# iPhone apps first,  then maybe other platforms later.



## Gromit (Jul 27, 2011)

I'm starting to get really fed up of companies annoucing that you can access [insert service] through your mobile.

Then when you go to set this up you discover its only available on the iPhone.
Eventually if you are lucky it may make it to Android.

Latest service to do this to me? Sky's Go. Advertised as allowing you to access films and programs on your laptop and mobile. What they really mean is on your laptop with Quicksilver installed, iPad or iPhone.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 27, 2011)

Ooh.. hadn't heard of Sky Go.. seems cool


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 27, 2011)

Actually, I agree, even though I have an iPhone (and an iPad). Companies delivering content should be producing web apps first which use open standards so that they can be viewed using any decent mobile browser, unless there's a very good reason why it can only be done with an actual app. There are all sorts of advantages in terms of deployment too. (Admittedly, "decent mobile browser" might exclude Windows Mobile and will almost certainly exclude Blackberry, but if they improve, you don't have to recompile for different platforms.)


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2011)

Companies do it because they  think that it makes their brand look cool - "Hey! We've got an iPhone app" - when in reality, they'd be far better off directing their resources to a decent mobile experience for all users.


----------



## moose (Jul 27, 2011)

We develop for iPhone first because that's what the majority of our customers want (primarily US market) When we do develop for Android, we never 'sell' so many (they're generally free, but you know what I mean)


----------



## elbows (Jul 27, 2011)

For me it boils down to whether these large media companies are throwing enough resources into IT stuff. The 'iOS first' and maybe others later is becoming such a pattern that there must be multiple reasons why they do it this way. Some of them make quite a bit of sense, but not from a customer perspective (unless they have done research and found very low demand for availability on other platforms).

I thought this might have started to change now that there are silly quantities of Android phones out there, but I guess not.

As for doing it with standards-based web-apps, I agree in principal, but especially with video this stuff is not yet as easy and standard as it should be.I seem to remember the BBC managed it ok for a web version of iPlayer that worked on the iPad, before they came out with a full app. Do the BBC currently cater for Android?


----------



## magneze (Jul 27, 2011)

It's all down to the bandwidth. If 3G had really given us broadband speeds then mobile webapps would be the norm. It hasn't so we've ended up with apps running locally. 4G could change this, but we're talking years away.


----------



## Sunray (Jul 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Companies do it because they  think that it makes their brand look cool - "Hey! We've got an iPhone app" - when in reality, they'd be far better off directing their resources to a decent mobile experience for all users.



Android has 100's of platforms and issues across each platform so a pain to do stuff for all phones.  I raised this issue ages ago, before the G1 was released. This diversity is akin to the browser issues of yore, how much money did IE6 cost the planet to get working? 

http://andrewrussell.net/2011/07/android-is-a-terrible-platform/

I have this problem at work just supporting Android web browsers.  You'd think that the browser would be the same across all the phones, but even across the limited set of phones people have at work, stuff works differently.

Nothing like the issue on iOS, hence with budget X they can make an iPhone app.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2011)

Sunray said:


> Android has 100's of platforms and issues across each platform so a pain to do stuff for all phones.  I raised this issue ages ago, before the G1 was released. This diversity is akin to the browser issues of yore, how much money did IE6 cost the planet to get working?
> 
> http://andrewrussell.net/2011/07/android-is-a-terrible-platform/
> 
> ...


No idea who Andrew Russell is or what ExEn is, but he sure seems to be building a rod for his own back by building an app with compatibility stretching all the way back to to v1.6 of Android. 

Personally, I'd concentrate on the 94.4% of users running 2.1+. Do all apps run on all versions of the iPhone's OS, then?


----------



## elbows (Jul 29, 2011)

He is nuts for extending Android support back to 1.6. iOS apps typically require at least iOS 3, and more likely 3.2 and there are quite a lot that need 4.2.

Android has some issues, including some devices lacking a OS upgrade path that many users can be expected to actually bother with, but there is no need to exaggerate the problems.

I'm going to see a friend at the weekend who has started developing for Android so I will get to learn a bit more about this stuff first-hand.


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jul 29, 2011)

iOs first is definitely a real pattern...it is one of the reasons I am glad I have an iphone - for one thing I know I would still be gnashing my teeth waiting for my accounts software to write an Android equivalent - and maybe they will never do it..whereas the free iphone app has been making my life easier for six months now

It is such a fixed pattern that you really notice it when it goes the other way

http://www.wirefresh.com/bbc-to-con...-mobile-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-5110


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2011)

Piers Gibbon said:


> iOs first is definitely a real pattern...it is one of the reasons I am glad I have an iphone - for one thing I know I would still be gnashing my teeth waiting for my accounts software to write an Android equivalent - and maybe they will never do it..whereas the free iphone app has been making my life easier for six months now
> 
> It is such a fixed pattern that you really notice it when it goes the other way
> 
> http://www.wirefresh.com/bbc-to-con...-mobile-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-5110


Android users already get Google Maps/GMail/G+ etc upgrades way in advance of iOS, and with the platform's market share thoroughly eclipsing the iPhone, that's a pattern other app developers are likely to follow. And, of course, Android devs don't have to sit on their hands and wait to see if Apple are going to approve the app or not.


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Jul 29, 2011)

interesting, thanks

but have you noticed any non-googley companies going for android first yet?

i'm sure it will shift over time though


----------



## elbows (Jul 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Android users already get Google Maps/GMail/G+ etc upgrades way in advance of iOS, and with the platform's market share thoroughly eclipsing the iPhone, that's a pattern other app developers are likely to follow.


 
I don't think this should be treated as a given at all.

Given impressive platform share, it would make sense for those who provide free apps as extensions to their main service, e.g. these 'watch tv channels on your mobile' apps, to target this platform early on.

For paid apps it matters not how many Android devices are out there, what matters is sales figures. There used to be dire stories about this stuff, I assume its improved somewhat since then but if you are a developer looking to make money I imagine iOS first still makes way more sense, especially for tablet-sized apps.


----------



## magneze (Jul 29, 2011)

There's a few. Pumpkins vs Monsters is Android only ATM.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2011)

elbows said:


> For paid apps it matters not how many Android devices are out there, what matters is sales figures. There used to be dire stories about this stuff, I assume its improved somewhat since then but if you are a developer looking to make money I imagine iOS first still makes way more sense, especially for tablet-sized apps.


Well, yes and no. If you get a hit iOS app, you're in the money, but with so much competition, many sink without trace.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2011)

Piers Gibbon said:


> interesting, thanks
> 
> but have you noticed any non-googley companies going for android first yet?
> 
> i'm sure it will shift over time though


Tweetdeck came out on Android months before the iOS version.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 29, 2011)

Gromit said:


> I'm starting to get really fed up of companies annoucing that you can access [insert service] through your mobile.
> 
> Then when you go to set this up you discover its only available on the iPhone.
> Eventually if you are lucky it may make it to Android.
> ...


 
NewsCorp


----------



## Sunray (Aug 1, 2011)

editor said:


> No idea who Andrew Russell is or what ExEn is, but he sure seems to be building a rod for his own back by building an app with compatibility stretching all the way back to to v1.6 of Android.
> 
> Personally, I'd concentrate on the 94.4% of users running 2.1+. *Do all apps run on all versions of the iPhone's OS, then?*



No, but they run on all the phones Apple sell. All two models.  The App store will not list apps that don't run, just like the Android market place.


----------

