5 ms·

Can any experienced iOS developers please tell me if it is really 'that' hard to make an app iPod Touch compatible? I mean, come on, you just alienate a ton of

Can any experienced iOS developers please tell me if it is really 'that' hard to make an app iPod Touch compatible? I mean, come on, you just alienate a ton of users without implementing iPod or iPad compatibility...

featherless 15y ago
iPad is 'that' hard because it is non-trivial to take advantage of the new screen real estate. Often-times you must implement a completely new navigation model because the stock split view controller is rarely the navigation model you want to use. iPod touch is generally easier. It usually comes down to gracefully degrading features. Much care must also be taken to ensure that the app performs well on the iPod touch models which are often running much weaker hardware specs. The reality is that sometimes devs will only test on their personal iPhones and forget to test on older-gen iPod touches, so the iPod touch experience can sometimes be less than ideal.
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  Probably has a hard requirement for GPS for checkins, which the iPod doesn't have.
  - jolan 15y ago
    The iPod does fake it with wifi-based location.
  - ugh 15y ago
    That’s stupid, though. iPod touches can competently locate themselves (it’s actually astonishingly precise – at least in cities) even without GPS. Oh, and the app should already behave gracefully when determining the location fails – GPS is most certainly not always available. It’s just dumb.
- powpowpow 15y ago
  Even then, I can't think of much you've got to degrade for the iPod touch. The big stuff (screen/ram/graphics/cpu) is near enough identical. If you support the previous gen iPhone, the current gen iPod should be no problem. You can pick up location from wifi... all I can think of not being available is the compass...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - richbradshaw 15y ago
      My iPod does.
      - arihant 15y ago
        My iPod has two!
  - spullara 15y ago
    The latest iPod touch does have a camera. It looks like it was an amateur mistake to not include the iPod touch to me. Just because it doesn't have a GPS chip doesn't mean you can't get your location.
- jeffclark 15y ago
  The presence/lack of a camera and th compass are differences between iPhones and older iPod Touches. The "nearby" and photo features seem pretty baked into the Android version. It just may not be worth the wait to condition those features and start the QA process for v.1
- kelnos 15y ago
  Supporting iPod is trivial. If you're using the camera but not checking to make sure one exists first, you're being lazy and sloppy (Apple's docs say this much, though in nicer terms). Location Services will still work without a GPS, though the accuracy will be reduced since it's relying on WiFi APs. G+ doesn't use the compass. On G+ for Android, they allow you to call people from their profile page if a phone # is provided; I assume they have the same feature on the iOS version. Yes, it's an extra few lines of code to determine if the device is a phone and can make calls, but again: lack of this is just laziness. The iPad is, of course, a different beast, and often calls for a very different UI. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the G+ website works better in iPad Safari than a native app would, at this point. But there's no excuse for no iPod Touch support.
androobear 15y ago
I'm not a dev, but I'd actually be afraid of releasing an app for ipod touch for something so reliant on internet access purely because of the low ratings it would probably get from clueless ipod touch owners...
- Kadin 15y ago
  I suspect this is a big part of the decision. It certainly would be if I were making the call ... if the UX isn't perfect, you're going to get idiots giving it 1-star reviews and generally complaining. I'm not sure I'd want to release anything that didn't have a standalone/offline mode for the Touch, just because I suspect that users operate them out of range from WiFi much of the time. (Or at least I see users playing with them where there isn't Wifi pretty often.) Maybe someone will find an unofficial way of easily getting it onto the Touch ... that would make users who really know what they're doing happy, while also preventing the sort of people who are going to give it a 1-star rating when it doesn't work in the subway from installing it.
  - shinratdr 15y ago
    > I suspect this is a big part of the decision. That doesn't really help things. If this was a conscious decision because they assume iPod touch users are mentally deficient, well then it just bit them in the ass. Apparently Google didn't realize that they could just download the app in iTunes to leave a bad review.
- ugh 15y ago
  That doesn’t make much sense. iPod touch owners can still download the app, they just won’t be able to install it. Many of them will be pretty annoyed by that and leave angry reviews. iTunes doesn’t even prompt me about the lacking device support (I don’t have an iPhone, only an iPod touch), it just downloads. To date the Google+ app has seven reviews in the US app store. Five short five-star ones, two one-star reviews: one complaining about the lacking iOS5 Beta support (incredibly stupid but people apparently write stuff like that) and one complaining about the lacking support for iPod touches. Excluding the iPod touch may make some sense for apps that fly under the radar – but for something that gets as much exposure as Google+? I doubt it.
mtogo 15y ago
I'm not surprised, google tends to not care at all about Touch users (see: goggles).
naz 15y ago
Depends, the 1st generation iPod touch is stuck on 3.1.3 which means you lose out on the newer, much easier to use and less buggy APIs
- spullara 15y ago
  iOS version and device type are separate when you are releasing an iOS app.
- yuhong 15y ago
  So is the original iPhone which is equivalent. I don't think any dev cares about these anymore.
  - patrickk 15y ago
    I'm an iOS developer and I have the original iPhone. Most apps written for < iPhone 4s tends to work ok on my iPhone 2G (i.e. apps written for iPhone 3G or 3GS).
gte910h 15y ago
tldr: Yes. Long Answer: Depends on the features you're using. If you're reporting location, you can double your edge cases when you start to rely on skyhook to give you locations. Also, the lack of camera may be what's actually filtering you out (if you have an old one). iPad is incredibly difficult to fill up with certain apps (there is a TON of screen there).
guelo 15y ago
Btw iOS doesn't suffer from fragmentation like Android does, make sure to blame it on lazy developers.
rodh257 15y ago
My latest app (Convoy - http://convoyapp.net http://convoyapp.net) is a live map display of where you and your friends are. It uses internet and location services very heavily, yet I developed it almost entirely using an iPod touch, despite it's lack of 3G and GPS. I don't have to do any detection, the internet and location API's hide all of these details for you. In fact I tested the app using my android phones wifi hotspot feature and the iPods wifi based location access.

featherless 15y ago

iPad is 'that' hard because it is non-trivial to take advantage of the new screen real estate. Often-times you must implement a completely new navigation model because the stock split view controller is rarely the navigation model you want to use. iPod touch is generally easier. It usually comes down to gracefully degrading features. Much care must also be taken to ensure that the app performs well on the iPod touch models which are often running much weaker hardware specs. The reality is that sometimes devs will only test on their personal iPhones and forget to test on older-gen iPod touches, so the iPod touch experience can sometimes be less than ideal.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Probably has a hard requirement for GPS for checkins, which the iPod doesn't have.
- jolan 15y ago
  The iPod does fake it with wifi-based location.
- ugh 15y ago
  That’s stupid, though. iPod touches can competently locate themselves (it’s actually astonishingly precise – at least in cities) even without GPS. Oh, and the app should already behave gracefully when determining the location fails – GPS is most certainly not always available. It’s just dumb.
powpowpow 15y ago
Even then, I can't think of much you've got to degrade for the iPod touch. The big stuff (screen/ram/graphics/cpu) is near enough identical. If you support the previous gen iPhone, the current gen iPod should be no problem. You can pick up location from wifi... all I can think of not being available is the compass...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - richbradshaw 15y ago
    My iPod does.
    - arihant 15y ago
      My iPod has two!
- spullara 15y ago
  The latest iPod touch does have a camera. It looks like it was an amateur mistake to not include the iPod touch to me. Just because it doesn't have a GPS chip doesn't mean you can't get your location.
jeffclark 15y ago
The presence/lack of a camera and th compass are differences between iPhones and older iPod Touches. The "nearby" and photo features seem pretty baked into the Android version. It just may not be worth the wait to condition those features and start the QA process for v.1
kelnos 15y ago
Supporting iPod is trivial. If you're using the camera but not checking to make sure one exists first, you're being lazy and sloppy (Apple's docs say this much, though in nicer terms). Location Services will still work without a GPS, though the accuracy will be reduced since it's relying on WiFi APs. G+ doesn't use the compass. On G+ for Android, they allow you to call people from their profile page if a phone # is provided; I assume they have the same feature on the iOS version. Yes, it's an extra few lines of code to determine if the device is a phone and can make calls, but again: lack of this is just laziness. The iPad is, of course, a different beast, and often calls for a very different UI. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the G+ website works better in iPad Safari than a native app would, at this point. But there's no excuse for no iPod Touch support.

androobear 15y ago

I'm not a dev, but I'd actually be afraid of releasing an app for ipod touch for something so reliant on internet access purely because of the low ratings it would probably get from clueless ipod touch owners...

Kadin 15y ago
I suspect this is a big part of the decision. It certainly would be if I were making the call ... if the UX isn't perfect, you're going to get idiots giving it 1-star reviews and generally complaining. I'm not sure I'd want to release anything that didn't have a standalone/offline mode for the Touch, just because I suspect that users operate them out of range from WiFi much of the time. (Or at least I see users playing with them where there isn't Wifi pretty often.) Maybe someone will find an unofficial way of easily getting it onto the Touch ... that would make users who really know what they're doing happy, while also preventing the sort of people who are going to give it a 1-star rating when it doesn't work in the subway from installing it.
- shinratdr 15y ago
  > I suspect this is a big part of the decision. That doesn't really help things. If this was a conscious decision because they assume iPod touch users are mentally deficient, well then it just bit them in the ass. Apparently Google didn't realize that they could just download the app in iTunes to leave a bad review.
ugh 15y ago
That doesn’t make much sense. iPod touch owners can still download the app, they just won’t be able to install it. Many of them will be pretty annoyed by that and leave angry reviews. iTunes doesn’t even prompt me about the lacking device support (I don’t have an iPhone, only an iPod touch), it just downloads. To date the Google+ app has seven reviews in the US app store. Five short five-star ones, two one-star reviews: one complaining about the lacking iOS5 Beta support (incredibly stupid but people apparently write stuff like that) and one complaining about the lacking support for iPod touches. Excluding the iPod touch may make some sense for apps that fly under the radar – but for something that gets as much exposure as Google+? I doubt it.

mtogo 15y ago

I'm not surprised, google tends to not care at all about Touch users (see: goggles).

naz 15y ago

Depends, the 1st generation iPod touch is stuck on 3.1.3 which means you lose out on the newer, much easier to use and less buggy APIs

spullara 15y ago
iOS version and device type are separate when you are releasing an iOS app.
yuhong 15y ago
So is the original iPhone which is equivalent. I don't think any dev cares about these anymore.
- patrickk 15y ago
  I'm an iOS developer and I have the original iPhone. Most apps written for < iPhone 4s tends to work ok on my iPhone 2G (i.e. apps written for iPhone 3G or 3GS).

gte910h 15y ago

tldr: Yes. Long Answer: Depends on the features you're using. If you're reporting location, you can double your edge cases when you start to rely on skyhook to give you locations. Also, the lack of camera may be what's actually filtering you out (if you have an old one). iPad is incredibly difficult to fill up with certain apps (there is a TON of screen there).

guelo 15y ago

Btw iOS doesn't suffer from fragmentation like Android does, make sure to blame it on lazy developers.

rodh257 15y ago

My latest app (Convoy - http://convoyapp.net http://convoyapp.net) is a live map display of where you and your friends are. It uses internet and location services very heavily, yet I developed it almost entirely using an iPod touch, despite it's lack of 3G and GPS. I don't have to do any detection, the internet and location API's hide all of these details for you. In fact I tested the app using my android phones wifi hotspot feature and the iPods wifi based location access.