Android apps inferior in features and quality ?

[alexalex]

How do developers write apps for the scores of hardware variations that characterize the Android platform? They shoot for the broadest compatibility and that means writing for the lowest common denominator, which has led to inferior features and quality

Q&A: Starbucks mobile exec on Android, mobile ordering

You mentioned in your talk that Android is a ?watered down? experience. What did you mean by that?

?In a broad sense, in terms of some of the fragmentation in Android, with multiple resolutions, multiple screen sizes, different capabilities of different platforms that run Android, some users may find that they have to produce a watered down experience. They can?t deliver a consistent one. If they are using a lot of native device elements ? like the accelerometer and the camera and gyroscope and all of the different pieces of the hardware ? those are handled very differently on different devices. So, if you needed that, you might not be able to deliver that in a great way. You might have to take that feature out, for example.?

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/qa-starbucks-mobile-exec-android-mobile-ordering

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

I own an HTC Desire and am very happy with it.. but it's hard to dispute the points being made really!

[Rudy]

Most developers or companies usually will develop for the iPhone first and then port to Android after. This is because the market is a lot bigger on iOS (in terms of $ not in terms of users)

[Duality]

It is true. I have purchased a ton of apps on my iPod touch - but I simply don't bother on my Android phone.

[AJerman]

Entirely false. Android has plenty of very high quality applications. It just depends on how lazy the developers are, then it becomes a problem. As Android continues to dominate the mobile market, the lazy developers will get weeded out for the ones that actually want to put forth effort to make an app that works well on multiple systems. Android could use a little more work to improve scalability, but even now it's very possible to make high quality apps that work on a variety of devices.

[PT 13]

Having used both I can't agree with the title...

The only app I find superior on the iPhone is the Facebook app. The rest I find they usually run smoother (yes...) and have better UI than their iOS equivalents. So yeah, I usually prefer apps on android.

** 3,2,1... and someone is going to kill me now **

[Ruciz]

Apple has always went for polished. You will find very few if any Android apps that are as polished and fluid as the App Store/ipa stuff (only google apps basically). That being said, the same program for Android is 481Kb, while its 6.1Mb for iOS. I would prefer smaller, faster, more reliable programs which look a bit rough than a beautiful program with fewer features that is 12x larger.

If you compare Android to that of nokia or blackberry you will see its better than those, as many of those programs are NOT polished well at all, but they work. Blackberry, Apple and Nokia produce all the hardware and software side of things, where Android is a fancy VM on a linux kernel - so it will run on a LOT of various hardware so theres little control software can do other than independent testing on all devices which can take a while over vendors having 12 different revisions. Android is running on over 300.

As for the development, Android or Google I guess sets down minimum hardware requirements for OS versions, which is dependent on which linux kernel they decided to develop for, and what additional drivers & features they included in the kernel. These aren't exact, the wiki can likely explain them better. But I hope this explains the idea. The fragmentation is that linux isn't too fussy, and someone with the patience could

'cook' up a ROM for an older device running the newer software. If the hardware isn't there - the software won't run, or will run badly. So its fragmented. 2 identical spec devices could have vastly different software experiences, depending on whos maintaining the platform. Not to mention developing for software/hardware spec that varies over 300 different devices with more popping up daily isn't an easy feat.

A great example is the HTC Hero, which came with firmware 1.6 I believe. Telus (and most others) OTA updated the phone to 2.1 firmware. Great! This would allow the install angry birds, as the 2.1 firmware requirement was met, but the phone itself wouldn't play angry birds correctly because 2.1 kernel was too power hungry with the extra features Telus never bothered adjusting. If I were to root the phone and install a custom cooked rom - I bet angry birds would be playable. morer than now. Not really good tho.

[Prince781]

Actually, Android's applications are quite high in quality. I have nothing else to say other than this article is complete and utter hogwash.

[Owen W Veteran]

Entirely false. Android has plenty of very high quality applications. It just depends on how lazy the developers are, then it becomes a problem. As Android continues to dominate the mobile market, the lazy developers will get weeded out for the ones that actually want to put forth effort to make an app that works well on multiple systems. Android could use a little more work to improve scalability, but even now it's very possible to make high quality apps that work on a variety of devices.

Just because Android "dominates" the market, doesn't mean its good. It means that carriers are pushing it (because they can do whatever they like to it) and are selling tons of dumbphones with Android on them.

I agree that the applications are average and watered down. You can find one or two gems... but thats it.

Edit: Full disclosure. I used Android for ~2 years before moving to WP7. The apps there are of higher quality, even though there are less. The iPhone still indisputeably has the best apps, but over time that will come.

[instant.human]

First, Android dominates the US market. But the US is not the world. In Europe for example, it does not.

But however, I found that while I used Android, the apps have all the features you might want or need but usually, those apps look like rubbish. Now, it's up to the user to decide if they want apps that do the job and look like crap or apps that do the job AND look great. ;) Because really, you can't argue against that:

BUT before someone calls me a fanboy or biased or whatever, of course that depends entirely on taste and one might find the Android-interface way better.

Better safe then sorry nowadays on Neowin...

[Owen W Veteran]

First, Android dominates the US market. But the US is not the world. In Europe for example, it does not.

But however, I found that while I used Android, the apps have all the features you might want or need but usually, those apps look like rubbish. Now, it's up to the user to decide if they want apps that do the job and look like crap or apps that do the job AND look great. ;) Because really, you can't argue against that:

BUT before someone calls me a fanboy or biased or whatever, of course that depends entirely on taste and one might find the Android-interface way better.

Better safe then sorry nowadays on Neowin...

I'm going to stop you there. You just cited the most used Android app as a good looking one. Of course it'll look good. Facebook spends TONS on designing their apps. Most other apps in the marketplace are shoddy as.

[spikey_richie]

I'm not sure which Android version of Facebook you're running in your screenshot, but mine has all the same icons as the iPhone app with the exception of the + (top right). I have 1.5.4

[+Matthew S. Subscriber²]

First, Android dominates the US market. But the US is not the world. In Europe for example, it does not.

But however, I found that while I used Android, the apps have all the features you might want or need but usually, those apps look like rubbish. Now, it's up to the user to decide if they want apps that do the job and look like crap or apps that do the job AND look great. ;) Because really, you can't argue against that:

BUT before someone calls me a fanboy or biased or whatever, of course that depends entirely on taste and one might find the Android-interface way better.

Better safe then sorry nowadays on Neowin...

Oddly enough I own an iPhone a prefer the Android UI :unsure:

[AJerman]

Just because Android "dominates" the market, doesn't mean its good. It means that carriers are pushing it (because they can do whatever they like to it) and are selling tons of dumbphones with Android on them.

I agree that the applications are average and watered down. You can find one or two gems... but thats it.

Edit: Full disclosure. I used Android for ~2 years before moving to WP7. The apps there are of higher quality, even though there are less. The iPhone still indisputeably has the best apps, but over time that will come.

Dominating the market will mean the apps WILL get better, even if they aren't now. Like I said, it will force out the lazy developers and bring in more quality apps. I will give you that there are a lot of low quality Android apps still, but Android has exploded in the last year and is still working out the kinks. We're finally hitting that higher quality level, and things will continue to get better. To act like you CAN'T make apps because of "fragmentation" is BS though.

And yes, I'd much rather my apps work and be functional than be pretty. That can come further down the line. That's why I jumped from iOS to Android. There is a lot more functionally that I can do compared to iOS. I like both OSes, but Android fits me better. Perfect example, Tasker. Not the best UI ever, but I can make my phone do almost ANYTHING based on almost ANY condition. Beautiful display of the power of the Android OS there.

[Owen W Veteran]

Dominating the market will mean the apps WILL get better, even if they aren't now. Like I said, it will force out the lazy developers and bring in more quality apps. I will give you that there are a lot of low quality Android apps still, but Android has exploded in the last year and is still working out the kinks. We're finally hitting that higher quality level, and things will continue to get better. To act like you CAN'T make apps because of "fragmentation" is BS though.

You do realize it's been this way for the last 4-5 years? Android hasn't exploded just in the last year... it's been popular for a while now. Things aren't just going to get better all of a sudden. The platform is fragmented as hell, and developers are slowly turning away from it.

[instant.human]

I'm going to stop you there. You just cited the most used Android app as a good looking one. Of course it'll look good. Facebook spends TONS on designing their apps. Most other apps in the marketplace are shoddy as.

No, I did not! Quite the opposite. I just said that maybe someone might find it better looking. Not me btw.

I'm not sure which Android version of Facebook you're running in your screenshot, but mine has all the same icons as the iPhone app with the exception of the + (top right). I have 1.5.4

I don't run any version of Facebook for Android anymore because I own an iPhone. I got that from some site I don't remember. But the icons are infact the same. Look closely.

As I said, one might find the FB for Android UI better (and in this case, it's indeed not bad but not really good either). Which is alright. But look at SpeedTest for example. I don't like the style of the iOS-App aswell but it does look wayyyy better than the Android version. May it be your kind of style or not, shiny chrome whatever... It's simply more polished.

[Elliott]

Ask just about any pixel-perfectionist designer and they'll give you the same reaction: designing for Android is a bitch. The myriad of different screen resolutions, pixel densities, and even different screen technologies (Pentile will make something look very different, in other words) makes creating a tight or detailed design nearly impossible. As such, Android designs tend to be more minimal and flat, which is something some people might prefer. Doesn't make it any less hard for developers and designers to work with, though.

[instant.human]

As such, Android designs tend to be more minimal and flat, which is something some people might prefer. Doesn't make it any less hard for developers and designers to work with, though.

Well, there are tons of examples of great minimal and flat iOS app design out there but frankly, even though Android would be perfectly suited to run something like Calvetica or TeuxDeux, the apps still look more like some hacky Windows 95 program. Sorry. :whistle:

But other than that you are right of course. It's almost impossible to design pixel for Android with so many different screen resolutions, display sizes and different technologies... A shame really.

[AJerman]

You do realize it's been this way for the last 4-5 years? Android hasn't exploded just in the last year... it's been popular for a while now. Things aren't going to change. The platform is fragmented as hell, and developers are slowly turning away from it.

You couldn't be farther from wrong there. Android has ABSOLUTELY exploded in the last year. Last year, how many people did you know with an Android phone? Now how many do you know? I would say the MAJORITY of my friends have Android phones now where as last year it was definitely the minority. Android had 1.6% market share in 1Q 2009, 9% in 1Q 2010, and 35% in 1Q 2011. Developers are only just now starting to consider Android a real need to develop for.

[Owen W Veteran]

You couldn't be farther from wrong there. Android has ABSOLUTELY exploded in the last year. Last year, how many people did you know with an Android phone? Now how many do you know? I would say the MAJORITY of my friends have Android phones now where as last year it was definitely the minority. Android had 1.6% market share in 1Q 2009, 9% in 1Q 2010, and 35% in 1Q 2011. Developers are only just now starting to consider Android a real need to develop for.

I see what your point is, but I still tell you... this is not sustainable if Google doesn't change something soon.

[Subject Delta]

I'm going to stop you there. You just cited the most used Android app as a good looking one. Of course it'll look good. Facebook spends TONS on designing their apps. Most other apps in the marketplace are shoddy as.

I'm going to stop you there, because you're basing your opinions on both your utterly obvious pro Microsoft bias, and the fact that you are basing all of your opinions on the applications you have used. Yes, when using an open door policy you are bound to get the odd crappy application, but there are plenty of very good applications on the Android market.

You do realize it's been this way for the last 4-5 years? Android hasn't exploded just in the last year... it's been popular for a while now. Things aren't just going to get better all of a sudden. The platform is fragmented as hell, and developers are slowly turning away from it.

Only since Q3 2009, so it's only really shot up in the last 18 months or so. Do your research before posting next time ;)

And just for the fun of it, let's look at another stat: Android 2.2 holds 61% of marketshare

Android fragmentation is nothing like as bad as people like you would have us believe

[Rudy]

Around here I find most people either have Blackberries or iPhones

I've only ever seen ONE WP7 lol (expect the ones I've seen in the stores)

[instant.human]

I'm going to stop you there, because you're basing your opinions on both your utterly obvious pro Microsoft bias, and the fact that you are basing all of your opinions on the applications you have used. Yes, when using an open door policy you are bound to get the odd crappy application, but there are plenty of very good applications on the Android market.

Says the dude with the Andoid-****ing-on-Apple-Avatar. :p

To be clear, I think there are a whole lot of good applications on the Android market. They just look like sh*t. Which, yes, is important, because it is directly linked with the UX of an app. Like there are dirty, crappy websites that you just close the tab of because of their ****ty looks and head over to that well designed, grid-aligned website with carefully selected fonts and gently used effects. They might serve the same purpose. But the better designed page is more user friendly, more pleasing to look at, ideally not distracting much and feels like someone put some love in there.

Design is about love and passion and not just putting some function into some app and then saying "well, it works!". It does. But it's bad.

[SummerWolf]

To be clear, I think there are a whole lot of good applications on the Android market. They just look like sh*t. Which, yes, is important, because it is directly linked with the UX of an app. Like there are dirty, crappy websites that you just close the tab of because of their ****ty looks and head over to that well designed, grid-aligned website with carefully selected fonts and gently used effects. They might serve the same purpose. But the better designed page is more user friendly, more pleasing to look at, ideally not distracting much and feels like someone put some love in there.

That's pretty much the sole reason HCI exists. It's a lot more important than most people give credit for.

An excellent example is the story of the $300m Button. http://www.uie.com/articles/three_hund_million_button/

[DukeEsquire]

I completely agree. I own an iPhone and did own an Asus Transformer (just returned it yesterday because I was unsatisfied with the product).

The Apps on Android are, in my opinion, for the apps I use, inferior on Android.