Facebook HQ Urges Employees to Ditch iPhone for Android

Really? Incidental? For an app that makes money by sales, I'd agree with you, since Apple has proven possible that more money is to be made from a smaller market segment if that smaller market segment is more willing to pay.

But in the case of Facebook and other such businesses where volume and ubiquity is key, it is incumbent for them to nudge developers to be more adept in a platform like Android. While FB users on Android will still visit FB, even if the app is inferior, I think FB's business depends on Android users being as attracted to FB as possible...not just when they get home to their desktop Macs.

In other words, why should a company let its developers be complacent with getting to use the best gadget, if the company's strategy is to dominate the global consciousness?

[insert pithy comment about FB still using PHP]

It's not too surprising, though. The Valley has long been enamored with Apple and Steve Jobs - the Reality Distortion Field has been most effective on those who really should know better. Android's dominance in the smartphone market has only served to reinforce their feelings of superiority and elitism vis-à-vis the common man.

And contrary to what you say, this applies to Windows vs. Mac as well. Macs are dominant in the Valley, which is quite the aberration in a world where Windows has around 90% of the PC market. When people in the Valley sing the praises of the web for its cross-platform nature, what they actually mean is that they can use Macs while still targeting the Windows market.

This hypocrisy becomes evident in their complete lack of cross-platform support when it comes to the mobile market, since they just stick to iOS. Moreover, one of the biggest advantages touted about iOS is the wide variety of games available for it. But the same people praising iOS for all its games are running Macs, which can run hardly any games compared to Windows.

First, there is the question of where Android's growth is. Apple is clearly going for the $200 price point on-contract. Yes, they sell their old models, but Android has a more diverse ecosystem. If we limited ourselves to equivalents (the top of the line iPhone and the several top of the line Android devices (Nexus 4, One X, GS III, etc.)) would there be so many more Android shipments? So, Android's shipments might be coming more on the low-end: the end that people like us don't purchase from as much.

Second, in the Mac vs. Windows era, there was a significant price disparity. If you're in the market for a top-of-the-line smartphone on-contract today, you're likely paying $200 for an Android phone or iPhone. Windows computers always had a significant price discount over equivalent Macs.

Third, in the Mac vs. Windows era, Macs often were under-spec'd. While Apple tried to make the best of the 603-G5 processors, Intel was just on a roll. You'd pay more and end up with less muscle. Today, the iPhone's A6 matches the quad-cores that Americans haven't been getting since LTE took precedence over quad-core in the GS III generation.

Fourth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were technologically inferior for many years. I'm specifically talking about the Classic Mac OS. Mac OS 8/9 was beautiful. Windows looked like it was designed in crayon by comparison (to me). However, its cooperative multitasking was just sad. Windows 95 really showed that OSs could be better (even if I thought that its UI was sub-par). When OS X and Windows XP came out, OS X was dog-slow - slow to the point of unusable. Apple really improved it and made it into the OS that many of us (myself included) love today. However, I remember 2001 and how envious I was of Windows users.

Fifth, in the Mac vs. PC era, Macs were app-poor. There was just a lot of compelling stuff that you couldn't run as a Mac user. The move toward the web changed a lot of that and left Apple with a great way back into the market. With the iPhone, I find that the iPhone does a better job on web pages than Android (note, I haven't used Android 4.1 and 4.2). Stats on web usage on mobile phones seem to bear this out as iPhone web browsing tends to dominate Android web browsing. Likewise, the iPhone at least matches Android on apps, but I think it could be argued to be the primary platform for apps. So, there isn't a penalty to using an iPhone in the way that there was a penalty to using a Mac in the Mac vs. PC era.

Basically, the iPhone isn't more expensive at the top-of-the-line, the iPhone has specs that no one would deny are top of the line, iOS isn't an inferior OS (personal preference about certain features aside), and there isn't a penalty to using iOS (if anything, it could be considered the first platform). None of this is meant to say that the iPhone is better than an Android phone. I don't care what you enjoy using. It's meant to demonstrate that iOS doesn't have the same cost premium, that if we limit ourselves to the devices that people like us buy the marketshare disparity might not be there, that even if iOS is a minority platform it still gets as good attention or better from developers, the specs are equivalent which they weren't in computers for a long time, and iOS and Android are both great modern OSs. If you were an early adopter, iOS came a couple years before Android.

In the Mac vs. PC era, Windows was more popular not just because popularity breeds popularity. It was hugely cheaper, better spec'd, and a superior OS for a good while. If you loved computing, Apple's tidyness might have been well out-shadowed by Windows 95's multi-tasking, app availability, price, specs, etc. If you like iOS, why choose an Android device as your next phone? No reason really. Similarly, there aren't compelling reasons if you like Android to buy an iPhone - Android phones today have high-res displays, are starting to get serious on build quality, similar specs, etc. It wasn't hard to convince a Mac user in 2000 to switch to Windows: you got a better OS, more apps, a faster computer, for half the price. I could convince people to switch to Windows with good, logical arguments that really rang true. Today, how would you convince an iPhone user to switch to Android? I'm not saying Android is bad, just that it's a lot harder to make that argument.

That statement was ironic. Satire, anyone? Maybe that's the reason why my FB app on Android is getting better? LOL

Google Plus' iPad app sucks to the bottom...... now I wonder what's the correlation...

In my experience, this issue is overblown, especially with Android 4.0+. Unless you're developing a game, the hardware differences should not be a huge concern. The Facebook app certainly shouldn't have problems because of this.

> I wish Google would make some efforts at fixing this problem

Google has and can have no control over how Android is implemented or updated by various OEMs, particularly when carriers are dictating terms. And when Google tries to go around the carriers, like they did with the Nexus 4, they get crucified for the lack of LTE. Seems to me they're between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully their plan to launch a wireless carrier with Dish Network will pan out and things will get better.

And while testing in Android isn't braindead easy, they have done a lot to make it easier on developers, from providing a really good emulator with images of all the various android versions, to having APIs designed to do feature detection, and have documented best practices to handling different sized/oriented layouts.

Maybe somebody should build a startup that creates a bridge between hardware owners and software developers. Let device owners have a client that downloads and runs test cases in exchange for money/points/lulz, paid for by developers wishing to support that hardware.