7 ms·

So Android's fragmentation problem isn't that bad for developers if they're used to working on an even worse platform (web developing)? That's a terrible argum

So Android's fragmentation problem isn't that bad for developers if they're used to working on an even worse platform (web developing)? That's a terrible argument. There is always something worse. That doesn't mean Android is any less fragmented.

rabidsnail 14y ago
Android fragmentation is worse than web fragmentation. On the web one only has to test on 4 browsers x two operating systems, as opposed to dozens of phones x several os versions x several carriers.
- ajross 14y ago
  You're slipping your terminology here and achieving some pretty clever spin: It's only four browsers if you don't care about Opera users. It's only two OSes if you don't care about Linux users. If that's your standard for support, then why not look solely at the successful Android devices, which takes you from "dozens" of handsets to maybe seven at most, which is less than the web world. And of course the 4/2 argument is bunk anyway. Web developers test ever major version of every browser (especially with IE) and every version of every OS. So for example it's {XP,Vista,7} cross {ChromeN,ChromeN-1,IE7,IE8,IE9,FirefoxN,FirefoxN-1} plus {Lion,Snow Leopard,Leopard} cross {Safari,ChromeN,ChromeN-1,FirefoxN,FirefoxN-1}, etc... You can't have your argument both ways, basically: either the small market platform variants matter or they don't. If they don't, Android support is easier than the web by a significant margin.
  - jcromartie 14y ago
    Most people can update their desktop browser for free at any time. Most (85%) of the Android users out there are stuck on something <= 2.3. And it depends on your audience. For instance, if you're Reddit (or are targeting the Reddit users) you're looking at 7% on IE, and 2% on Opera. You can practically ignore those browsers in that case.
    - markkanof 14y ago
      Most people could update their browser for free but that doesn't mean that they will update it. I regularly encounter Firefox 3.x users. Fortunately, Firefox 3.x is still a decent browser in terms of standards support but it certainly isn't anywhere near the latest available version.
      - jcromartie 14y ago
        That depends largely on your audience, too. I bet the Reddit crowd are almost all up-to-date with whatever browser they are running. A stodgy enterprise or gov't office might mandate a certain outdated version for internal apps. I'd bet that a small slice of the vast number of websites out there actually target the average user. The ones that do are likely generic portal ("start page") sites, stores with broad appeal (Amazon, Target, B&N), or public services that everybody would access.
  - chaostheory 14y ago
    Even if you count Opera and Linux, it's still less to support than all the Android variants; both software and hardware. I could be wrong, but don't Chrome, Firefox, and even Opera now auto-update as well?
  - joshstrange 14y ago
    I disagree. Testing is STILL much easier for web development, the android emulators are no replacement for the real thing. Yeah, if you want to give me the top 7 Android phones then yes, development becomes easier (I'm sorry but still no where near as "easy" as it is in the world of web development). We normally will test Win/OSX and the latest FF+Chrome and then IE7/IE8/IE9/Soon-IE10. This in total means testing 6 different combos (No IE on OS X and only test FF/Chrome in one OS). I might throw the site in safari just to double check but since it runs on webkit I usually can trust that if it works in Chrome it will work in Safari. At the end of the day we have to much less checking in web development than we do in mobile because while browsers are different that are more alike than they are different. That cannot be said for Android/iOS, they differ down to their very core and most cross-platform attempts fall hopelessly short of a usable app.
    - ajross 14y ago
      This seems to be a digression. The point isn't that the "task" of development is easier than web development. Of course it's not, that's ridiculous. It might be done with fancy Java IDEs, but it's still embedded systems development on physically disjoint hardware. The point was that the added cost to development due to platform incompatibilities is less than it is in the web world. And I think that's largely inarguable. Where is the list of Android incompatibilities that is anywhere near as complicated or exhaustive as http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com for example? People in this thread are having a lot of trouble coming up with any specifics at all, in fact. Mostly just a list of apps that break somewhere; no one seems to actually remember any real bugs or workarounds.
- Ineffable 14y ago
  And all of the mobile browsers with their different operating systems. And what purpose would testing an app on different carriers have? The carriers have no impact on how well an app runs, whatsoever.
  - rabidsnail 14y ago
    > The carriers have no impact on how well an app runs, whatsoever. Not true. Each carrier has their own build of the OS, and they have different sets of bugs. For example, on one of the Samsung phones (I don't remember which one) on one carrier there's a loopback interface, and on another carrier there is none.
- esolyt 14y ago
  While doing a comparison, try not to change the things you are comparing. If you did the comparison this way: On the web one only has to test on 4 browsers x two operating systems. On Android, one only has to test on 1 browser and 1 operating system.

rabidsnail 14y ago

Android fragmentation is worse than web fragmentation. On the web one only has to test on 4 browsers x two operating systems, as opposed to dozens of phones x several os versions x several carriers.

ajross 14y ago
You're slipping your terminology here and achieving some pretty clever spin: It's only four browsers if you don't care about Opera users. It's only two OSes if you don't care about Linux users. If that's your standard for support, then why not look solely at the successful Android devices, which takes you from "dozens" of handsets to maybe seven at most, which is less than the web world. And of course the 4/2 argument is bunk anyway. Web developers test ever major version of every browser (especially with IE) and every version of every OS. So for example it's {XP,Vista,7} cross {ChromeN,ChromeN-1,IE7,IE8,IE9,FirefoxN,FirefoxN-1} plus {Lion,Snow Leopard,Leopard} cross {Safari,ChromeN,ChromeN-1,FirefoxN,FirefoxN-1}, etc... You can't have your argument both ways, basically: either the small market platform variants matter or they don't. If they don't, Android support is easier than the web by a significant margin.
- jcromartie 14y ago
  Most people can update their desktop browser for free at any time. Most (85%) of the Android users out there are stuck on something <= 2.3. And it depends on your audience. For instance, if you're Reddit (or are targeting the Reddit users) you're looking at 7% on IE, and 2% on Opera. You can practically ignore those browsers in that case.
  - markkanof 14y ago
    Most people could update their browser for free but that doesn't mean that they will update it. I regularly encounter Firefox 3.x users. Fortunately, Firefox 3.x is still a decent browser in terms of standards support but it certainly isn't anywhere near the latest available version.
    - jcromartie 14y ago
      That depends largely on your audience, too. I bet the Reddit crowd are almost all up-to-date with whatever browser they are running. A stodgy enterprise or gov't office might mandate a certain outdated version for internal apps. I'd bet that a small slice of the vast number of websites out there actually target the average user. The ones that do are likely generic portal ("start page") sites, stores with broad appeal (Amazon, Target, B&N), or public services that everybody would access.
- chaostheory 14y ago
  Even if you count Opera and Linux, it's still less to support than all the Android variants; both software and hardware. I could be wrong, but don't Chrome, Firefox, and even Opera now auto-update as well?
- joshstrange 14y ago
  I disagree. Testing is STILL much easier for web development, the android emulators are no replacement for the real thing. Yeah, if you want to give me the top 7 Android phones then yes, development becomes easier (I'm sorry but still no where near as "easy" as it is in the world of web development). We normally will test Win/OSX and the latest FF+Chrome and then IE7/IE8/IE9/Soon-IE10. This in total means testing 6 different combos (No IE on OS X and only test FF/Chrome in one OS). I might throw the site in safari just to double check but since it runs on webkit I usually can trust that if it works in Chrome it will work in Safari. At the end of the day we have to much less checking in web development than we do in mobile because while browsers are different that are more alike than they are different. That cannot be said for Android/iOS, they differ down to their very core and most cross-platform attempts fall hopelessly short of a usable app.
  - ajross 14y ago
    This seems to be a digression. The point isn't that the "task" of development is easier than web development. Of course it's not, that's ridiculous. It might be done with fancy Java IDEs, but it's still embedded systems development on physically disjoint hardware. The point was that the added cost to development due to platform incompatibilities is less than it is in the web world. And I think that's largely inarguable. Where is the list of Android incompatibilities that is anywhere near as complicated or exhaustive as http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com for example? People in this thread are having a lot of trouble coming up with any specifics at all, in fact. Mostly just a list of apps that break somewhere; no one seems to actually remember any real bugs or workarounds.
Ineffable 14y ago
And all of the mobile browsers with their different operating systems. And what purpose would testing an app on different carriers have? The carriers have no impact on how well an app runs, whatsoever.
- rabidsnail 14y ago
  > The carriers have no impact on how well an app runs, whatsoever. Not true. Each carrier has their own build of the OS, and they have different sets of bugs. For example, on one of the Samsung phones (I don't remember which one) on one carrier there's a loopback interface, and on another carrier there is none.
esolyt 14y ago
While doing a comparison, try not to change the things you are comparing. If you did the comparison this way: On the web one only has to test on 4 browsers x two operating systems. On Android, one only has to test on 1 browser and 1 operating system.