Android is for startups • Hacker News Board

Re: Android is for startups

#271

Post by bjrnjs » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 9:32 AM UTC

nucleardog wrote: post #228

slewis wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company has prototyped on both platforms, and I strongly prefer Android for this purpose. Test flight is significantly more inconvenient for all parties than sending around Android apks. So is Apple's provisioning process for development (you'll certainly have to figure out how to re-provision your development devices a few times). Android's OS integration also makes for better demos of our app. Since it's a remot…

I love Android. I really only develop for Android. But to say the Android emulators are better than the iOS simulator (or even comparable) is hilarious to me. The reason everyone tests on hardware is because the emulator is %@$#ing slow. i7 @ 4.2GHz, 12 GB of RAM... the emulator still takes MINUTES to start and runs unusably slow. The iOS Simulator on the MBP work gave me (mid-2010) runs at basically native speed. I…

It does run on native speed - that's because it's a simulator and not an emulator.

XCode compiles your source code to match your computer, not your phone, when you run the simulator. With Eclipse and ADT you build for an actual device, and then emulates the device running your app. That's why there's a speed difference.

However, when building for connected devices - both XCode and Eclipse+ADT compiles and runs at the same speed IMO.

The problem with the XCode approach is that some implementations can't be simulated (I remember trying to play a video from YouTube, embedded) - and needs an actual device to work. This hasn't happend with the Android emulator for me, because it actually behaves like a device.

Re: Android is for startups

#272

Post by patrickaljord » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 10:19 AM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #37

patrickaljord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the real world, those "horror stories" don't make it out of HN and tech blogs. Android is now the biggest platform out there, time to get back to earth. I've been on Android for a year now and know many noobs who are too, never had a virus, most people don't install much apps anyway and they usually only install the most famous ones when they do.

But the point of the article is that android is a better place for startups to develop apps (than iOS, specifically). The existence of 'noobs' who 'don't install much apps anyway' doesn't sound like it makes Android an attractive place for startups. Android piracy isn't a horror story for users (unless they download a pirated app that's been injected with an address-book upload trojan, which is not unheard of). It IS…

I didn't make myself clear, most people on both platforms are noobs that don't install much apps (iphone and android) or only the most famous ones. Most noobs I know used to be iphone users too. Remember, in the real world, most people are noobs. As for apps stealing your address book, that happened on iOS too and no one cares but HNers and some tech blogs. Get over it.

Re: Android is for startups

#273

Post by nullcode000 » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 10:20 AM UTC

ensmotko wrote: post #31

Another thing that bothers me with development for iOS is that you need apple hardware and software. I can't develop an iOS on my Linux machine (I've tried running OSX in virtualbox, but it's slow and not to mention illegal). I really wish Apple would make their platform a little more available. Lowering the $100 yearly fee would be a good start...

I think the $100/y makes sense from Apple's perspective and is probably one of the reasons why there are fewer shitty apps than Google, this along with all of the other confusing stuff they do, like provisioning profiles. It simply scares off the hobby developers who don't really want to build for the platform but rather try it out.

Re: Android is for startups

#274

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 10:22 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #246

shitlord wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy something when you are only developing for it and not actually planning on using it. I sometimes develop software for Windows, and I hate running it, so I won't purchase a copy of it. But that shouldn't prevent me from developing for it.

So advocating piracy are we?

There are ways to develop for Windows on other OSes without piracy (e.g. WINE).

Re: Android is for startups

#275

Post by pjmlp » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 10:47 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #274

pjmlp wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So advocating piracy are we?

There are ways to develop for Windows on other OSes without piracy (e.g. WINE).

I really doubt the quality of WINE for such purposes.

Re: Android is for startups

#276

Post by golergka » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 11:31 AM UTC

> release cycle of the App Store encourages the perfectionist in all of us to make it “done”

Isn't that exactly the reason for Apple's policies?

Re: Android is for startups

#277

Post by josteink » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 11:58 AM UTC

tomasien wrote: post #172

krschultz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Note: On Android 4.2 and newer, Developer options is hidden by default. To make it available, go to Settings > About phone and tap Build number seven times. Return to the previous screen to find Developer options." http://developer.android.com/tools/device.html

I know man, still not working. No idea why, probably just something I'm missing because Eclipse is ugly and difficult as sin.

Dump Eclipse. No really.

New Android studio based on JetBrains' IntelliJ is so much better it makes me wonder how I would ever endure using Eclipse for anything.

Try it. It'll take you less than 5 minutes from download to having your hello world on device, in debugging mode. It'll be the single best thing you did all day.

Re: Android is for startups

#278

Post by josteink » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 12:02 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #26

robbfitzsimmons wrote: post #10

As a primarily-iOS user / developer who also has an Android tablet (last year's Nexus 7), completely agree with both points made here. [The first being that Android development is better, and the second being that the vast majority Android apps currently suck compared to the iOS equivalent, making for a nice opportunity.] It's hard enough to peg a real user need and deliver on that need in a satisfying, sticky way. I…

> making for a nice opportunity You are assuming that there is demand for anything but free apps. I know that I personally would kill to pay for top-quality Android apps like I do on iOS, but I don't think I speak for the majority of Android users. Based on everything that I've seen, they just don't want to pay.

I just spent $20 on MailDroid to have a good IMAP/Exchange client (to replace Gmail + stock Email).

I spent $20 on this over the free options (like K9 email) or the free ad-supported MailDroid version, because it is a high quality app and it looks very, very nice. Especially on my new Nexus 7's full HD screen.

That said, I'm pretty sure I'm not part of the majority here. Just raising a hand saying that some people will pay serious money for good stuff. And they're not all on iOS.

Re: Android is for startups

#279

Post by rsynnott » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 12:15 PM UTC

ensmotko wrote: post #90

jbjohns wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't even afford $100 a year you probably can afford anything you would need to develop for the platform (e.g. a mac).

If $100 a year would allow me to develop iOS apps on my Linux laptop I'd be fine with that. But $100 a year + paying for overpriced apple hardware doesn't sound appealing.

XCode's requirements are pretty modest. Get a second-hand Mac Mini or something (you may want to add memory to it).

Re: Android is for startups

#280

Post by rsynnott » Thu, Sep 05, 2013, 12:20 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #86

x0054 wrote: post #49

I think the difference in development comes in when you need to do some hardware testing. With apple you need to design for 3 different display sizes, with 2 resolutions each. You also have to test your product on (at most) 12 different devices, and that's if you really want to cover the field. On the other hand, with Android, if you want to do it right, you need to design for hundreds of different screen sizes, all…

You can shave away a LOT of form factors if you just agree to cut off development before Android 4.0. This is tough for people to resolve to do, but in the US that's 60% of the market. I'd rather ship a good product to 60% of the people in a reasonable amount of time, rather than spending a ton of time working on tiny slices of the last 40% and limiting what the product can do overall. You also end up targeting much…

> You can shave away a LOT of form factors if you just agree to cut off development before Android 4.0.

At that point, though, the idea that Android is a larger market really starts suffering. That cuts out a third of Android users immediately.