Why Windows Phone could beat Android
tnl.net
tnl.net
They essentially get no help in terms of promotion, services, and support. Plus there's growing confusion over the future of the platform (fragmentation caused by WP8, the future of Silverlight...)
Some people use mogade just for the very basic real time stats it provides, which blows my mind. I mean, how can't Microsoft provide this kind of basic service. It pretty much boils down to: hincrby app yyyymmdd 1
Until this is fixed, I wouldn't hold my breath. If it was me, I'd be innovating on the developer service/support side at a painful pace. First class facebook library. Great stats. XBox Live Lite/Indie (which would kill the need for mogade, and would make me happy). Discovery and promotion tools. Better store.
In listing my contrarian case for the rise of WP7, I was trying to get opposing viewpoints so I could get a better sense as to what decision to make from a prioritization standpoint at our startup. It's clear we have to do iOS first but after that, where do we go: Android or WP? Android has more people but we might get more press and more uptake from WP so it's a tough call.
Odd indies are treated poorly by MSFT. The FUD from MSFT is that they've been working hard to get more developer over to their platform. Glad to have evidence that that may not be entirely true.
Most tellingly, the open source and zero-license-cost angle isn't treated at all. It's as if the AOSP and the Kindle didn't exist, which seems strange.
Edit: for clarity, the point isn't that Android is free and therefore "best" -- it's that an analysis of its expected lifespan like this one that ignores the fact that the code is free for anyone is either wrong or incomplete.
http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-andro...
I understand that most developers don't like the current patent system but that doesn't make it go away.
As well the licensing cost of the operating system is of little interest to most app developers who are looking at the ROI of app development. Windows has a $140 to $300 licensing cost yet it provides great developer ROI.
Similarly, iOS, OSX provide great ROI for consumer apps and Linux/Solaris great ROI for server apps.
I'll say it again, the point wasn't about cost, it was about freedom. Android apps work on Kindles. If Google goes belly up or gives up on Android, Amazon can still make Kindles. That's not true of Apple or MS, yet this article (which is premised on the idea that Android is a "risk" because Google might dump it) ignores that point completely. That tells me the author is either wrong or spinning.
When developing software for yourself it's very important that if push comes to shove that you can hack the OS to do whatever the hardware is capable of. Yes, you can still make Facebook for Android but Photoshop won't be coming to the platform with out a paying userbase, this is the same reason you don't find Photoshop on Linux.
When developing software for others it's very important that there is a userbase and that the userbase pays for software. It doesn't matter if the reason that few buy software on Android is because of fixable UX issues with the marketplace, I don't know how much of the UX issues are still relevant.
Another important factor is why Google might be dumping android (if they are at all), if it's because of patents it's unlikely that Amazon or anyone else will touch it. If Kindle is the only userbase left then it might not make a whole lot of sense for developers to sink time and money into the platform.
Win Mo will pose a threat to Android and may cause them to dump it if it becomes the alternative to iOS. There are a whole bunch of ifs in the article and honestly I think it's unlikely that Google will dump Android, but the key to it all is how much money developers can make from the platform.
Android isn't going to be very viable as a commericial dev platform if hardware manufacturers aren't producing phones that come pre-installed with Android.
I don't think Google will drop Android completely but I think that the fragmentation will get worse. For example, I'd develop for the Kindle Fire version of Android before others. Why? Because monetization in the Kindle app store seems to work better (there was an article on HN about this a few weeks back).
I agree with your last line and that's where the Motorola acquisition is puzzling. It strikes me that HTC, Samsung and others may start looking at WP as an alternative now that Motorola is owned by Google. If Nokia shows sign of strength (and early indications point that the Lumia 900 is heading in the right direction), others might follow... and THAT is an issue for Android.
no it wasn't. it's context is from a few years ago. hint: "was"
if I develop for Android today, what kind of guarantees do I have that the OS will still be supported tomorrow.
this kind http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3736479/Slide_57...
Isn't that the whole point !!!!!!