market for Tango apps was zero. They gave it limited support and it was clearly not a priority. It was only after Apple launched ARKit all at once for every modern iDevice, in a big presentation to make it clear this would be a major iOS going forward, that Google killed off Tango and screwed over all the devs who had bought in (with a tweet, for the extra insult to injury). They launched ARCore instead, which still didn't run on the majority of Android phones and still didn't track as well as ARKit. ARCore isn't the only time Google has behaved this way, it happens with nearly all of their efforts. Do you see why developers don't engage with these kinds of practices?
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    >You make it sound as though developers have some grand scheme against Android. No, it's simply the same sort of tribalism that drives so much of American culture. The black-and-white, good-vs-evil format warring is nothing new; as always, it's driven by a kernel of legitimate difference and a whole lot of snowballing bias. What needs to happen is for developers to pull their heads out of their asses, realize just how enormous the Android market is, and supply experiences that justify paying for software (especially in a climate where most users don't see anywhere near the value they give in personal data returned in software utility). >Tango launched on a single phone that no one bought That doesn't matter. Tango was the cutting edge of mobile XR, which is a space that still won't be mature and profitable for years from now. The point would have been to get a jumpstart on developing port-able technologies and UX norms. Can you imagine how much more solid app development would have been if someone had showed up in 2003 and said, "In 10 years, multi-touch display smartphones will become the norm. Here's a dev kit that approximates what will be possible."? That's Tango. I don't know how you can argue that opportunities weren't missed or pushed back years because of this platform bias. Now the space is even contracting somewhat because Apple marketed ARKit (and forced Google to market ARCore) as a consumer-ready platform, and companies are realizing that it isn't (control isn't figured out, UX isn't figured out, applications aren't figured out; we're JUST getting the basic technology layer above ARKit/Core figured out). If we'd taken Tango seriously, we'd be so much farther ahead. This goes for so much in the iOS/Android dynamic. It's dumb.