4 ms·

Ah, irony. It's more than a little amusing that the people writing the software need to be "encouraged" to use the platform that's more popular (by shipments).

by timr 14y ago

Ah, irony. It's more than a little amusing that the people writing the software need to be "encouraged" to use the platform that's more popular (by shipments). Even in the days of Mac-vs-Windows, it wasn't really true that developers needed to be encouraged to write code for Windows. They migrated to the more popular platform, because that's where the action was. But these days, the action is in iOS, and Android is a clear second-tier player (amongst developers). The fact that Android is shipping more units is almost incidental. In software, this pattern is historically kind of weird, but in consumer products, it's par for the course -- new innovations come out in high-end products, and eventually filter down to the masses. Perhaps this is a sign that software is finally becoming a commodity industry.

mdasen 14y ago
I think there are a few reasons for this. First, there is the question of where Android's growth is. Apple is clearly going for the $200 price point on-contract. Yes, they sell their old models, but Android has a more diverse ecosystem. If we limited ourselves to equivalents (the top of the line iPhone and the several top of the line Android devices (Nexus 4, One X, GS III, etc.)) would there be so many more Android shipments? So, Android's shipments might be coming more on the low-end: the end that people like us don't purchase from as much. Second, in the Mac vs. Windows era, there was a significant price disparity. If you're in the market for a top-of-the-line smartphone on-contract today, you're likely paying $200 for an Android phone or iPhone. Windows computers always had a significant price discount over equivalent Macs. Third, in the Mac vs. Windows era, Macs often were under-spec'd. While Apple tried to make the best of the 603-G5 processors, Intel was just on a roll. You'd pay more and end up with less muscle. Today, the iPhone's A6 matches the quad-cores that Americans haven't been getting since LTE took precedence over quad-core in the GS III generation. Fourth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were technologically inferior for many years. I'm specifically talking about the Classic Mac OS. Mac OS 8/9 was beautiful. Windows looked like it was designed in crayon by comparison (to me). However, its cooperative multitasking was just sad. Windows 95 really showed that OSs could be better (even if I thought that its UI was sub-par). When OS X and Windows XP came out, OS X was dog-slow - slow to the point of unusable. Apple really improved it and made it into the OS that many of us (myself included) love today. However, I remember 2001 and how envious I was of Windows users. Fifth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were app-poor. There was just a lot of compelling stuff that you couldn't run as a Mac user. The move toward the web changed a lot of that and left Apple with a great way back into the market. With the iPhone, I find that the iPhone does a better job on web pages than Android (note, I haven't used Android 4.1 and 4.2). Stats on web usage on mobile phones seem to bear this out as iPhone web browsing tends to dominate Android web browsing. Likewise, the iPhone at least matches Android on apps, but I think it could be argued to be the primary platform for apps. So, there isn't a penalty to using an iPhone in the way that there was a penalty to using a Mac in the Mac vs. PC era. Basically, the iPhone isn't more expensive at the top-of-the-line, the iPhone has specs that no one would deny are top of the line, iOS isn't an inferior OS (personal preference about certain features aside), and there isn't a penalty to using iOS (if anything, it could be considered the first platform). None of this is meant to say that the iPhone is better than an Android phone. I don't care what you enjoy using. It's meant to demonstrate that iOS doesn't have the same cost premium, that if we limit ourselves to the devices that people like us buy the marketshare disparity might not be there, that even if iOS is a minority platform it still gets as good attention or better from developers, the specs are equivalent which they weren't in computers for a long time, and iOS and Android are both great modern OSs. If you were an early adopter, iOS came a couple years before Android. In the Mac vs. PC era, Windows was more popular not just because popularity breeds popularity. It was hugely cheaper, better spec'd, and a superior OS for a good while. If you loved computing, Apple's tidyness might have been well out-shadowed by Windows 95's multi-tasking, app availability, price, specs, etc. If you like iOS, why choose an Android device as your next phone? No reason really. Similarly, there aren't compelling reasons if you like Android to buy an iPhone - Android phones today have high-res displays, are starting to get serious on build quality, similar specs, etc. It wasn't hard to convince a Mac user in 2000 to switch to Windows: you got a better OS, more apps, a faster computer, for half the price. I could convince people to switch to Windows with good, logical arguments that really rang true. Today, how would you convince an iPhone user to switch to Android? I'm not saying Android is bad, just that it's a lot harder to make that argument.
- aetherson 14y ago
  I think there's another big reason: Facebook employees tended to be early adopters, and bought into smartphone back when iOS really was clearly the better platform. And then either got locked in to the ecosystem, developed brand loyalty, chose the path of least resistance, or just didn't notice when android became a worthy competitor. There are lots of good reasons to use an iPhone now if your first iPhone was four years ago. Fewer if your first smartphone is this year.
- revelation 14y ago
  Step back and think here. Facebook has 800 million active users. Their major competition and growth opportunities will not be in the USA, they will be in China and emerging countries. It's far from obvious in this bubble here, but these people are overwhelmingly not buying Apple devices. They simply can't afford them.
danso 14y ago
> But these days, the action is in iOS, and Android is a clear second-tier player (amongst developers). The fact that Android is shipping more units is almost incidental. Really? Incidental? For an app that makes money by sales, I'd agree with you, since Apple has proven possible that more money is to be made from a smaller market segment if that smaller market segment is more willing to pay. But in the case of Facebook and other such businesses where volume and ubiquity is key, it is incumbent for them to nudge developers to be more adept in a platform like Android. While FB users on Android will still visit FB, even if the app is inferior, I think FB's business depends on Android users being as attracted to FB as possible...not just when they get home to their desktop Macs. In other words, why should a company let its developers be complacent with getting to use the best gadget, if the company's strategy is to dominate the global consciousness? [insert pithy comment about FB still using PHP]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
levesque 14y ago
As a developer I'd rather stay on the open app market, i.e. not iOS.
- dubcanada 14y ago
  So Android is an open app market? Why is there restrictions on what you can put in it then?
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    http://www.androidcentral.com/what-sideloading-android-z http://www.androidcentral.com/what-sideloading-android-z
    - shuzchen 14y ago
      Just wanted to clarify a bit more than what the article mentions. Not only do Android devices allow you to install an app from an .apk you downloaded (or copied to sd card, or emailed as attachment to yourself, or put in your dropbox, or sent over usb through adb, etc etc), there are more app marketplaces than just Google Play. That article mentions Amazon appstore (free premium app every day anyone?), but there are many others. https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ is one I always use (it contains free/open-source apps only), and I guess mikandi (an adult app store) is still around.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> It's more than a little amusing that the people writing the software need to be "encouraged" to use the platform that's more popular It's not too surprising, though. The Valley has long been enamored with Apple and Steve Jobs - the Reality Distortion Field has been most effective on those who really should know better. Android's dominance in the smartphone market has only served to reinforce their feelings of superiority and elitism vis-à-vis the common man. And contrary to what you say, this applies to Windows vs. Mac as well. Macs are dominant in the Valley, which is quite the aberration in a world where Windows has around 90% of the PC market. When people in the Valley sing the praises of the web for its cross-platform nature, what they actually mean is that they can use Macs while still targeting the Windows market. This hypocrisy becomes evident in their complete lack of cross-platform support when it comes to the mobile market, since they just stick to iOS. Moreover, one of the biggest advantages touted about iOS is the wide variety of games available for it. But the same people praising iOS for all its games are running Macs, which can run hardly any games compared to Windows.
- kemiller 14y ago
  Macs have only been dominant in Silicon Valley for about 5 or 6 years. Really, only since the switch to Intel, that's to say, once they reached parity on specs. Between 1995 and 2005 you could have gone into almost any office in Silicon Valley and found few if any non-Windows computers, and if you did, they were more likely to be Suns than Apples.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  > who really should know better > their feelings of superiority and elitism vis-à-vis the common man > hypocrisy I really think you should take a step back from Apple news and relax. If the Silicon Valley is doing it wrong, then go and exploit this imbalance to boost your business. Judging people for their OS choices is not productive.

by timr 14y ago

mdasen 14y ago

I think there are a few reasons for this. First, there is the question of where Android's growth is. Apple is clearly going for the $200 price point on-contract. Yes, they sell their old models, but Android has a more diverse ecosystem. If we limited ourselves to equivalents (the top of the line iPhone and the several top of the line Android devices (Nexus 4, One X, GS III, etc.)) would there be so many more Android shipments? So, Android's shipments might be coming more on the low-end: the end that people like us don't purchase from as much. Second, in the Mac vs. Windows era, there was a significant price disparity. If you're in the market for a top-of-the-line smartphone on-contract today, you're likely paying $200 for an Android phone or iPhone. Windows computers always had a significant price discount over equivalent Macs. Third, in the Mac vs. Windows era, Macs often were under-spec'd. While Apple tried to make the best of the 603-G5 processors, Intel was just on a roll. You'd pay more and end up with less muscle. Today, the iPhone's A6 matches the quad-cores that Americans haven't been getting since LTE took precedence over quad-core in the GS III generation. Fourth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were technologically inferior for many years. I'm specifically talking about the Classic Mac OS. Mac OS 8/9 was beautiful. Windows looked like it was designed in crayon by comparison (to me). However, its cooperative multitasking was just sad. Windows 95 really showed that OSs could be better (even if I thought that its UI was sub-par). When OS X and Windows XP came out, OS X was dog-slow - slow to the point of unusable. Apple really improved it and made it into the OS that many of us (myself included) love today. However, I remember 2001 and how envious I was of Windows users. Fifth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were app-poor. There was just a lot of compelling stuff that you couldn't run as a Mac user. The move toward the web changed a lot of that and left Apple with a great way back into the market. With the iPhone, I find that the iPhone does a better job on web pages than Android (note, I haven't used Android 4.1 and 4.2). Stats on web usage on mobile phones seem to bear this out as iPhone web browsing tends to dominate Android web browsing. Likewise, the iPhone at least matches Android on apps, but I think it could be argued to be the primary platform for apps. So, there isn't a penalty to using an iPhone in the way that there was a penalty to using a Mac in the Mac vs. PC era. Basically, the iPhone isn't more expensive at the top-of-the-line, the iPhone has specs that no one would deny are top of the line, iOS isn't an inferior OS (personal preference about certain features aside), and there isn't a penalty to using iOS (if anything, it could be considered the first platform). None of this is meant to say that the iPhone is better than an Android phone. I don't care what you enjoy using. It's meant to demonstrate that iOS doesn't have the same cost premium, that if we limit ourselves to the devices that people like us buy the marketshare disparity might not be there, that even if iOS is a minority platform it still gets as good attention or better from developers, the specs are equivalent which they weren't in computers for a long time, and iOS and Android are both great modern OSs. If you were an early adopter, iOS came a couple years before Android. In the Mac vs. PC era, Windows was more popular not just because popularity breeds popularity. It was hugely cheaper, better spec'd, and a superior OS for a good while. If you loved computing, Apple's tidyness might have been well out-shadowed by Windows 95's multi-tasking, app availability, price, specs, etc. If you like iOS, why choose an Android device as your next phone? No reason really. Similarly, there aren't compelling reasons if you like Android to buy an iPhone - Android phones today have high-res displays, are starting to get serious on build quality, similar specs, etc. It wasn't hard to convince a Mac user in 2000 to switch to Windows: you got a better OS, more apps, a faster computer, for half the price. I could convince people to switch to Windows with good, logical arguments that really rang true. Today, how would you convince an iPhone user to switch to Android? I'm not saying Android is bad, just that it's a lot harder to make that argument.

aetherson 14y ago
I think there's another big reason: Facebook employees tended to be early adopters, and bought into smartphone back when iOS really was clearly the better platform. And then either got locked in to the ecosystem, developed brand loyalty, chose the path of least resistance, or just didn't notice when android became a worthy competitor. There are lots of good reasons to use an iPhone now if your first iPhone was four years ago. Fewer if your first smartphone is this year.
revelation 14y ago
Step back and think here. Facebook has 800 million active users. Their major competition and growth opportunities will not be in the USA, they will be in China and emerging countries. It's far from obvious in this bubble here, but these people are overwhelmingly not buying Apple devices. They simply can't afford them.

danso 14y ago

> But these days, the action is in iOS, and Android is a clear second-tier player (amongst developers). The fact that Android is shipping more units is almost incidental. Really? Incidental? For an app that makes money by sales, I'd agree with you, since Apple has proven possible that more money is to be made from a smaller market segment if that smaller market segment is more willing to pay. But in the case of Facebook and other such businesses where volume and ubiquity is key, it is incumbent for them to nudge developers to be more adept in a platform like Android. While FB users on Android will still visit FB, even if the app is inferior, I think FB's business depends on Android users being as attracted to FB as possible...not just when they get home to their desktop Macs. In other words, why should a company let its developers be complacent with getting to use the best gadget, if the company's strategy is to dominate the global consciousness? [insert pithy comment about FB still using PHP]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

levesque 14y ago

As a developer I'd rather stay on the open app market, i.e. not iOS.

dubcanada 14y ago
So Android is an open app market? Why is there restrictions on what you can put in it then?
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  http://www.androidcentral.com/what-sideloading-android-z http://www.androidcentral.com/what-sideloading-android-z
  - shuzchen 14y ago
    Just wanted to clarify a bit more than what the article mentions. Not only do Android devices allow you to install an app from an .apk you downloaded (or copied to sd card, or emailed as attachment to yourself, or put in your dropbox, or sent over usb through adb, etc etc), there are more app marketplaces than just Google Play. That article mentions Amazon appstore (free premium app every day anyone?), but there are many others. https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ is one I always use (it contains free/open-source apps only), and I guess mikandi (an adult app store) is still around.

w1ntermute 14y ago

> It's more than a little amusing that the people writing the software need to be "encouraged" to use the platform that's more popular It's not too surprising, though. The Valley has long been enamored with Apple and Steve Jobs - the Reality Distortion Field has been most effective on those who really should know better. Android's dominance in the smartphone market has only served to reinforce their feelings of superiority and elitism vis-à-vis the common man. And contrary to what you say, this applies to Windows vs. Mac as well. Macs are dominant in the Valley, which is quite the aberration in a world where Windows has around 90% of the PC market. When people in the Valley sing the praises of the web for its cross-platform nature, what they actually mean is that they can use Macs while still targeting the Windows market. This hypocrisy becomes evident in their complete lack of cross-platform support when it comes to the mobile market, since they just stick to iOS. Moreover, one of the biggest advantages touted about iOS is the wide variety of games available for it. But the same people praising iOS for all its games are running Macs, which can run hardly any games compared to Windows.

kemiller 14y ago
Macs have only been dominant in Silicon Valley for about 5 or 6 years. Really, only since the switch to Intel, that's to say, once they reached parity on specs. Between 1995 and 2005 you could have gone into almost any office in Silicon Valley and found few if any non-Windows computers, and if you did, they were more likely to be Suns than Apples.
gurkendoktor 14y ago
> who really should know better > their feelings of superiority and elitism vis-à-vis the common man > hypocrisy I really think you should take a step back from Apple news and relax. If the Silicon Valley is doing it wrong, then go and exploit this imbalance to boost your business. Judging people for their OS choices is not productive.