Meanwhile, over in Androidtown(daringfireball.net)
daringfireball.net
Meanwhile, over in Androidtown
https://daringfireball.net/2023/01/meanwhile_over_in_androidtown
88 comments
What does it even mean for an app to "feel" like something? How do you quantify that so you can do a proper comparison with other apps, or (from the app author's side, take corrective action)?
Author calls these apps "brutalist" and leaves it at that. To his credit, he does list three features that he's like to see: fluid scrolling, swipe gestures, and tap-and-hold contextual menus. Fine. But then goes on to describe his feelings "inert and rigid". Then "comfort, fun, and panache". What on earth is he asking for out of these apps? How do you objectively compare one app's "panache" with another? If I was a developer, what are the steps I can follow to program some "comfort" into my app? These complaints seem so wishy-washy and underspecified.
Then he leaves with the Kubrick quote: “Sometimes the truth of a thing isn’t in the think of it, but in the feel of it.” We're fully in the realm of mysticism now, this is not an attempt to fairly compare or measure anything.
Author calls these apps "brutalist" and leaves it at that. To his credit, he does list three features that he's like to see: fluid scrolling, swipe gestures, and tap-and-hold contextual menus. Fine. But then goes on to describe his feelings "inert and rigid". Then "comfort, fun, and panache". What on earth is he asking for out of these apps? How do you objectively compare one app's "panache" with another? If I was a developer, what are the steps I can follow to program some "comfort" into my app? These complaints seem so wishy-washy and underspecified.
Then he leaves with the Kubrick quote: “Sometimes the truth of a thing isn’t in the think of it, but in the feel of it.” We're fully in the realm of mysticism now, this is not an attempt to fairly compare or measure anything.
You want to quantify feel? Gruber's saying the vibes are off, that the attention to detail in the interaction design isn't there.
I think if he's going to praise some apps and dunk on the other ones, he should compare using measurable criteria. Otherwise, it's only one person's opinion. Just saying "App X feels right" is like saying "App X has a better chakra energy." What is any developer supposed to do with that feedback? The whole article could have boiled down to "I personally like these apps and I don't like those."
That’s like asking for “measurable criteria” for evaluating a movie or novel or song or painting. It’s art. I will offer another quote from Kubrick: “The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good.”
If you don’t think apps can be artistic works, it’s no wonder you don’t understand what I’m trying to express.
If you don’t think apps can be artistic works, it’s no wonder you don’t understand what I’m trying to express.
I suppose our fundamental difference is over whether these apps are best compared as tools or as works of art. When I evaluate and compare tools, in addition to cost, I'm looking at things like speed to perform key tasks, ease/speed to navigate the UI, reliability, error rate, user mistake-rate, latency, accuracy, feature discoverability. Does it effectively do what it says on the tin? And are these attributes greater than or less than those of competing tools? These are all things the developer can take as feedback, file as bugs, go back and improve, and re-measure.
If it were a video game or movie, then sure, subjective comparisons of the media content would make more sense. Does the plot make sense? Are the characters likable? But then, it's just one reviewer's opinion vs. another's rather than actionable measures of quality.
I'm looking at the article from the point of view of the developer accepting criticism and wanting to take corrective action. If I released a utility application and a reviewer told me [not your words, but for example] it felt cold and without pizazz, and it didn't zing and pop and it wasn't sleek enough, I wouldn't know what to do to fix this.
If it were a video game or movie, then sure, subjective comparisons of the media content would make more sense. Does the plot make sense? Are the characters likable? But then, it's just one reviewer's opinion vs. another's rather than actionable measures of quality.
I'm looking at the article from the point of view of the developer accepting criticism and wanting to take corrective action. If I released a utility application and a reviewer told me [not your words, but for example] it felt cold and without pizazz, and it didn't zing and pop and it wasn't sleek enough, I wouldn't know what to do to fix this.
> If I released a utility application and a reviewer told me [not your words, but for example] it felt cold and without pizazz, and it didn't zing and pop and it wasn't sleek enough, I wouldn't know what to do to fix this.
The point of the piece is that there are developers that would know what to do with that feedback, and for whatever reason more of those developers develop for iOS than Android.
The point of the piece is that there are developers that would know what to do with that feedback, and for whatever reason more of those developers develop for iOS than Android.
If you owned a restaurant and got a Yelp review like “the food was great but the ambiance was a turn-off” what would you do?
Yes. Or: “The hammer technically works when it comes to getting nails into walls, but it’s uncomfortable to hold.”
Why should developing the feel of an app be any different than the feel of a game. That’s what good apps are like. It’s like you can play a good app as much as you use it. All good tools and instruments in history have been crafted like this.
Curious what you think of Mozart vs. Salieri, e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_(film)
Or a four star Michelin restaurant vs. a Mall food court, or all art/entertainment reviews?
Seems like it's really common to compare things in ways that aren't objectively measurable?
Or a four star Michelin restaurant vs. a Mall food court, or all art/entertainment reviews?
Seems like it's really common to compare things in ways that aren't objectively measurable?
This is a strange read. Making assumptions about an entire platform from a few cherry picked examples. That's a very low quality post.
Having worked in both platforms I can say their conclusions are demonstrably false, if not outright biased.
Having worked in both platforms I can say their conclusions are demonstrably false, if not outright biased.
He has a lot of strange, biased writings, because he's an Apple evangelist.
>> But more broadly they all just look and especially feel inert and rigid. Nothing shrinks or stretches. There’s no life to them.
I can see this two ways: some people WANT to be entertained by the UI when they're surfing. Others like myself, don't want extraneous distractions. The UI should be secondary to the information.
The second quote on the developer choosing OSX over Windows, is quite interesting. I would think that an application developer, being even more into their craft, would eventually want LESS interference from the device UI, to where they would become platform agnostic and roll their own "life" into the application's UI.
>> But more broadly they all just look and especially feel inert and rigid. Nothing shrinks or stretches. There’s no life to them.
I can see this two ways: some people WANT to be entertained by the UI when they're surfing. Others like myself, don't want extraneous distractions. The UI should be secondary to the information.
The second quote on the developer choosing OSX over Windows, is quite interesting. I would think that an application developer, being even more into their craft, would eventually want LESS interference from the device UI, to where they would become platform agnostic and roll their own "life" into the application's UI.
If well applied, things like animation in UI isn't superfluous. I would agree that a lot of animation in software is superfluous, but that doesn't mean that it has to be.
As far as developer choice goes, that's going to depend on what gets that particular individual fired up. Personally speaking, it's the possibility to produce something that's both polished and thoughtful on top of being highly functional. For me a project where the human interface is to be phoned in sounds like a miserable slog.
As far as developer choice goes, that's going to depend on what gets that particular individual fired up. Personally speaking, it's the possibility to produce something that's both polished and thoughtful on top of being highly functional. For me a project where the human interface is to be phoned in sounds like a miserable slog.
I’ve worked on both platforms for over a decade. Gruber’s conclusions are spot on.
Can you prove the results are cherry picked? Android app quality being worse than iOS is my personal experience as well. There are many reasons for this too. Show us well known consumer Android apps where the iOS and Android app experiences are on par.
Firefox on Android is significantly better than on iOS.
its almost like it's an extremely apple centric blog with a ton of bias
/s
for real - i'd rather have a 'brutalist' mastadon client that cannot be removed by Google than 100 pretty mastadon clients that will be blocked permanently from the iOS store the next time a mass shooting occurs.
/s
for real - i'd rather have a 'brutalist' mastadon client that cannot be removed by Google than 100 pretty mastadon clients that will be blocked permanently from the iOS store the next time a mass shooting occurs.
Obvioulsy Gruber is extremely pro-Apple
He's also been showing his age quite a bit, being against a lot of recent developments, like being anti-remote work.
He's also been showing his age quite a bit, being against a lot of recent developments, like being anti-remote work.
I like John Gruber and usually agree with him. But his anti-remote work thing is baffling, and made even more so by the fact that he himself has worked from home for going on 20 years.
> like being anti-remote work.
I don’t remember that at all. Can you provide a link?
I don’t remember that at all. Can you provide a link?
I am not “anti remote work”. That would be absurd (and, personally, hypocritical). But I strongly believe that remote work isn’t good for some teams, and for some roles.
No remote work for anyone: bad policy.
Everyone on every team can work remote: sometimes a bad policy.
That’s my position. A lot of people who strongly feel they should always have the option of full-time remote work object to that.
No remote work for anyone: bad policy.
Everyone on every team can work remote: sometimes a bad policy.
That’s my position. A lot of people who strongly feel they should always have the option of full-time remote work object to that.
The objection was to you telling Apple employees to shut up and never question Apple authority. And then pulling some mental gymnastics that Apple is 'special' with not being remote friendly
"Everyone on every team can work remote: sometimes a bad policy."
I agree with a lot of what you say, but where is your proof of this? Everyone worked remotely for 2 years and we all made money.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but where is your proof of this? Everyone worked remotely for 2 years and we all made money.
I think this is the article they are referring to.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/06/04/apple-remote-wo...
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2021/06/04/apple-remote-wo...
> ...on my home screen on my Pixel 4...
> Things like fluid scrolling...
Well, yeah. It's not exactly apples to Apples to compare your 2022 iPhone to an Android phone from 2019. On my Z-Flip 4, Tusky has no problem hitting 120Hz scroll.
That being said, I can't disagree with his larger point when it comes to many commercial apps - design teams are all iOS and ship designs that aren't Android-first or even Android-adjacent. Android developers often end up fighting (and losing) to design teams which only care about one platform
> Things like fluid scrolling...
Well, yeah. It's not exactly apples to Apples to compare your 2022 iPhone to an Android phone from 2019. On my Z-Flip 4, Tusky has no problem hitting 120Hz scroll.
That being said, I can't disagree with his larger point when it comes to many commercial apps - design teams are all iOS and ship designs that aren't Android-first or even Android-adjacent. Android developers often end up fighting (and losing) to design teams which only care about one platform
> not exactly apples to Apples to compare your 2022 iPhone to an Android phone from 2019
I kind of disagree. If you can't make a UI run fluidly on a phone from 4 years ago, you might be doing it wrong. UIs have tight timing budgets, true, but computers are _plenty_ fast enough to keep up. Android has more overhead than iOS and it shows.
I put up with Android because I can run my own code on my own hardware. But I'm increasingly looking at iOS favorably.
I kind of disagree. If you can't make a UI run fluidly on a phone from 4 years ago, you might be doing it wrong. UIs have tight timing budgets, true, but computers are _plenty_ fast enough to keep up. Android has more overhead than iOS and it shows.
I put up with Android because I can run my own code on my own hardware. But I'm increasingly looking at iOS favorably.
Keeping your frame times low is one thing, but it's not fair to compare a 60Hz display to a 120Hz one
He is talking about frame pacing/skipping/hitching issues not 120 vs 60 Hz (confirmed in a reply below).
The iPhone was 60 Hz until the 13 in 2021. It still felt perfectly smooth.
The iPhone was 60 Hz until the 13 in 2021. It still felt perfectly smooth.
An iPhone from 2019 (which my wife has) still scrolls very smoothly. I assume he isn’t talking about refresh rate, he is talking About jerkily scrolling because the developer is making blocking calls on the main thread or re-rendering already visible elements. I also experience this on my Android test device.
Correct. I am not talking about frame rate.
Well, I am. If you buy a $600 Android phone today, you'll get much smoother scrolling than if you buy a $600 Apple phone today. Your assertion is just false when it comes to phones available today.
I have a 2019 iPhone (11 Pro!) and the scrolling is perfect. Battery about to die though.
Tusky is just fine on my 2017 mid-range Android phone...
Some people just can't see it.
The missing piece here is the platform APIs. It’s less effort in UIKit to do swipe gestures and contextual menus than it is in the traditional Android APIs, so more developers do it. This equation may change with Jetpack Compose vs SwiftUI but I don’t have enough experience with Compose to say.
As someone who develops for both platforms I agree. Android Framework is just not as good as UIKit and may never be. Jetpack Compose does seem to be an improvement based on the dabbling I've done, but it's still a work in progress and there's no telling how long Google's interest in the project will persist.
That said, as the sibling comment notes, swipe gestures and context menus aren't too bad to implement on Android. Like Gruber says, it's a cultural difference. For whatever reason it just doesn't strike the average Android dev that these features might be desirable.
That said, as the sibling comment notes, swipe gestures and context menus aren't too bad to implement on Android. Like Gruber says, it's a cultural difference. For whatever reason it just doesn't strike the average Android dev that these features might be desirable.
On Android, it is utterly trivial to do swipe gestures with RecyclerView, which is the current platform standard UI control for displaying lists (and has been for a long time). And context menus aren't particularly difficult either.
Android users are less likely to pay for apps. Simple as that, this is not a new phenomenon known for more than a decade now. So for a lot of devs it's just not a worthwile thing to invest in making apps _that good_ worth paying for.
True
My data, on an app with 100k MAU, iOS makes 3x on subscriptions AND ads, despite Android having 3x the userbase.
My data, on an app with 100k MAU, iOS makes 3x on subscriptions AND ads, despite Android having 3x the userbase.
That’s an incredible statistic. I think it really says everything you need to know about this debate.
I'm on Android and use Mastodon in the browser. I wonder whether this is disproportionately common on Android relative to iOS, and so there's less interest in Android native clients?
People don't invest a lot in android apps because android users don't pay money for things at the same rate that iOS users do.
I used iOS for many years full time and everything felt very slow, even with Reduce Motion turned on. The menus pop up slowly, the animations take too long. Everything looks nicer but functions worse. I'm sure normies like it but I hated it, it just gets in the way.
On Android the default experience already has faster animations than iOS, and you can tweak them to run quicker which makes it feel like a device that is interested in getting me to the things I want rather than one that wants to show off. And the scrolling on a $500-600 phone (Pixel 7) is much smoother than on a similarly-priced iPhone (90 vs 60Hz). And use real uBlock Origin. It's so much nicer.
We clearly prioritize very different things in life.
On Android the default experience already has faster animations than iOS, and you can tweak them to run quicker which makes it feel like a device that is interested in getting me to the things I want rather than one that wants to show off. And the scrolling on a $500-600 phone (Pixel 7) is much smoother than on a similarly-priced iPhone (90 vs 60Hz). And use real uBlock Origin. It's so much nicer.
We clearly prioritize very different things in life.
If it were about something older than Mastodon, this post feels like it could've been written in 2011.
Anyway, I'm a happy user of Tusky. It has all the features I want, and while the UI looks dated it's not at all hard to use. I'm in fact probably happier with a Tusky-style UI than overly-animated whitespace-filled configuration-free apps made by big companies that I also use (and look "prettier").
And yes:
> Android seems to be the platform for people who consider this comprehensive feature checklist to be a helpful resource evaluating which apps they should try
I do find such checklists helpful, since I care about the functionality of apps I use. Maybe Gruber should just let people enjoy things?
Anyway, I'm a happy user of Tusky. It has all the features I want, and while the UI looks dated it's not at all hard to use. I'm in fact probably happier with a Tusky-style UI than overly-animated whitespace-filled configuration-free apps made by big companies that I also use (and look "prettier").
And yes:
> Android seems to be the platform for people who consider this comprehensive feature checklist to be a helpful resource evaluating which apps they should try
I do find such checklists helpful, since I care about the functionality of apps I use. Maybe Gruber should just let people enjoy things?
> Maybe Gruber should just let people enjoy things?
How is his criticism not letting people enjoy things? You’re welcome to enjoy it and also welcome to not read John Gruber if reading him lessens your enjoyment. And he’s welcome to criticize. Maybe he enjoys criticizing. Maybe you should let John Gruber enjoy criticizing?
Some criticism is healthy. He’s criticizing dated UIs. You even agree with him. You said of the same app as him “…the UI looks dated…” Maybe this will spur some app developers to improve their UIs which will cause people to enjoy things even more.
How is his criticism not letting people enjoy things? You’re welcome to enjoy it and also welcome to not read John Gruber if reading him lessens your enjoyment. And he’s welcome to criticize. Maybe he enjoys criticizing. Maybe you should let John Gruber enjoy criticizing?
Some criticism is healthy. He’s criticizing dated UIs. You even agree with him. You said of the same app as him “…the UI looks dated…” Maybe this will spur some app developers to improve their UIs which will cause people to enjoy things even more.
He talks at length in this post and the follow up about him being able to understand why some people prioritize things other that UI design and experience. He says that having other priorities is reasonable. He’s pointing out that _his_ priorities (and those of many others, myself included) are not well-met by Android apps.
"Just let people enjoy things" is about not criticizing the people for enjoying them, not about not criticizing the things if there are legitimate criticisms to be had.
You may not think Gruber's criticisms are legitimate, but I, and many others, do, and he's not criticizing the people who enjoy the Android apps.
You may not think Gruber's criticisms are legitimate, but I, and many others, do, and he's not criticizing the people who enjoy the Android apps.
Meanwhile, over in iOS land, you cannot call route calls through another service, filter notifications, or run emulators. There is missing functionality, which can never be fixed, not just missing UI niceties in particular apps with (let's be honest) relatively low usage, which get fixed over time as usage increases.
Those are great examples of why iOS will never take over the entire phone market regardless of how much better a user-experience they have. Low price is another prominent "feature" that you can't get in an iPhone.
Apple is interesting in that they don't try to be everything for all people. They find a niche (usually a very profitable one) where they can execute better than the competition and they don't try to eat the whole pie. What other tech companies are like that? Nintendo?
Apple is interesting in that they don't try to be everything for all people. They find a niche (usually a very profitable one) where they can execute better than the competition and they don't try to eat the whole pie. What other tech companies are like that? Nintendo?
I would say that not being able to filter notifications trashes the user experience. It's like not being able to filter email. Nobody who uses their phone or email for productivity would put up with it.
Filter notifications how? On iOS you can allow or prevent notifications on an app level, and control a bunch of things about how they appear. Do you mean filtering based on the text, so that you allow some notifications from an app but prevent others? I'm curious about what you can do on Android.
Yes, filter based on content of the notification. Android has the concept of notification channels, so apps can send notifications of different types on different channels that users can individually enable or disable, which is already significantly better than iOS, but for heavy users of notifications who want to minimize distractions, even that isn't enough, so I have my own notification filtering rules as well.
I use my iPhone for productivity. I’ve never felt the need to filter notifications.
It does seem like a nice feature. But “nobody would put up with it” is pretty hyperbolic.
It does seem like a nice feature. But “nobody would put up with it” is pretty hyperbolic.
Porsche, Ferrari?
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?
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, better Firefox and Chrome, better GeForce Now, better BitTorrent apps, and on and on). Just not this cherry-picked example to Gruber's UI taste.
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, better Firefox and Chrome, better GeForce Now, better BitTorrent apps, and on and on). Just not this cherry-picked example to Gruber's UI taste.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Look, it's a blast from 2012, when iOS partisans were fond of claiming that the fatal flaw with Android was lower number of niche, low-audience apps or low app quality or something.
It feels like these 10 years later, we should have some some pretty solid intuitions about how much of a competitive advantage this actually is for iOS.
It feels like these 10 years later, we should have some some pretty solid intuitions about how much of a competitive advantage this actually is for iOS.
Another way of looking at this is that it clearly isn’t a fatal flaw. Most phone users don’t download many apps. Once they have the few usual suspects, they’re done. Android is, for that market, a good bet. It’s also superior for anyone who wants to more heavily customise their device (launchers, actions, etc) or dig into categories that are effectively banned on iOS (such as open emulation).
Where in my experience Android fares poorly is in a certain kind of ambition. Part of my beat is apps coverage. I was relieved when an article I used to write was canned because it was a nightmare each month coming up with consumer/creative oriented quality apps on Android. (Things are getting tougher on iOS there, too, but it’s still ahead.)
Even in that space, there are quality apps on Android, and surprises do happen. LumaFusion is a good example of that – even if it showed up years after it had been on iOS. But in these sorts of premium app spaces – media creation; writing tools; cameras; children’s apps; even games – iOS remains ahead.
For most, that won’t make any odds. But for some, it’s the difference that matters.
Where in my experience Android fares poorly is in a certain kind of ambition. Part of my beat is apps coverage. I was relieved when an article I used to write was canned because it was a nightmare each month coming up with consumer/creative oriented quality apps on Android. (Things are getting tougher on iOS there, too, but it’s still ahead.)
Even in that space, there are quality apps on Android, and surprises do happen. LumaFusion is a good example of that – even if it showed up years after it had been on iOS. But in these sorts of premium app spaces – media creation; writing tools; cameras; children’s apps; even games – iOS remains ahead.
For most, that won’t make any odds. But for some, it’s the difference that matters.
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 the wealth spike created by the pandemic, which advantages a marginally more expensive product. The other place I'd look is iPhone cameras vs Galaxy cameras, though honestly I'm not sure how good Galaxy's cameras are since I don't like Samsung's Android dialect.
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 the wealth spike created by the pandemic, which advantages a marginally more expensive product. The other place I'd look is iPhone cameras vs Galaxy cameras, though honestly I'm not sure how good Galaxy's cameras are since I don't like Samsung's Android dialect.
> 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.
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.
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."
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."
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
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.
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.
Yes, and in most large markets. I think they’re really going to need to release a full screen iPhone SE to keep the momentum going though and all rumors point to it being canceled.
> years ago my friend Brent Simmons wrote about why he chose to create apps exclusively for the Mac, despite the Windows market being so much larger:
>> One of the reasons I develop for OS X is that, when it comes to user interface, this is the big leagues, this is the show.
What?
>> One of the reasons I develop for OS X is that, when it comes to user interface, this is the big leagues, this is the show.
What?
He was writing in the context of Windows vs Mac 20 years ago. At that time especially, the overwhelming majority of people who really cared deeply about UI design used and designed for Macs, despite the overall small size of the Mac market.
For some evidence of design’s importance on the Mac (and now iOS), Apple has been awarding Apple Design Awards for many, many years. Winning one is considered by Mac/iOS designers and developers to be a high honor. I’m aware of no equivalent for Windows or Android.
For some evidence of design’s importance on the Mac (and now iOS), Apple has been awarding Apple Design Awards for many, many years. Winning one is considered by Mac/iOS designers and developers to be a high honor. I’m aware of no equivalent for Windows or Android.
Posted yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34605535
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34605535
even on ios the elk.zone add to homescreen webapp experience was so good i did not even consider looking for a native mastodon client, as i assume the android PWA support being much better why would anyone even bother with android apps?
does ios allow web browsers to have ad blocking extensions? because that's literally the only thing that will ever matter to me about the difference between the platforms
Only if you use Safari (which means you can't sync your data if you use a browser on a non-Apple OS), and all of them are significantly worse than uBlock Origin. I don't know if any of them even have anti-adblock blocking to the quality level that uBO does.
That’s not true; I use Firefox on iOS and have Firefox Focus as a block list provider.
Non-Safari browsers can't use third-party content blockers. It's a shitshow on iOS.
Yes I'm using AdGuard Pro and you can use custom filters > same as uBlock Origin on desktop. Works flawlessly.
Yes, there are a slew of “content blockers” in the App Store. I use 1Blocker but plenty of people like Adguard.
yes there are Safari extensions you download from the app store. I like 1Blocker: https://1blocker.com
>But more broadly they all just look and especially feel inert and rigid. Nothing shrinks or stretches. There’s no life to them.
I've been disabling animations on my phone for a few months now, and oh boy. Give me more of that dead, lifeless feel please.
It's so much faster, and it makes my phone into more of a tool rather than a fancy toy that sometimes gets in my way for no discernible reason or benefit.
I get why life-full things are popular, but it's increasingly smelling like a form of addiction-feeding to me.
Also UI design still hasn't recovered from the absurdities that excessively flat, whitespace-heavy nonsense forced on the world. It's slowly regaining sanity, but I'm kinda glad there are a mountain of Android apps that have not followed along.