This Is What Developing For Android Looks Like(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
This Is What Developing For Android Looks Like
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/11/this-is-what-developing-for-android-looks-like/
22 コメント
Even the Animoca CEO who is cited in the article exclaims in the end that he is a fan of diversity and doesn't believe in an one size fits all approach[1].
In fact, nowhere do we find Mr. Slu complaining about the ecosystem. The only person putting forth the we are in a horrid state of affairs line is the author of the article.
I suspect that the picture from Animoca was taken as a statement of the company's quality, asserting that "Our company takes the time to QA on all these devices. You the consumer can be assured that our apps will work on your phone, no matter what you use." The picture, to me, is a statement of pride, rather than a display of frustration.
So it looks more like the author had an agenda, and tried to put a square piece into a round hole.
[1] “We like fragmentation as users prefer choice. We are not big believers that one size fits all.”
In fact, nowhere do we find Mr. Slu complaining about the ecosystem. The only person putting forth the we are in a horrid state of affairs line is the author of the article.
I suspect that the picture from Animoca was taken as a statement of the company's quality, asserting that "Our company takes the time to QA on all these devices. You the consumer can be assured that our apps will work on your phone, no matter what you use." The picture, to me, is a statement of pride, rather than a display of frustration.
So it looks more like the author had an agenda, and tried to put a square piece into a round hole.
[1] “We like fragmentation as users prefer choice. We are not big believers that one size fits all.”
I completely agree. I was on a project to develop an extremely complex Android app and we survived just fine by testing on one tablet and one phone per developer (roughly 6 or 7 different devices total).
The developer tools do an excellent job helping test for and deal with errors on the different in the Android ecosystem.
The developer tools do an excellent job helping test for and deal with errors on the different in the Android ecosystem.
I agree too.
On more data point here: we just ported our fairly complex app (a file manager) from Honeycomb back to Froyo. If we had access to that many devices, of course we would have tested it on all of them, but our experience has been that using a few devices and some emulator configurations you can do surprisingly well enough. Not a single complaint so far, although admittedly our user base only approaches about 20k.
I think these articles exaggerate the effect of the fragmentation. It exists, it costs us developers some time and money, but not even close to being a "nightmare".
On more data point here: we just ported our fairly complex app (a file manager) from Honeycomb back to Froyo. If we had access to that many devices, of course we would have tested it on all of them, but our experience has been that using a few devices and some emulator configurations you can do surprisingly well enough. Not a single complaint so far, although admittedly our user base only approaches about 20k.
I think these articles exaggerate the effect of the fragmentation. It exists, it costs us developers some time and money, but not even close to being a "nightmare".
When I heard developers complain about Android fragmentation first-hand, most of them complained about GPUs, and Animoca's home page shows games first and foremost. I wouldn't be surprised if the need for hundreds of devices differed very much across application types.
Hey, I'm the author of the article and I don't really have an agenda in the Android/iOS platform debate. Both are necessary platforms to build on at this point.
Yat also wasn't really complaining about the state of affairs on Android at all. He's happy to QA test with 400 devices and he thinks it's why his company performs well relative to other game developers who don't do as comprehensive a job.
I just thought it was a hilarious photo about the lengths that one Android developer will go to make their apps work. :)
Yat also wasn't really complaining about the state of affairs on Android at all. He's happy to QA test with 400 devices and he thinks it's why his company performs well relative to other game developers who don't do as comprehensive a job.
I just thought it was a hilarious photo about the lengths that one Android developer will go to make their apps work. :)
Kimmai,
The way you wrote the headline suggests that you do have an agenda.
Unless you think Techcrunch should not be taken seriously, a lot of people would think that Android is such an awful platform to develop in and would stay away from it.
I've been an Android developer for 3+ years. I only test in 3 phones and my apps work in majority of devices. If a developer follow most best practices, a lot of fragmentation issues go away.
I understand that you are trying to be hilarious but it just contributes to FUDs on Android that has really not much basis.
The way you wrote the headline suggests that you do have an agenda.
Unless you think Techcrunch should not be taken seriously, a lot of people would think that Android is such an awful platform to develop in and would stay away from it.
I've been an Android developer for 3+ years. I only test in 3 phones and my apps work in majority of devices. If a developer follow most best practices, a lot of fragmentation issues go away.
I understand that you are trying to be hilarious but it just contributes to FUDs on Android that has really not much basis.
Tks, it's a simple headline that gets a point across. I talk on a weekly basis with many of the top-grossing devs on both platforms so I try to listen to their issues.
This was not meant to be a warning for devs to stay away of Android, but doing more extensive QA testing is a reality of the platform.
What's your app? How many DLs does it have? How many DAU do you have?
This was not meant to be a warning for devs to stay away of Android, but doing more extensive QA testing is a reality of the platform.
What's your app? How many DLs does it have? How many DAU do you have?
The apps I built varies. Some have hundreds, some have 10K+.
But you know what's a better example? Netflix. They test on 10 phones & 4 tablets.
http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/03/testing-netflix-on-andro...
Netflix App has at least 10 million installs - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.netflix.me....
But you know what's a better example? Netflix. They test on 10 phones & 4 tablets.
http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/03/testing-netflix-on-andro...
Netflix App has at least 10 million installs - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.netflix.me....
That's for basic testing. The post also says they still keep a long tail set of devices for more comprehensive testing.
"We figured out the optimal combination of devices to give us maximum coverage. We are able to reduce our daily smoke automation devices to around 10 phones and 4 tablets and keep the rest for the longer release wide test cycles."
"We figured out the optimal combination of devices to give us maximum coverage. We are able to reduce our daily smoke automation devices to around 10 phones and 4 tablets and keep the rest for the longer release wide test cycles."
Is it 400 devices? Or are you assuming that to justify your post?
"This was not meant to be a warning for devs to stay away of Android, but doing more extensive QA testing is a reality of the platform."
Your headline & picture suggest otherwise.
Honestly, is this a Techcrunch thing? Before you worked at Techcrunch, I can't remember you writing a post like this. Too much snark and mocking a platform (and hence, a community).
"This was not meant to be a warning for devs to stay away of Android, but doing more extensive QA testing is a reality of the platform."
Your headline & picture suggest otherwise.
Honestly, is this a Techcrunch thing? Before you worked at Techcrunch, I can't remember you writing a post like this. Too much snark and mocking a platform (and hence, a community).
Then why not frame the article as "this is a hilarious photo that shows the length that one Android developer is going to in order to ensure maximum compatibility", rather than "this is what it's like if you want to make an Android app"?
You are not a blogger and that is not a viral headline. :) Joke.
No but seriously, I talk to a lot of the top free and top grossing developers and taking QA seriously is a big deal. It matters. Not everyone takes it seriously and it affects your user reviews. At least that is Animoca's thesis and that's why they use 400 devices.
No but seriously, I talk to a lot of the top free and top grossing developers and taking QA seriously is a big deal. It matters. Not everyone takes it seriously and it affects your user reviews. At least that is Animoca's thesis and that's why they use 400 devices.
In all honesty, there is an interesting debate here. A lot of developers are saying 5-6 devices is sufficient for compatibility testing. But Animoca argues that doing 400 is actually a competitive advantage for them.
Firstly, it's not the headline I'm talking about. The whole tone of the article is "this is what developing for Android is like." Having to test on 400 devices is NOT what developing for Android is like, AT ALL.
So you talk to many of the top developers. That's great, how about we hear from a selection of them? How many devices do most of them test on? Taking QA seriously is not the same thing as testing on hundreds of devices.
So when are we going to see the other side of the "debate"? Personally, I don't see a debate at all, just some pageview-bait article that takes a single developer and makes out like this is normal.
So you talk to many of the top developers. That's great, how about we hear from a selection of them? How many devices do most of them test on? Taking QA seriously is not the same thing as testing on hundreds of devices.
So when are we going to see the other side of the "debate"? Personally, I don't see a debate at all, just some pageview-bait article that takes a single developer and makes out like this is normal.
This is "process" journalism where we figure it out as we go. I do several stories a day and frankly, the economic model that supports tech blogging today does not sustain a content model where I can write one story per day and interview dozens of sources.
What I can do however, is do many stories per day, and consistently talk on background to multiple devs every week about their concerns. QA testing for Android has been an on-and-off concern for years.
Animoca has talked to me about it a couple times over the last 18 months, but this image for whatever reason happened to go viral.
This story hit a chord. I had some sense it would but I couldn't have 100% predicted it.
What I can do however, is do many stories per day, and consistently talk on background to multiple devs every week about their concerns. QA testing for Android has been an on-and-off concern for years.
Animoca has talked to me about it a couple times over the last 18 months, but this image for whatever reason happened to go viral.
This story hit a chord. I had some sense it would but I couldn't have 100% predicted it.
Hey, thanks for joining the discussion!
Now, hn, could we please not discourage authors from joining the discussion here? If you hit the down arrow and the post turns grey they really deserve an explanatory post. Even though it's "obvious".
Now, hn, could we please not discourage authors from joining the discussion here? If you hit the down arrow and the post turns grey they really deserve an explanatory post. Even though it's "obvious".
Down votes are clearly out of control on HN, they are not working as a content filter anymore and should be disabled.
Actually the developer of two of the top-grossing iOS apps of all of 2011 just sent me photos of their QA testing racks too.
They have an overflowing safe that is no longer able to contain all of the Android devices they QA test with...
They have an overflowing safe that is no longer able to contain all of the Android devices they QA test with...
So I just had a look at the update, and I count 30 Android devices and 26 iOS devices. Obviously there's plenty of doubled-up devices in the iOS cupboard, but it looks like a couple of the Android devices are doubled-up as well.
My own app is tested on 4 devices (three phones and a tablet) and 2 of those devices were given to me by friends. I'm certainly not a top tier developer, but looking at a single developer who tests on 400 devices and saying "this is what developing for Android is like" is simply factually incorrect. Especially when another top tier developer is only testing on 30 devices. And ESPECIALLY when the vast majority of "normal" Android developers test on a handful of devices only.
Maybe it's a competitive advantage to test on 400 devices. But it's not REQUIRED, and it's certainly not NORMAL.
My own app is tested on 4 devices (three phones and a tablet) and 2 of those devices were given to me by friends. I'm certainly not a top tier developer, but looking at a single developer who tests on 400 devices and saying "this is what developing for Android is like" is simply factually incorrect. Especially when another top tier developer is only testing on 30 devices. And ESPECIALLY when the vast majority of "normal" Android developers test on a handful of devices only.
Maybe it's a competitive advantage to test on 400 devices. But it's not REQUIRED, and it's certainly not NORMAL.
How many devices do the Instagram developers use? Since there's only one guy developing the Android version it's hard to imagine that he uses 400 devices. If he did, there would be no time for writing code.
> Hey, I'm the author of the article and I don't really have an agenda in the Android/iOS platform debate.
Either you are being dishonest about this claim or you are simply a bad reporter who wasn't able to convey her intention in her writing.
Your article is clearly biased against Android, whether you meant it this way or not.
Either you are being dishonest about this claim or you are simply a bad reporter who wasn't able to convey her intention in her writing.
Your article is clearly biased against Android, whether you meant it this way or not.
When they say "all Android developers" you can be pretty sure they mean "most Android developers".
Working on several high profile apps here in Denmark I have felt the pain of not having enough real devices to test on. A bank just wont accept that you don't support one of the most common phone on the market because it has some problems with the camera.
Another project ran into the BigInteger.modPow is not thread safe issue way too late in the development process because we didn't test intensively on pre 2.3 devices.
After facing all these issues, my current project run automated test on 20 physical devices daily. It also helps us keep the UI looking sharp on all devices.
Working on several high profile apps here in Denmark I have felt the pain of not having enough real devices to test on. A bank just wont accept that you don't support one of the most common phone on the market because it has some problems with the camera.
Another project ran into the BigInteger.modPow is not thread safe issue way too late in the development process because we didn't test intensively on pre 2.3 devices.
After facing all these issues, my current project run automated test on 20 physical devices daily. It also helps us keep the UI looking sharp on all devices.
Isn't "not supporting one of the most common phones" a different order of magnitude from what they're discussing here?
Hell yes that app should be supporting the Galaxy S2s and HTC Desires of this world, but the majority of those 400+ devices will probably be used by < 0.0001% of your users, particularly if the app is targeting a Western audience.
Hell yes that app should be supporting the Galaxy S2s and HTC Desires of this world, but the majority of those 400+ devices will probably be used by < 0.0001% of your users, particularly if the app is targeting a Western audience.
I maintain a business app for iOS and my client fully expects me to reproduce and fix bugs for obscure versions of iOS that only 0.0001% of people might still use, even if those people can (and should) just upgrade their OS. If it was my own app I wouldn't care.
I totally agree that 400+ devices is pretty crazy.
By looking at device usage stats I would say that 20 devices will get you above 90% in one region but you have to use closer to 40 if you aim for 90% on the global market. (Of course it depends on your user base)
However, having 400 devices on the shelf for debugging when you get some strange error report might be very valuable. I would love to have a bucket of CDMA phones available since I can't just go buy one in the store. (I live in Denmark)
By looking at device usage stats I would say that 20 devices will get you above 90% in one region but you have to use closer to 40 if you aim for 90% on the global market. (Of course it depends on your user base)
However, having 400 devices on the shelf for debugging when you get some strange error report might be very valuable. I would love to have a bucket of CDMA phones available since I can't just go buy one in the store. (I live in Denmark)
> but those problems are not something to complain about, and frankly, they're not any kind of showstopper.
Only if you want to try to make great apps instead of just good apps. As someone who has made both (i.e. really polish vs. just get it out there), if you want to make something really good it needs to be pixel perfect. Unfortunately that is something that is infinitely harder to do on Android than iOS. It is also why in general iOS apps look better than their Android counterparts.
Only if you want to try to make great apps instead of just good apps. As someone who has made both (i.e. really polish vs. just get it out there), if you want to make something really good it needs to be pixel perfect. Unfortunately that is something that is infinitely harder to do on Android than iOS. It is also why in general iOS apps look better than their Android counterparts.
Thanks for making pressureNET - there wasn't a reading from Christchurch, New Zealand... now there is :-)
Hey, if you're in Christchurch you should join us at our monthly tech dinner group, The Valley in Christchurch:
http://groups.google.com/group/TVIC
Second Thursday of every month, so unfortunately you've missed May's--but sign up to the mailing list now and you'll be reminded for June...
We had seventeen people turn up this month including a bunch of new people so that was encouraging. Apparently the quakes haven't done us in completely. :)
http://groups.google.com/group/TVIC
Second Thursday of every month, so unfortunately you've missed May's--but sign up to the mailing list now and you'll be reminded for June...
We had seventeen people turn up this month including a bunch of new people so that was encouraging. Apparently the quakes haven't done us in completely. :)
Same with me. I'm working with cross platform technologies for 15 years now. Python,Java,Ruby,HTML and now Android.
I don't complain that I have to target different systems. I use this stuff because I want to target many different systems.
Take a closer look at all these devices in the article, and imagine for a moment that every single one of these would be as incompatible to one another as iOS is to Windows Phone.
That is: Imagine you had to write a complete new App for every single one of these devices. Android is a defragmentation tool.
I don't complain that I have to target different systems. I use this stuff because I want to target many different systems.
Take a closer look at all these devices in the article, and imagine for a moment that every single one of these would be as incompatible to one another as iOS is to Windows Phone.
That is: Imagine you had to write a complete new App for every single one of these devices. Android is a defragmentation tool.
Just so you know. You are absolutely in the minority of Android developers.
Most want their apps to work on ALL phones.
Most want their apps to work on ALL phones.
Sure, ideally you'd want your app to work on all phones.
But just as developing for any other open platform, attempting to reach 100% compatibility with every device combination is both insane and unnecessary. A range of 5-10 devices is usually sufficient for the 99% of users that most apps will be happy to support.
But just as developing for any other open platform, attempting to reach 100% compatibility with every device combination is both insane and unnecessary. A range of 5-10 devices is usually sufficient for the 99% of users that most apps will be happy to support.
Which criterias would you use for selecting representative 5-10 devices?
1.) one with the minimum hardware you want to support (screen res, cpu, gpu).
2.) Min API level you want to support
3.) top spec phone with latest version (pref. a recent nexus)
That is for native platform apps, not Game ports.
From my experience, crucial to success is that you write your Apps according to the Android documentation, and not just "until they work on my device". Most "single device issues" happen because of this mistake.
Most of the issues developers have when they switch devices
2.) Min API level you want to support
3.) top spec phone with latest version (pref. a recent nexus)
That is for native platform apps, not Game ports.
From my experience, crucial to success is that you write your Apps according to the Android documentation, and not just "until they work on my device". Most "single device issues" happen because of this mistake.
Most of the issues developers have when they switch devices
This approach doesn't work on any existing mobile or desktop platform (web apps included). You always target a specific audience, that meets certain minimum hardware/OS requirements. (for example a modern GPU/RAM/OS for 3D games)
Wow.. fucking relax dude
Yes, indeed. All android developers have 400 phones (neatly and photogenically arranged on a conference room table, no less).
Look, fragmentation has costs. Outside the core APIs (and especially with hardware-facing interfaces) you need to expect to do some testing. Screens have different resolutions. PVR and Mali have different rendering bugs. Different cameras have different quirks. But to baldly pretend that this requires exhaustive testing on hundreds of devices is just sensationalist nonsense.
Look, fragmentation has costs. Outside the core APIs (and especially with hardware-facing interfaces) you need to expect to do some testing. Screens have different resolutions. PVR and Mali have different rendering bugs. Different cameras have different quirks. But to baldly pretend that this requires exhaustive testing on hundreds of devices is just sensationalist nonsense.
I agree. Hundreds of devices is ridiculous. But if you are trying to build an app that must work on as many possible you are still look at 10-20 tablets+phones. It's still very expensive.
Someone needs to take a picture of all the desktop PCs, laptop PCs, tablet PCs, netbook PCs and then say
"This is what developing for Windows looks like".
I'm sure it would be an order of magnitude bigger, maybe 2 or 3 depending on how far back you decide to go.
Or even add up all the mac models from the last 5 years. Heck, I have friends still using power PC macs.
"This is what developing for Windows looks like".
I'm sure it would be an order of magnitude bigger, maybe 2 or 3 depending on how far back you decide to go.
Or even add up all the mac models from the last 5 years. Heck, I have friends still using power PC macs.
Windows does a good job of abstracting the hardware away and preventing the OEMs from tweaking the APIs so this isn't an issue in most cases. The major exception is for the large game developers who have to buy tons of various configurations of GPUs and motherboards in order to test various configurations. Basic hardware accelerated graphics works well across platforms but AAA games use complex shaders and heavy optimizations which are based on the incomplete and broken implementations of GPU vendors.
> The major exception is for the large game developers who have to buy tons of various configurations of GPUs
The same is also true for Android. Most (all?) of the valid complaint about how hard it is to target different Android devices comes from game developers struggling to get which version of OpenGL to use, which OpenGL API calls are bugged on which devices, how to circumvent low level GPU limitations on this or that device, etc. And afaik, those are usually based on incomplete and broken implementations by GPU vendors as well. Same as with windows.
Most of the regular utility app, which use normal Android layout and API instead of OpenGL, are doing fine just testing their app in different AVDs (instances of the emulator) just to make sure they're compatible with different devices.
(then of course, there's a few newbies who didn't spend 10 minutes reading the guide for running on different devices on d.android.com, then whine their app's font looks different on a friend's phone. But I'm counting those out)
The same is also true for Android. Most (all?) of the valid complaint about how hard it is to target different Android devices comes from game developers struggling to get which version of OpenGL to use, which OpenGL API calls are bugged on which devices, how to circumvent low level GPU limitations on this or that device, etc. And afaik, those are usually based on incomplete and broken implementations by GPU vendors as well. Same as with windows.
Most of the regular utility app, which use normal Android layout and API instead of OpenGL, are doing fine just testing their app in different AVDs (instances of the emulator) just to make sure they're compatible with different devices.
(then of course, there's a few newbies who didn't spend 10 minutes reading the guide for running on different devices on d.android.com, then whine their app's font looks different on a friend's phone. But I'm counting those out)
I'm not an android developer, but I am curious. Why is it that testing on dozens/hundreds of platforms is considered essential for cell phones, but not for PCs? Is android just that much worse at abstracting hardware than traditional OS'es?
Because it is early days for Android still (don't forget Android is less than 5 years old), and manufactures are still doing wacky things, and people are still uncovering bugs and edge cases.
In the early days of MS-DOS compatibility was a big problem too. Magazines used to use MS Flight Simultor to test how compatible PCs were - plenty failed that.
In the early days of MS-DOS compatibility was a big problem too. Magazines used to use MS Flight Simultor to test how compatible PCs were - plenty failed that.
There is a difference though: The IBM PC was the undisputed gold standard for compatibility. Software typically listed the hardware requirements as "IBM PC or 100% compatible". (Some non-IBM-compatible DOS hardware was sold, but it died out pretty quickly).
It doesn't look like there any similar gold standard is emerging for phones.
It doesn't look like there any similar gold standard is emerging for phones.
That's not really true.
For non gaming apps, testing on Samsung & HTCs is usually enough to cover 90% of the market.
Gaming graphics makes that more complicated, but the truth is that people still find driver and game bugs on Windows.
For non gaming apps, testing on Samsung & HTCs is usually enough to cover 90% of the market.
Gaming graphics makes that more complicated, but the truth is that people still find driver and game bugs on Windows.
> Why is it that testing on dozens/hundreds of platforms is considered essential for cell phones, but not for PCs?
I'm pretty sure it's not. Do you really think everyone who's written a successful Android app has a full stable of hundreds of phones?
I'm pretty sure it's not. Do you really think everyone who's written a successful Android app has a full stable of hundreds of phones?
Since when do developers for PC applications reach 100% compatibility with any hardware/OS combination out there without testing on dozens of platforms? (The guy in the article with the 400 devices is trying to achieve 100% compatibility)
We use about 6-7 different devices in our Android team and cover 95% of our target audience with that. (its a VoIP/messaging app with millions of customers)
But you have to remember that the small percentage of people who have problems can post feedback that is visible straightaway to potential customers. There isn't such a negative feedback loop for PC applications. It's one of the reasons why it would be good if the Android market let you specify which hardware your app was good for.
You can do this on Android:
1) Filter via your manifest file: Allow installation only on devices with certain screen sizes or hardware like GPS or Camera
(Description: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/market-filters.h... )
2) Filter via Developer Console: Exclude specific device models or countries
1) Filter via your manifest file: Allow installation only on devices with certain screen sizes or hardware like GPS or Camera
(Description: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/market-filters.h... )
2) Filter via Developer Console: Exclude specific device models or countries
If every manufacturer of a windows based laptop was allowed to fork windows and customize it to their liking, you'd be looking at the same issue.
For graphics-heavy apps, a common problem is that the OpenGL hardware and drivers on many Android devices are crappy, so some graphics problems or crashes might only happen on a specific combination of device and OS version.
I think that one reason is that the handset manufacturer thinker more with Android than they do with a traditional OS. One example is the vendor specific themes.
Another reason for the higher focus on QA is "user ratings". Before companies didn't have to worry much about not supporting all users. With mobile a small percentage of users can give you a bad rating. The bosses are terrified about bad public ratings! :)
Another reason for the higher focus on QA is "user ratings". Before companies didn't have to worry much about not supporting all users. With mobile a small percentage of users can give you a bad rating. The bosses are terrified about bad public ratings! :)
There are 8 standard screen sizes as well as 3 popular OSes. Of those are 4 major OS updates and 4 new screen sizes introduced since IO last year.
I'm not sure either, but I think screen size/resolution/aspect ratio and different hardware "tools" (ie cameras with different resolutions, does it have one led or 2 for flash, etc) have potential to be problems.
I'd like to hear more on this issue though.
I'd like to hear more on this issue though.
Because all PCs have the same screen size, resolution, and aspect ratio? Please.
I don't buy this line of argument regarding app design.
Next time you fire up your image editing program on a PC resize the window to 90%, 70%, 50%, 30%. Try and use your application.
At the smaller windows sizes you just can't. There is simply not enough real estate to accommodate the UI.
Desktop applications have simply assumed you have a certain amount of real estate at some given level of technology. Anything better is usually just gravy since you have everything you need on your screen.
We know simply resizing does not work. Just try an iPhone app on an iPad at 2x.
I'd wager the points where you have to reconsider the UI are much closer together at small sizes. An extra half inch in screen size could allow just one more icon and make your app that little bit nicer to use.
Even if you fix the hardware compatibility problem (they solved it for PCs) it's still going to suck without new ways to design apps.
Next time you fire up your image editing program on a PC resize the window to 90%, 70%, 50%, 30%. Try and use your application.
At the smaller windows sizes you just can't. There is simply not enough real estate to accommodate the UI.
Desktop applications have simply assumed you have a certain amount of real estate at some given level of technology. Anything better is usually just gravy since you have everything you need on your screen.
We know simply resizing does not work. Just try an iPhone app on an iPad at 2x.
I'd wager the points where you have to reconsider the UI are much closer together at small sizes. An extra half inch in screen size could allow just one more icon and make your app that little bit nicer to use.
Even if you fix the hardware compatibility problem (they solved it for PCs) it's still going to suck without new ways to design apps.
To a more limited extent, complications PC programs do have compatibility issues with obscure combinations of users' hardware, software and firmware.
I'm going to go out on a limb with this claim: Developing Android apps that run across different phones really isn't any harder than developing Windows apps that run across different PCs.
The real issue, I'm convinced, is that a bunch of people with no previous development experience jumped in with the iPhone gold rush. Then these people decided to branch out to Android and are shocked and horrified when something works slightly differently on their customer's phone than when it does on their phone.
God forbid that these people should every try developing Javascript applications that have to support support IE. :-D
The real issue, I'm convinced, is that a bunch of people with no previous development experience jumped in with the iPhone gold rush. Then these people decided to branch out to Android and are shocked and horrified when something works slightly differently on their customer's phone than when it does on their phone.
God forbid that these people should every try developing Javascript applications that have to support support IE. :-D
Almost all PC screens are big enough that you can do a reasonable application design that works well on small and large screens, at least for most applications.
400 devices is probably overkill, you can get by with far less if you want to cover 90%+ of the market.
This sounds about right from my experience: http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/03/testing-netflix-on-andro...
This sounds about right from my experience: http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/03/testing-netflix-on-andro...
As an Android developer I have about 5 phones and an extended group of friends with another dozen or so. Along with the emulator it's more than enough. This article is ridiculous flamebait.
Techcrunch. Android. Linkbait bullshit. What's new?
And (per the article) this is what using android looks like: “Unlike iOS users who throw up their hands in frustration, write bad reviews and just leave, Android users tend to be delighted when they find apps that work even if they have a glitch or two.”
I'm going on my 12th device this week and expect at least two more next month. My partner has 6 devices at his place.
Part of the problem is Google is releasing OSes faster than devices can keep up, and in a few cases I'm buying simply because the prior's OS is stuck yet I have to satisfy new devices users too. For example, I have Galaxy Tab from IO which is stuck on 3.1, but all new tablets use 4.0 and there's unexpected differences between them.
The killer reason for us is the dreaded 1-star review because we missed a particular combo (screen/OS). We have > 1M users between 2 apps w/ 4.2+ ratings each as a result.
Once you're making some good $$, you really can't afford not to have a device library.
Part of the problem is Google is releasing OSes faster than devices can keep up, and in a few cases I'm buying simply because the prior's OS is stuck yet I have to satisfy new devices users too. For example, I have Galaxy Tab from IO which is stuck on 3.1, but all new tablets use 4.0 and there's unexpected differences between them.
The killer reason for us is the dreaded 1-star review because we missed a particular combo (screen/OS). We have > 1M users between 2 apps w/ 4.2+ ratings each as a result.
Once you're making some good $$, you really can't afford not to have a device library.
> dreaded 1 star reviews
This is very obvious when looking at app ratings - users seem to blame model even if problem is entirely unrelated.
Hell, the Play Store ratings shows the user's model/device name under each user's review... that leads users to quickly blame their model type.
This is very obvious when looking at app ratings - users seem to blame model even if problem is entirely unrelated.
Hell, the Play Store ratings shows the user's model/device name under each user's review... that leads users to quickly blame their model type.
Opportunity for a web-based emulator including all devices.
Or, say, a "cloud" solution that lets you remotely test on a variety of devices? Oh, look!
http://www.perfectomobile.com/portal/cms/android.html http://testdroid.com/product/testdroid-cloud
The solutions are already out there! Quit whining and get back to developing cool apps. :-)
http://www.perfectomobile.com/portal/cms/android.html http://testdroid.com/product/testdroid-cloud
The solutions are already out there! Quit whining and get back to developing cool apps. :-)
Shameless plug:
Cloud service: https://www.lesspainful.com
Framework for testing Android apps using Cucumber: https://github.com/calabash/calabash-android/
Cloud service: https://www.lesspainful.com
Framework for testing Android apps using Cucumber: https://github.com/calabash/calabash-android/
Why a web-based emulator? Just use the one that's included with the Android SDK. You can simulate any combination of memory, screen size, screen resolution, and various hardware characteristics. Sure it can be slow, but it's getting better and is actually emulating the system you're developing for.
Is the emulator in the SDK usable now? Last time I tried Android programming it was slow as hell. Unusable even for a simple Phonegap app.
You've never actually built an Android app have you ? The emulator is NOTHING like the real devices.
Yes I have. Admittedly we usually used real devices for testing but the emulator does just fine debugging most "fragmentation" issues (screen size and resolution and Android API differences).
[deleted]
They are a game company, web-based testing approach rarely work for them because of the performance.
Surely this is a quality assurance exercise of diminishing returns.
Why not test on the must common devices or top device in each main category?
Is fragmentation a real issue? First time I have heard about it. Is this like browser compatibility for web developers?
Why not test on the must common devices or top device in each main category?
Is fragmentation a real issue? First time I have heard about it. Is this like browser compatibility for web developers?
As long as Android sales remain brisk this is only good news for HTML5.
This is nonsense.
Yes, fragmentations make it a bit harder on developers, but that's why we get paid the big bucks.
Choice is good for users, you won't hear a lot of Android users complain about fragmentation.
Yes, fragmentations make it a bit harder on developers, but that's why we get paid the big bucks.
Choice is good for users, you won't hear a lot of Android users complain about fragmentation.
Some of the comments here have gotten me thinking about access to test devices. I've never worked on android, so I don't know if installation of lots of unfinished software would be logistically sane, but what about meetup groups where local devs could test out each other's beta apps on their phones and tablets?
That actally happens quite alos around here... Those "test" meetups were even sponsored by local service providers and Samsung.
If I develop software for a PC I don't have 1000+ PCs with every conceivable combination of CPU, graphics card, monitor, sound card, and Windows version. That would be absurd and unworkable. And yet that's what this article would have us believe you should do when developing for Android.
So this is just the precursor to all app developing cycling back to the web right? I suppose it will take time for browser tech to catch up to what PCs have on offer and hardware apis but this is obviously what HTML exists for.
Why are you supposed to test on all device types? Couldn't be possible to find the one or few devices that combined have all the properties that all other devices has and test on them only.
[deleted]
Looks like a thriving ecosystem that fosters innovation, individuality, and competition. Seems great for consumers and developers alike.
It looks like a wildly successful device ecosystem.
I used to work for a large multinational who had a few popular Android apps. This is what we had to do as well.
It's surprisingly common place at enterprise companies who need to support a wide range of devices.
It's surprisingly common place at enterprise companies who need to support a wide range of devices.
This is some of the most insulting garbage out there. I'm an Android developer. I don't complain about fragmentation. Ever. Don't you dare lump me into a group of people you hear complaining loudly. I'm not one of them!
I know it can be hard to get apps to work across all phones. The variety of available hardware is part of what makes the ecosystem so amazing. Of course there will be difficulties that arise from the range of devices (dynamically positioning text to align with a set image background across every screen size and resolution can be difficult, I'll admit) but those problems are not something to complain about, and frankly, they're not any kind of showstopper.
The variety in devices allows me to build apps like pressureNET, which uses barometers built in to some phones. I could never be building a groundbreaking, innovative weather network without different ideas and different manufacturers trying things out. As a developer, I love the variety available in Android devices. It's what makes the ecosystem thrive and it's what makes me thrive as a developer.
I hate this "all Android developers complain about X" bullshit. It's wrong, insulting, and counter-productive to everyone who's trying to build the next great app. Stop it.