Hacker News Reader

Comment by JosephLark | Hacker News Reader

The exact same thing stuck out to me as well. Mostly because they had to start the article with this sentence:

> With more than two billion active devices, Android is the largest mobile platform in the world.

So they'll get it onto 5% of active devices, or one in every twenty. Not great, perhaps not even good.

I've not been a fan of android fragmentation for awhile now, and have been surprised that Google hasn't been able to do more to attack the issue. Even when Treble launched, I asked myself... is that all? Rock and hard place I guess.

I actively avoid android devices because of the issue. My last android device was a tablet in 2011.

View on HN

The purpose of ARCore is for high-end Android devices to be competitive with the iPhone technologically, not to get on 2 billion devices, at least not now.

Therefore it's fine that they get only 5% to start. I assume it's going to turn into 10%, then 20% quickly. For some perspective the iPhone only has about 15% market share globally.

And obviously a very good driver to get people to upgrade to high-end Android phones. There aren't too many use-case drivers for that right now.

It'll only do that if ARCore itself takes off. With such small penetration, it's entirely likely that developers will just focus on Apple's ARKit.

likely that developers will just focus on Apple's ARKit

Most likely someone will just build and offer an abstraction layer on top of ARKit / ARCore and solve the problem that way.

Writing the code is probably the easiest part of all this. Testing and design are going to be huge.

AR.js seems to be doing it at this very moment

Google have already provided this themselves, plus hooked it up to a 3D rendering engine:

https://github.com/google-ar/three.ar.js

That's assuming you're okay with JS, but if you're going cross-platform then it makes sense if you need to have interactive scenes.

The problem with WebVR, is that just like WebGL, it is capped, versus what is possible in actual OpenGL ES.

I've been developing WebGL software for a client for the last few years and my client has had quite good success selling content based on the software and consumers are using the content. The vast majority of browsers fully support WebGL (1).

The biggest performance bottle-neck is the JS itself, specifically stock three.js is quite inefficient. However, that's just a matter of optimising three.js, or using WebGL directly if you need more fine-grained control. You can get a lot done in a browser these days.

I have seen impressive WebGL demos, but for some reason WebGL always makes the GPU sweat more than plain native code driving my fan at full speed, even though it offers less.

Maybe it is a consequence of using JS, I have never researched it.

> The purpose of ARCore is for high-end Android devices to be competitive with the iPhone technologically, not to get on 2 billion devices, at least not now.

This article is explicitly spun to promote ARCore as "Android scale" and leads with a sentence pointing out that Android is on two billion devices.

You're right, their ambitions are much lower, but it's fair to point out their actual goals aren't anywhere near the image they are trying to project and they really shouldn't be bragging about it being "Android scale" when it's nothing of the sort.

Ditto. To add more wood to the fire consider that those 2 billion Android active devices are not “Google’s Android” devices. In China, where the largest bulk of those 2 billion devices are, Google isn’t allowed. Which means that SDKs like this one that are part of or require the Play Services framework are nowhere to be found. I would put Google’s Android active device numbers somewhere around 300 million. Translation - ARCore will show up in 1 out of every 100 users six months downs the line when Samsung, LG and other partners decide to release it. In the meantime, around Sept. 29 of this year Apple will have 100 million+ ARKit ready devices - based on the 80%+ install rate for new iOS versions - when iOS 11 is released. Just saying.

I'm still bitter how they abandoned the Nexus line in favor of Pixel. Hopefully things will be more stable with the in-house design.

The 2 billion is the number of devices with the Play Store. Android devices in China do not have Google Play Store or Services on them. So devices in China do not factor into this number.

> Even when Treble launched, I asked myself... is that all? Rock and hard place I guess.

Curious, what exactly were you expecting? There hasn't even been enough time for Treble to play out to see if it brings results.

As a user, how does fragmentation matter to you? It shouldn't affect you directly. The place where it matters is that you'll get less developers making software for you, but honestly, in the past 3 years, that hasn't really been an issue on Android. Except one or two big games like Mario, it's been fairly equal to iOS in terms of app support.

Not only that, but you can quickly solve that issue by going with Pixel/Nexus devices. So I'm not sure that the criticism is well-deserved.

It certainly is an issue if the entire Android ecosystem of devices is reduced to just one niche $650 phone.

Sure, but you are also comparing it to a 700$ phone (the iPhone) and I don't think it's fair.

Like, obviously, iOS will have a cleaner and less fragmented ecosystem, because they support far fewer devices (all of which they own).

Fragmentation impacts which device you might want to buy. The biggest argument for Android is the wide choice of devices and features on those devices, but if your phone never gets an update, you're left behind. It's possible to get a really nice and inexpensive Android phone, but what's the risk of never getting an update?

The developers support isn't just a minor quibble, especially when it comes to quality of life factors like browser versions (e.g. LG, HTC, Samsung, etc. have all shipped Chrome builds with subtle differences). This also applies to optimizations for CPUs, graphics hardware, etc. — the app may be available on both but it almost certainly runs better on iOS.

The other problem is that fragmentation increases the odds of a vendor walking away from a device since the per-model sales are divided more ways. Trying to pick a device which will get updates basically involves sales forecasting which wouldn't be necessary if the platform was open.

You don't have to avoid Android devices, just buy Google ones. Most of the others are filled with crapware and bad customizations anyway, no idea why any savvy HN reader would want those.

Which is easy to say, if you’re on silicon valley wages.

But a student trying to develop for Android can’t afford devices that start (!) at 908.35 USD. (Price of the Pixel 5" with 32GB storage, in Germany, right now).

And Google just dropped support for my phone, the Nexus 5X (which I bought for 324 USD, on sale, just before they stopped selling it)

How is it any worse for iOS? You even have to fork out $2k for a Mac as a dev machine!

I never developed for iOS, because a platform that has in my home market (the EU) a marketshare similar to what Windows Phone 7 had in the US (below 15%) is useless. Especially when development starts upwards of $3000.

I’m comparing between developing on Google devices, and non-Google devices.

Your numbers are incorrect, iOS market share is around 22% in the EU5 (GB, DE, FR, IT, ES) according to https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/iOS-and-Android.... And according to https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/smartphone-os-market... Windows Phone's market share (as opposed to device sales) in the US peaked at 5.6% in 2013. That's a factor of 4. You may not like iOS, and there's nothing wrong with not considering a platform for ideological reasons, but it's not irrelevant.

Also, a used Mac Mini isn't $3000.

My numbers are those the EU Antitrust committee recently published. Below 15% was the number they used as argument for why Android is a monopoly.

> Also, a used Mac Mini isn't $3000.

A Mac Mini that’s still under warranty, and an iPhone, and some years of Apple Developer fees, are.

A new mac Mini with 8GB RAM is 819€ in Germany. A new iPhone 7 32GB is 759€. That's 1578€, or $1880. Add a one-year developer subscription and you're still below $2000. Your claim is just plain wrong.

The developer subscription isn’t just 99$. You need to pay with a credit card, the cheapest credit card available in Germany has an annual fee of 39.99€, unless you move > $1300 a year via a CC. (I don’t have a CC, neither do 90.1% of Germans)

So, you have $150 annual fee just for the developer account. Plus an additional massive cost every I time I need to replace the device.

The starting costs are significantly higher; maybe not 3k, maybe just 2k, but that’s the same anyway: Completely unaffordable.

And running costs are massively worse, too.

Oh quit the nonsense! I'm paying nowhere near 40€ for my credit card in Germany (and have no minimum transfer volume requirement). Also, ⅓ of Germans have a credit card: https://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/DE/Pressemitteilungen/BB..., and it's not like this is the only occasion where one might be useful.

Not to mention that all that gives you the ability to, you know, sell apps on the App Store and recoup your expenses. $2000 is a very reasonable entry price for something you could be making your living with. It's expensive for a hobby, granted, but it's not like the stuff you buy is single-purpose. And it keeps resale value amazingly well.

You can really stop it with the made-up numbers now. This is ridiculous.

> but it's not like the stuff you buy is single-purpose

For what I am doing, it literally is.

> $2000 is a very reasonable entry price for something you could be making your living with.

For a student that has 50€ left each month after rent, food, etc, $2000 is quite a fucking bunch of money.

> Oh quit the nonsense! I'm paying nowhere near 40€ for my credit card in Germany

Which bank? A credit card without being required to be linked to an account with a certain monthly or annual transfer?

> Not to mention that all that gives you the ability to, you know, sell apps on the App Store and recoup your expenses.

Which is so useful when the whole goal is to port existing GPL'd open source apps for my projects to iOS, and provide them for free.

> the cheapest credit card available in Germany has an annual fee of 39.99€, unless you move > $1300 a year via a CC

Only if you ignore the free credit cards that are independent of a current account from Advanzia, Santander Consumer, Barclaycard, Hanseatic, Payback, Targobank, ICS, and some I forgot.

Then there are also a lot of unconditionally free current accounts that offer a card (credit or debit) that can be used to pay that subscription, such as those from DKB, Comdirect, ING-Diba, Consorsbank, Wüstenrot, Norisbank, Fidor, N26, and so on.

Those offers are not hard to find, some of them are available for over a decade or more now. Even pretty much every consumer bank you can name in Germany has such a card on offer for less than 40€ yearly. That includes small cooperative banks. If yours does not you should consider switching (or opening a second account), competition is fierce.

None of them have free credit cards.

Santander, Barclay, Hanseatic, Targo, DKB, Comdirect, ING-Diba, Consors, Wüstenrot, Noris, and N26 require that you have at least 600€ each month of movement via the bank account, or at least 1200€/year via the card.

I’ve tried getting a card from all of them. All of them refused, as I’d not use them enough.

> If yours does not

I’m a customer at 2 major national german banks (postbank and commerzbank), and a local one, none of them (or their subsidiaries, such as comdirect) offer this.

I just want a credit card, I’ll use it at most once a year, for at most 100 bucks. That is not available from any bank.

The only offer that exists even similar in cost is the old MyWirecard offer, and they closed my account due to not using it enough.

All of the ones I listed have at least one free offer without 600€ requirement, not sure you got that idea from. I am a customer at some of them without using the account at all and don't pay any fees. Some of the banks are quite picky and refuse customers for no apparent reason but none of them I know even asks how much money you plan to spend with it so that couldn't be a reason. If all of those banks have refused you there has to be something seriously wrong with your credit report, I would get a free § 34 report from Schufa and Creditreform to check if everything is correct if I were you.

Postbank has a Visa or MasterCard for 29€ yearly. Comdirect has a free Visa Debit card. I have it and have not used that account for over two years now apart from downloading the statements. Nothing happened so far and I haven't paid anything.

In your case the easiest solution would probably to order the British prepaid card from Revolut which is available for a one-time 8€ fee and I don't think they refuse anybody. Just note that they are not regulated as a bank but as electronic money so I wouldn't leave large sums of money for a long time on the card (but that's not something you want to do anyway).

> If all of those banks have refused you there has to be something seriously wrong with your credit report, I would get a free § 34 report from Schufa and Creditreform to check if everything is correct if I were you.

My credit report is perfect, and I’ve had no issues with that – but the problem is that I, as student, currently have zero income, and zero spending.

> Comdirect has a free Visa Debit card

Only in combination with the Girokonto, which is only provided if you have any monthly income. Same with Hanseatic. Check their AGB, or call them.

> Postbank has a Visa or MasterCard for 29€ yearly

Same story with this, I’m a customer at Postbank, have a Sparbuch in the 5 digits, but I can’t get a free Visa or MasterCard until I’ve > 670€/month income, and I won’t pay a single cent for a credit card.

> In your case the easiest solution would probably to order the British prepaid card from Revolut which is available for a one-time 8€ fee and I don't think they refuse anybody. Just note that they are not regulated as a bank but as electronic money so I wouldn't leave large sums of money for a long time on the card (but that's not something you want to do anyway).

I’ve had one with them, too, they closed the account because it wasn’t used often enough.

https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/

With iPhone's they get around 4-5 years of updates compared to the 2 years promised with Google's devices.[1]

Buying into iPhone development might be more expensive upfront, but you get a longer update period (which is obviously important for developers).

I paid around $725 USD for a 2012 Macbook Pro which can develop for iOS and it has 16GB of ram, an SSD and a hard drive for time machine.

[2]https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/4457705#nexus_device...

This hardware [1] is a bit long in the tooth but you do not have to pony up $2K to get started.

[1] https://www.apple.com/us/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini

Let me know when google goes back to making devices with a headphone jack, an SD card slot and a replaceable battery.

I bought a Nexus 5 (that was supposed to give you the Google experience) after my iphone 4 and was the worst phone that I ever had. I barely managed to not throw it against the wall for several times. After less than 2 years I sold it and bought an iPhone 6s that I still have and I use happily without any "phonicidal" thoughts.

I wasn't comparing Google Phones to iPhones, but to the rest of the fragmented Android market. iPhones don't come with bloatware and crapware either. But what issues did your Nexus 5 give you?

Not the parent comment, but my Nexus 5 power button got stuck and bootlooped my phone.

Replaced the motherboard myself, a year later, same issue.

Bummed about it because otherwise it's a good phone at a great price. Only thing I complain about other than that is how terrible the camera is, but for a cheap phone that's a few years old, it's unfair to compare to today's devices.

My Nexus 5 has served me well for many years without incident. My next phone will be a Pixel 2.

Personally I would prefer them to target the top devices with a great product instead of delivering a mediocre product that all devices can run.

That doesn't make it very appealing for app developers, though, if the size of their base is dramatically limited to just people with both the latest and the greatest devices.

I'm not sure what's unappealing about targeting users that can afford to always have the latest and greatest. That's effectively exactly what you're doing if you choose to Target iOS over Android.

I guess the problem is that (going by Google's target of 100m users with this feature by winter) Apple have vastly more of those users.

Today's "a few" is tomorrow's "everyone", this has been proven before (the original iPhone, car technology, etc.). You take the time to perfect what you build with a smaller audience and more powerful technology, and eventually there will be more people to sell it to.

The question is if you're trying to earn your living doing that can you wait long enough for "a few" to become "everyone"? There are a lot of businesses that fail because they're too early.

Considering Android apps make 15% of the money iOS apps make, perhaps it is for the best to only target devices that happen to be owned by people who spend money.

If android apps make 15% of what iPhone apps do despite having a much larger market share, what would be the point of targeting a smaller fraction of that? Even if those users are all willing to pay you're probably not going to get higher than that 15%.

The "high-end" at market on iOS is bad enough, would you want to try and fight that battle on android?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com