Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#81

Post by MBCook »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #63
MBCook wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a trade off though. Having those abilities shouldn’t do anything to prevent Android apps from being just as good. All it should do is enable Android to have even more good apps. So when both platforms are capable of making an app, such as Mastodon, why does the disparity exist?

> why does the disparity exist? I explained why. For an app with few users, it sometimes takes longer for open source to catch up. > All it should do is enable Android to have even more good apps And it does. It has far more and far better apps than iOS (maps with navigation long before iOS, ReVanced, better voice assistants, driving mode apps, better in-call abilities, better keyboards, better system-wide adblockers…

> I explained why. For an app with few users, it sometimes takes longer for open source to catch up.

Android apps have been available since before 2010. Time has been available.

But it’s so hard to get recommendations of high quality Android apps that aren’t something Apple doesn’t allow (call recorder, web browser, etc.). That’s a great category, but I still struggle to see why that’s all anyone can point to.

Paid, free, IAP, open-source, anything.

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#82

Post by lern_too_spel »

MBCook wrote: post #81
lern_too_spel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why does the disparity exist? I explained why. For an app with few users, it sometimes takes longer for open source to catch up. > All it should do is enable Android to have even more good apps And it does. It has far more and far better apps than iOS (maps with navigation long before iOS, ReVanced, better voice assistants, driving mode apps, better in-call abilities, better keyboards, better system-wide adblockers…

> I explained why. For an app with few users, it sometimes takes longer for open source to catch up. Android apps have been available since before 2010. Time has been available. But it’s so hard to get recommendations of high quality Android apps that aren’t something Apple doesn’t allow (call recorder, web browser, etc.). That’s a great category, but I still struggle to see why that’s all anyone can point to. Paid,…

> Android apps have been available since before 2010. Time has been available.

And I gave you a list of applications that are indeed far superior on Android. Gruber cherry-picked a Mastodon app, which hasn't been available since 2010 and hasn't had many users improving it.

> But it’s so hard to get recommendations of high quality Android apps that aren’t something Apple doesn’t allow

Several of my examples pass that criterion.

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#83

Post by lern_too_spel »

howinteresting wrote: post #75
lern_too_spel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why does the disparity exist? I explained why. For an app with few users, it sometimes takes longer for open source to catch up. > All it should do is enable Android to have even more good apps And it does. It has far more and far better apps than iOS (maps with navigation long before iOS, ReVanced, better voice assistants, driving mode apps, better in-call abilities, better keyboards, better system-wide adblockers…

To be fair Chrome on Android kind of sucks because it doesn't have built-in adblocking or extension support.

That's true, but it does support all the web APIs that you would expect, and combined with a system-level VPN ad-blocker is still somewhat usable.

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#84

Post by whynotminot »

aetherson wrote: post #79
whynotminot wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a pretty big competitive advantage? Isn’t iOS actually gaining market share?

iOS is indeed gaining market share. It seems pretty clearly to be temporally unrelated to any app store advantages, which probably peaked 5-10 years ago. To be clear, I think that the availability of niche apps is some kind of competitive advantage for iOS. But not a particularly big one, and probably less of one now than it was a decade ago. The recent rise of iOS market share in the US probably has a lot to do with…

> To be clear, I think that the availability of niche apps is some kind of competitive advantage for iOS.

It's not just niche apps, though, as you put it.

For instance, for years (might still actually be the case depending on phone model), creators complained about Instagram having terrible image quality on Android for content creation. Apparently the app was just screenshotting the camera view finder, instead of pulling the actual camera feed. Obviously on iPhone it's using the real camera data, delivering the expected image quality.

That isn't a niche app. That's freaking Instagram. But that kind of story is fairly common place--developers take the time to get their apps right on iOS, because it's actually worth the time. People with iPhones spend more money and thus drive more advertising revenue. Android ends up with a second rate version of the app that's given less investment but actually has more devices to optimize for. With those constraints, it's just a natural result to end up with a lower quality app experience.

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#85

Post by aetherson »

whynotminot wrote: post #84
aetherson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is indeed gaining market share. It seems pretty clearly to be temporally unrelated to any app store advantages, which probably peaked 5-10 years ago. To be clear, I think that the availability of niche apps is some kind of competitive advantage for iOS. But not a particularly big one, and probably less of one now than it was a decade ago. The recent rise of iOS market share in the US probably has a lot to do with…

> To be clear, I think that the availability of niche apps is some kind of competitive advantage for iOS. It's not just niche apps, though, as you put it. For instance, for years (might still actually be the case depending on phone model), creators complained about Instagram having terrible image quality on Android for content creation. Apparently the app was just screenshotting the camera view finder, instead of pul…

The Instagram thing is evidence in the opposite direction from what you want it to be.

Small developers may indeed find it too onerous to deal with the many devices and software versions of Android. For a small it even mid-sized shop, there are possibly opportunity costs to trying to make a first-class Android app that generally makes it hard to deliver optimized versions of it.

Instagram, on the other hand, is not in that situation. Their reach is easily broad enough to hire another 10 or 20 Android engineers and tell them to optimize the app. Any lift at all in Instagram's Android numbers would be sufficient to make that business case.

If they aren't doing that, it's evidence that nobody actually cares about this kind of app quality. No mid-level Facebook manager was able to justify a bigger team by saying, "from an addressable market of hundreds of millions in high-income countries alone, we can get a lift of a few million dollars by optimizing our app."

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#86

Post by whynotminot »

aetherson wrote: post #85
whynotminot wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be clear, I think that the availability of niche apps is some kind of competitive advantage for iOS. It's not just niche apps, though, as you put it. For instance, for years (might still actually be the case depending on phone model), creators complained about Instagram having terrible image quality on Android for content creation. Apparently the app was just screenshotting the camera view finder, instead of pul…

The Instagram thing is evidence in the opposite direction from what you want it to be. Small developers may indeed find it too onerous to deal with the many devices and software versions of Android. For a small it even mid-sized shop, there are possibly opportunity costs to trying to make a first-class Android app that generally makes it hard to deliver optimized versions of it. Instagram, on the other hand, is not i…

> The Instagram thing is evidence in the opposite direction from what you want it to be.

I don't find your argument persuasive.

If there was an ROI to building a better Android experience, don't you think major corporations would do it? You're right that Meta has the resources to do better. It's a pretty searing indictment of the Android ecosystem that they don't.

> If they aren't doing that, it's evidence that nobody actually cares about this kind of app quality.

Maybe it's evidence that the people who do care went and bought an iPhone already. Isn't this a problem for Android? Do they only want to cater to people who are willing to suffer substandard app experiences?

Developers are by and large doing the work you say nobody cares about on iOS. It's apparently worth it there. Why aren't developers willing to put in the same level of effort on Android? If nobody actually cared I'd expect the user experience to be equally subpar across platforms but that's repeatedly proven to not be the case.

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#87

Post by aetherson »

whynotminot wrote: post #86
aetherson wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Instagram thing is evidence in the opposite direction from what you want it to be. Small developers may indeed find it too onerous to deal with the many devices and software versions of Android. For a small it even mid-sized shop, there are possibly opportunity costs to trying to make a first-class Android app that generally makes it hard to deliver optimized versions of it. Instagram, on the other hand, is not i…

> The Instagram thing is evidence in the opposite direction from what you want it to be. I don't find your argument persuasive. If there was an ROI to building a better Android experience, don't you think major corporations would do it? You're right that Meta has the resources to do better. It's a pretty searing indictment of the Android ecosystem that they don't. > If they aren't doing that, it's evidence that nobod…

Your argument would make sense if iOS had like a 90% market share. Then sure, maybe the deal is that only weirdos who don't care about this objectively important thing are on Android.

But the fact is, Android has plenty of market share. Even if half of Android users are weirdos who don't care about this objectively important thing (with the rest of the normal people migrating to iOS), it would still have positive ROI to build this objectively important thing for the people who care about this objectively important thing, but are on Android for whatever other reasons.

The way to square this circle is say, "Actually, it turns out that this thing isn't objectively important. Maybe a small population cares about it a lot, but most don't."

Which is, in fact, what I've been saying.

This has the benefit of also squaring with the rest of the evidence.

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#88

Post by whynotminot »

aetherson wrote: post #87
whynotminot wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Instagram thing is evidence in the opposite direction from what you want it to be. I don't find your argument persuasive. If there was an ROI to building a better Android experience, don't you think major corporations would do it? You're right that Meta has the resources to do better. It's a pretty searing indictment of the Android ecosystem that they don't. > If they aren't doing that, it's evidence that nobod…

Your argument would make sense if iOS had like a 90% market share. Then sure, maybe the deal is that only weirdos who don't care about this objectively important thing are on Android. But the fact is, Android has plenty of market share. Even if half of Android users are weirdos who don't care about this objectively important thing (with the rest of the normal people migrating to iOS), it would still have positive ROI…

> But the fact is, Android has plenty of market share.

The point you're missing is that not all market share is created equal in terms of revenue potential. There could be absolute billions of users on Android but it doesn't really matter if they're unwilling to pay for anything. And that's largely been the case--it's well documented at this point that iOS users are vastly more willing to spend money on apps by practically a 2:1 margin, and generally have a higher net-worth that advertisers like to target. [1]

So since this is inherently about the ROI, it frankly doesn't even matter if Android users do care about the user experience as much as iOS users do. Objectively Meta (or any company) is not going to throw investment at a platform that doesn't pay it back at a rate competitive with iOS. Like this just makes sense. Sure, you could maybe goose ROI on Android with some better investment, but if you'd make more back applying those same resources to your iOS team then it's a pretty open and shut case, right?

And so that's how we end up in a place where users have to choose what matters to them. And on balance Android has a lot of other things going for it that might be more important for a lot of people. But to me general app quality does make sense as part of the explanation for iOS market share increasing during a time of free-flowing stimulus checks, as you pointed out. If you have some extra money to splurge, it might make a lot of sense to buy that more expensive iPhone that delivers a better app experience. These things can move the needle--that's the competitive advantage I'm talking about.

For me at least, it's certainly an important part of the calculus.

[1] - https://www.netguru.com/blog/iphone-vs-android-users-differe...

Re: Meanwhile, over in Androidtown

#89

Post by aetherson »

whynotminot wrote: post #88
aetherson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument would make sense if iOS had like a 90% market share. Then sure, maybe the deal is that only weirdos who don't care about this objectively important thing are on Android. But the fact is, Android has plenty of market share. Even if half of Android users are weirdos who don't care about this objectively important thing (with the rest of the normal people migrating to iOS), it would still have positive ROI…

> But the fact is, Android has plenty of market share. The point you're missing is that not all market share is created equal in terms of revenue potential. There could be absolute billions of users on Android but it doesn't really matter if they're unwilling to pay for anything. And that's largely been the case--it's well documented at this point that iOS users are vastly more willing to spend money on apps by pract…

But we're back to, "Except not for Instagram."

Yes, Android users monetize less than iOS users. And if you're a small shop whose apps reach, I dunno, 100,000 users (or 1M, or even 10M), and your Android users are around half the users but let's say 20% of your revenue base, then maybe it doesn't make sense to chase marginal improvements to your Android revenue.

But Instagram has 1B MAUs or so and $40B in annual revenue. Even if Android users are only 20% of its revenue base, chasing incremental improvements in that amount of revenue ($8B) is absolutely worth hiring 10-20 Android engineers and having them focus on that improvement -- if improving that feature actually engages more users. It's an easy case to make.

Post reply on HN