

 Why do apps from the same company look worse on Android than on iPhone? - awalker
http://android-gripes.tumblr.com/post/4409289546/why-do-apps-from-the-same-company-look-worse-on-android

======
flyosity
I think it's the standard that is set by the original creator of the UI
widgets available on the platform, in this case, Apple vs. Google.

I'm an iPhone UI designer/developer and you can make a really nice looking app
without doing any custom design work just by using the widgets that Apple
provides. A good example of an app that was nearly all stock is Tweetie 1 for
iPhone and it won an Apple Design Award. Apple has put an incredible amount of
polish (single-pixel highlights and shadows, consistent sheen/gloss across
elements, built-in animations for common interactions) into the widgets as
part of UIKit, and then the apps that are included on the iPhone are also
incredibly polished. This sets the bar very high and also gives a quality of
UI design that developers can look up to and try to emulate.

The apps that Google built for Android (Maps in particular) are very clean and
elegant but I would hesitate to call them beautiful or extremely polished.
Google's design aesthetic typically eschews gradients, sheen, highlights and
shadows in favor of a flatter, cleaner look and feel. Although Google's
Android apps are well-designed, they don't look like a team of visual
designers hand-crafted each and every corner like Apple's apps and UIKit
widgets seem to be. Because of this cleaner, simpler aesthetic, the bar for
"good-looking" on Android is a lot lower than for iPhone and it seems
companies will cut corners on Android app UI design & visual polish because of
it.

Another theory is that companies might feel that Android phone owners are more
technical, more geeky, and thus "don't need" a really polished interface so
they spend fewer resources on it. Once a few big companies release Android
apps with a sub-par design, other companies see this and follow suit,
continuing the trend forwards. Obviously this is a difficult stigma to get out
of, but some companies are putting out great Android apps -- Gowalla comes to
mind -- so there is hope.

~~~
redthrowaway
Android has more market share than iOS, which would seem to suggest it's moved
far beyond the "technical, geeky" crowd.

My hunch is that we're starting to see a Windows/Mac differentiation here,
with Android emerging as the clear winner of mobile and iOS being reserved for
the trendy/artistic/quality crowd. That carries over into the apps themselves,
with Android apps (like their windows counterparts) being clean and
utilitarian, whereas iOS developers are devoting more time to making sure
their app looks good.

Edit: The "quality" comment was not intended to suggest that Android lacks it,
but rather that those who buy based upon perceived quality would be more
likely to be drawn to the iPhone.

~~~
grandalf
That's a fairly optimistic view.

My take is that most purchasers of Android phones are probably quite
disappointed with the experience. Whether it's because of battery life, lousy
app selection, annoying add-ons by the carrier, or clunky app design.

Sure, slimy salespeople hired by the carriers are pushing Android phones and
probably lying about features and quality just as they lie about plan details,
etc. Yes they're selling a lot of (mediocre) phones to a lot of naive (or
optimistic) people who trust the Google name based on their experience with
search or gmail.

I predict a huge backlash as more and more consumers realize they were
hoodwinked and should have just gone with an iPhone. Take the Evo 4G for
example... the phone shipped unable to even last a whole day on a full charge
(with moderate use). This is unconscionable. Clearly nobody who was in a
postion to do something about this test drove one of the phones for a few days
before moving forward with all the hype and marketing.

I think this will all bite Google when few people decide to upgrade to a new
Android phone. The experience is so mediocre that even a few minutes playing
with an iPhone, browsing the app store, or talking to the owner about battery
life will cause tremendous buyers remorse.

~~~
irons
I'm not sure they're disappointed, per se. The non-nerds I know who bought
Android phones are generally pretty pleased to be able to make calls and use
the web a bit.

They're not app consumers to the slightest degree. Android represents a small
value-add over the dumbphones they had before, which is fine, but they're not
part of the vast army that Android partisans seem to think is coming over the
next hill.

~~~
_frog
This. A lot of people are coming to Android as a step up from feature phones.
In fact a lot of Android phones ship without any way to install third party
apps and act as essentially glorified feature phones. I'd love to see the
statistics of Android phones sold with the Android store versus iOS device
sales to get a better idea of where the two platforms stand in relation to
each other.

~~~
lloeki
A friend of mine bought a HTC Desire Z (of which the G2 is a variant) but
while it is supposed to be in the powerhouse department (at the opposite end
of the spectrum of a Galaxy Spica) its UI feels jerky, laggy and generally
unwilling to respond to some user actions. My friend, despite being on the
geeky side, seems not to notice it and because he seems to enjoy the phone I'm
reluctant to make him notice and ruin its experience. Certainly this has to
come from the fact he comes from a feature phone, so that phone is definitely
an improvement.

~~~
bogomips
I don't disagree with your observations about a pre-Gingerbread device,
however it is remarkable how much 2.3 has improved. It is very competitive
with the iPhone now from a spit and polish perspective, even on older
hardware. So imagine the shine on a device like an upcoming Galaxy S II.

This segues to arguments that have a freshness dating. Android used to have
crap hardware (the G1 was junk). Now it has amazing hardware. Android used to
have no apps. Now it has an unbelievable number of apps, and almost all of the
top tier apps. Android used to be a duct-tape clunky mess. Now (Gingerbread)
it's a completely different beast: It is actually a loveable operating system.

So if Android made most of its gains when it was a shadow of what it is now,
what are the detractors left with?

------
stevenwei
In my experience, the main reason is that you only need to design for one
screen resolution on the iPhone (retina artwork doesn't really affect the
screen layout). This makes it a lot easier to statically position elements and
create pixel perfect effects.

On the other hand, when you're dealing with dynamic layouts, you have to jump
through a lot more hoops to make sure the app still looks good as the
resolution is scaled up and down (e.g. creating a stretchable images and such
and so forth).

I also think that Helvetica is a much nicer looking default font.

~~~
guelo
I don't buy it. As an Android dev you normally just worry about one
resolution, Android provides you with the tools (device independent pixels) to
make other screens look the same. Just like the iphone, designers are
encouraged to provide 2 sets of art assets, for medium and high resolution
screens.

The real reasons that apps looks worse on Android is that companies don't want
to spend the time and money to get the apps polished. As an Android consultant
I've come across the attitude from companies over and over again that the
Android app should cost less money than the iPhone counterpart. The Android
app is always an afterthought and treated as "let's just do a quick port of
the iPhone app".

~~~
daniel_solano
With respect to only having to "worry about one resolution", I disagree.
Android does give you a set of tools for working with multiple screen types,
but it's a bit more complicated than "2 sets of art assets". This only
addresses one aspect of different screens: pixel density. This still leaves
out different screen sizes. Even then, a "normal hdpi" screen can still be
different from another "normal hdpi" screen.

It certainly does not help that Google's dashboard for screen and density
figures has not been updated in over half a year.

As far as your second point goes, I think that companies' attitudes to Android
development will change to reflect the evolving marketplace. A year or two
ago, Android just did not have the market share to justify a lot of work. Now
that Android is commanding significant market share, I think Android
development will begin to be seen to be as important as iOS development.

~~~
guelo
There might be slight differences between "normal hdpi" screens but those
differences won't affect a good design and the developer won't have to worry
about it. And it definitely has nothing to do with why the meebo app looks
like crap. It looks like crap because meebo didn't put the effort into it.

~~~
asmosoinio
Where is that? I've been looking at this:

[http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/screens.htm...](http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/screens.html)

~~~
guelo
oops, you're right, that one hasn't been updated in a while.

------
trotsky
Interesting blog, every entry appears to be a substantial jab at the platform
itself... not really just "gripes" as I see them. I am impressed with how
dedicated he is to the pursuit, not only does he have a blog solely for his
android gripes, but he's also made an androidgripes gmail account as well as a
twitter account and a facebook page to promote the blog. It doesn't seem to be
possible to find the blogger's name, however, though as an anonymous figure he
certainly is quite prolific [1].

I also note that the HN account that submitted this link was created
immediately before submitting it, and that's their only activity.

I was considering responding to the flame bait in his closing paragraph ("Is
it because iPhone developers are better at user interface design?" etc.) until
I realized what I was looking seemed to have about a 99% chance of being
corporate sponsored astroturfing. FTC disclosure, Apple?

[1] "Want to install "open" apps on Android? Think twice", "Is Samsung’s New
Galaxy Tab Fibbing About Its Figure?", "J-P Teti: The iPad is 99% more open
than any other computer", "'openness' considered harmful, said by Google on
Honeycomb source code", "Everything that can go wrong with Motorola Android
tablet does", "Android is sure a Wi-Fi connection dropper", etc.

~~~
andybak
Gruber's just picked it up with no comment other than a strange piece of
snide: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/04/07/android-apps-
loo...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/04/07/android-apps-look-worse)

(What is he implying? Assuming sarcasm - he is saying that it's not a
coincidence but that some unnamed other parties claim it is. I don't really
get it but it seems like he's getting too lazy to actually offer an extended
argument these days)

~~~
arron61
His column is barely readable nowadays. He picks all the stories and "small"
snippets that try to position android and google as a failure. No explanation.
No argument. Nothing at all.

And since there are no comments, he totally paints a one-sided story.

------
sparkymat
As an Android and iOS developer, I would like to point out that one of the
contributing factors to the lack of well-designed applications for Android is
due to the lack of polish in the Android tools and the available IDE (ADT for
Android, and XCode for iOS).

XCode on Mac OS X is a delightful experience, with the right tools and the
right amount of control to make good applications, supported by excellent
tools to optimize the look/performance. The interface builder and the
simulator are quite polished and greatly reduce the effort in tweaking the UI.

However, with ADT, I spend most of my time struggling with XML layout files,
and heap dumps attempting to improve the application. The interface builder
became usable only with the latest version of ADT, and even-so, I often find
myself dropping down into the XML often. The simulator takes a long time to
load and is quite sluggish. I find it far more convenient to have the
application run on the device each time. However, this implies that code-
compile-run cycle takes more time on ADT than on XCode.

In conclusion, the iOS development tools help me in finishing the application
quicker, leaving me enough time (and providing me better tools) to polish the
interface further.

~~~
jan_g
But you run emulator only first time (granted, that takes some time).
Subsequently you deploy your app to already running emulator. That's pretty
fast.

~~~
krakensden
I don't, my computer can't run Eclipse and the emulator at the same time
without stalling out.

------
ZeroGravitas
Am I crazy or does the Android speedtest seem much more pleasant and usable?
I've not used either, but from the single screenshot I can much more easily
get a handle on the info from the Android one. The iPhone one seems a bit
riced up to the detriment of usability (which is the important thing that
Apple does well, not just looking pretty, right?).

e.g.

1) big down and up icons next to the down and up speeds, to reinforce the text
at a glance. 2) The text "kilobits / sec" is a readable white, rather than
mid-grey and isn't obscured by the indicator hand. 3) Though the text on the
Apple one has been corrected to match the dial which now shows K or M, the
currently measured speed is given without units. I had trouble differentiating
between the "1.18" and the "58" immediately below it which appears to be an
advertisement.

Also, isn't the Android one just the old iPhone interface. So is the argument
that Android is so fundamentally flawed, that it makes apps magically look
exactly like an iPhone app from 6 months ago?

Here's an iPhone 3GS and 4 screenshot showing it being basically
indistinguishable from the Android one (except buttons were moved to the top):

[http://itracki.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/181941-speedte...](http://itracki.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/06/181941-speedtest1.jpg)

------
d_r
iOS comes with a handy set of UI controls that look decent even without
customization. You can use the default UITableView, for instance (looking at
the Meebo screenshot) and get the nice look-and-feel out of the box. This
especially helps a low-budget dev like myself.

Apple showcase of the controls that come out-of-the box and various ways to
tweak them:
[http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/userex...](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/userexperience/conceptual/mobilehig/UIElementGuidelines/UIElementGuidelines.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40006556-CH13-SW1)

Default Android controls for some reason sport a more "circa-1990 MS DOS"
look. The developers need to actually invest time to re-skin the components or
make their own to get a modern look. This is made slightly more difficult if
you want to support multiple screen sizes/resolutions. As such, many Android
apps sadly seem to end up with the default look.

(I have written apps for both platforms.)

~~~
ThomPete
Do you think there would be a niche for creating good looking high quality UI
controls for Android? Or will it still be a too big hassle to implement them?

~~~
d_r
I'm sure devs would love a snazzy UI framework that "just works" on popular
screen sizes. I, for one, would use it. If it was open-source and distributed
under a permissive enough license, even better.

------
blinkingled
The thing is Android apps or UI controls in general don't look bad on their
own - they are quite ok - elegant, minimalistic and understated by choice.
Focusing on getting the work done becomes more easy when you have less UI jazz
to get distracted with.

This really shows in the Android App Market review comments - people who rate
low mostly do so because of force closes, missing functions etc.
(<https://market.android.com/details?id=com.facebook.katana> is a good case
study.)

The other part is that iPhone has one resolution UI - Androids come in lots of
different resolutions. So I think the amount of blank/white space and font
sizes vary between different handsets and that makes some apps designed for
low res UIs look a bit off on high res screens.

And frankly, I can't find anything worse looking in the examples the fanboi^W
author presented and he doesn't seem to be making any real points as to why he
thinks one was worse than other - apart from him just not liking anything
other than iPhone UI.

------
nl
He doesn't make a very convincing case. The iPhone Meebo emoticon screen looks
a lot better, but all the others aren't as simple.

I prefer the look of the Android Meebo contact list, but I prefer the iPhone
chat interface.

Note that his Android Facebook app needs updating. The missing Chat & Places
icons fill it up. I think I prefer the Android version - the white background
makes it look more lighter and more spacious than the iPhone version.

I don't like either Speedtest app much at all. I prefer the tabs at the bottom
from the iPhone version, but hate (hate!) that purple (!!) ad bar above it.
OTOH, I hate the "Test Again" button on the Android version.

~~~
lloeki
_"I prefer the look of the Android Meebo contact list, but I prefer the iPhone
chat interface"_

To me, from the apparent size of it, the Android one looks like hard to
manipulate by touch. I don't want to feel like aiming each time I navigate.
Also, probably the john@xyz filler with no user picture is part of the
unsettlement. That point is valid of the Android one too, as it shows the user
both offline, in buddies and in conversations. Weird.

That said, no developer in their right mind would ship such an emoticon
picker. It's simply outrageous and just shows disdain to the user.

------
jrockway
Because Android users don't care. To make the app look nice, you would need to
pay for 100 hours of a designer and 400 hours of programming. If it looks like
crap, you only have to pay for 400 hours of programming. Android users don't
care, so you make more return on your investment by neglecting design.

Apple users all have blogs about the virtues of serif fonts versus sans-serif
fonts, so you are not going to sell your apps (or get ad views) if your app
looks like crap. Therefore, paying the designer is worth the cost.

Also, Java programmers are a different demographic than Objective-C/Cocoa
programmers. Java programmers mostly use Windows, which doesn't have a UI or
"user experience". (The experience is mostly in removing spyware.) iPhone
developers, by definition, can only use Apple products, thus self-selecting
for people that care a little about UI.

Additionally, the finance doesn't really make sense for Android apps. Why
would I waste 6 months of my time (which is around $100k) on an app that
nobody will pay for when I could write bullshit software for an investment
bank and get a guaranteed paycheck no matter what my UI looks like?

Android users get what they want: cheap. iPhone users get what they want: eye
candy.

(Just to be clear, I love Android. But "user experience" doesn't mean much to
me. As long as I can see my calendar and ssh to my machine at home over
OpenVPN, I don't really care about anything else.)

~~~
jarek
This really hits on a key point: there is practically no money to be made B2C
on Android. _And this is normal._ Historically there has rarely been a
software business made rich by B2C. It's much easier to sell large-volume to
businesses than it is to deal with fickle individual users.

Adobe doesn't sell most Photoshop licenses to individual users, they sell to
businesses for whom the cost of pirating is not worth it. Windows licenses
sold to individual users are dwarfed by Windows licenses sold to
manufacturers, who buy it because that's what _their_ customers expect. Opera
gives away its various browsers, then uses the expertise and the satisfied
customer base as arguments when licensing preloaded versions to manufacturers.
Swype isn't selling its product to individual users in the app store for
$4.99, they're selling to manufacturers whose customers appreciate or demand
this software out of the box. Facebook isn't selling its apps or website
access because it's so much easier to just sell eyeballs to advertisers.

Games are the major exception, but they only account for so much.

In the physical world, it's by and large the intermediaries that sell to
individual users. Most companies producing physical stuff — especially non-
premium products that are supposed to sell at scale — don't open their own
stores and often outsource issues like individual warranty handling to third
parties.

I heavily suspect the iPhone B2C model is an anomaly that may soon be
corrected.

------
mgcross
Economics? (investing more design/dev time in the [currently, at least] more
profitable platform)

Laziness/incompetence? (I don't know how many times I've downloaded an Android
equivalent to an iOS app only to find re-purposed, screen captured iOS
graphics with a non-native UI)

Device fragmentation, no IB, perception that Android users don't appreciate
polished UI/design - take your pick.

Regardless of which excuse is chosen, the blame lies with the
designer/developer/manager, not the OS.

EDIT: I'm speaking of custom interfaces rather than stock OS controls and
views. Those elements are obviously controlled by the OS.

~~~
guptaneil
I wouldn't say the blame lies with Android since at the end of the day, the
responsibility lies with the designer, but I would say credit goes to iOS for
making more aesthetically pleasing UI's easier to make than on Android.

------
candeira
A counterexample is Wunderlist, which is built with Titanium Appcelerator, and
looks and works really well on both platforms. It is also identical where it
should but not where it mustn't: it follows the conventions of each platform
in details such as where to put tabs, how to access the settings, etcetera.

* For Android - [https://market.android.com/details?id=com.wunderkinder.wunde...](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.wunderkinder.wunderlistandroid)

* For iOS - [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wunderlist-task-manager/id406...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wunderlist-task-manager/id406644151?mt=8#)

Btw, I am interested if you know of other good multiplatform apps (not games)
built using third-party middleware.

------
thetwentyone
I agree with the sentiment... somewhat. For example, I prefer the Android
Facebook to the iPhone. But the entire blog is about pointing out anecdotal
instances where the author doesn't like Android? I would much rather hear from
a developer than the author of this blog.

------
marklubi
Although it seems that most apps on Android seem to get the short end of the
stick, I would like to point out that there are some apps that do get a high
quality treatment on Android.

The Official Major League soccer app, MatchDay 2011, is quite gorgeous on both
iOS and Android.

As a developer for both platforms, they each have their positives and
negatives.

iOS feels like you're plugging together some pretty good looking (default)
stuff and then layering on polish.

Android feels as though you're building from scratch... more like web
development, where you need to create most/all of your assets from scratch.

------
jarin
From my experience developing for both iOS and Android, it's because iOS users
_expect_ your app to look good, or they won't use it.

Apple just sets a higher bar, both because of Apple's own apps and the
approval process, and developers code to the users' expectations.

Plus, with the nice looking built-in UI widgets and Interface Builder, it
actually takes some effort to make an app look _bad_.

------
antimatter
Am I the only one who prefers the Android interface for Meebo (first time
seeing it)? I often dread using the iOS version as I feel it's extremely
cramped.

------
headhuntermdk
While I can't speak for Android, I think the simple answer is that Apple
provides sample code and applications that are examples in great UI design on
iOS.

I'm not seeing the same level of detail or commitment from Google or its
partners at this time. It is much easier to copy off of a good design than to
create a new one from scratch

~~~
headhuntermdk
(Replying to myself here) On the other hand.. maybe it boils down to what the
users will put up with. If you come to iOS with a real crappy interface 9
times out of 10 you will be massacred in the user comments and reviews.

Maybe Android users have a lower tolerance for crappy UIs? I ask not trying to
pick a fight or start a flamewar, but out of genuine curiosity.

If iOS users are more apt to pay for applications, I suspect for the most part
that they have little to no tolerance for substandard UX.

So if it is free no one really cares, but if you are paying for something you
now have a vested interest in the product.

------
CoffeeDregs
This is largely a comparison between the management styles of the two
platforms. (FWIW: I've owned by iPhones and Androids.) On iOS, the UX
guidelines are well defined and Apple forces apps to stick to them; Android is
the Wild West. On iOS, nearly every app is straightforward but limited; on
Android, apps can do whatever the hell they want. These two constraints lead
to different outcomes. Two examples: NYTimes is much simpler on iOS but richer
and more confusing on Android; Flikie HD isn't possible on iOS but works on
Android and has an incredibly confusing interface. Reminds me of Mac vs PC all
over again...

------
tobylane
Because far far more people on iOS are on hardware of the latest, standard
hardware that the software is aimed at.

As I understand, the Nexus is the one Android is putting forward as an
example, it is the highest quality of all phones. The whole of the current
generation of iOS devices are the same, perfected examples of the hardware and
software working together.

There are probably Android phones of better hardware than an iPhone, but do
you know any apps that demand these phones, that are too slow on anything with
a slower processor?

------
pagliara
Apple has crafted a development environment that is more conducive to
producing high-quality polished apps with relatively little effort. The iOS
SDK is a refined version of the Mac Cocoa SDK, which they have been developing
for 10 years. They were able to keep the best qualities of standard Cocoa
while further refining the framework for a mobile device. The end result is an
SDK that not only has attracted tons of developers, but is also really
enjoyable to work with.

------
jarek
Wow, the Android ones look much nicer. Oversized icons? Garish blue? Gimmicky
graphics? Just focus on the content, please.

~~~
frou_dh
What oversized icons? You need these to work reliably on a 3.5" touchscreen
with a finger. It's good design to be "generous" in target area.

------
larsberg
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they outsource the non-iOS
development. Many multi-platform shops I know build only one flavor and then
to save on full-time developer costs send out the work on other platforms
elsewhere. I know of a few startups doing mobile apps who are now hiring
Android devs, but did those apps as a purely out-of-house thing when they were
small.

And it wouldn't be new for the industry. I had a buddy at Midway Chicago for
many years, where they used to do many of their sports games on XBox and
outsource the PS3/Wii ports.

------
MichaelApproved
For another great example, have a look at the CNBC free app. iPhone app is
sharp and almost all self contained. Want to see details on a symbol? Click
the quote and it'll show you within the app. Want to see a graph? Just turn
the phone sideways and it'll show you a nice chart. It's got many other nice
features that make it an excellent app.

The Android app is just garbage. It's basically just a watch list with links
out to their mobile site. The end.

------
amdev
Admittedly more familiar w/ the iOS SDK but I've build a few Android apps. I
find iOS controls easier to use and customize.

------
RSO
I think it also has to do with the fact that the iPhones have a fixed set of
specs. With android you never know what kind of specs your users phone has
(screen height/width e.d.). But with the iPhone you're always sure what
controls your user has (touch screen instead of controller).

------
teyc
If you get invited to a party for fashion designers, you'd better spend some
time picking the right thing to wear.

If you get invited to a geek party, remembering to shave alone would put you
above the 90th percentile.

------
hackernewz
Why do VOIP apps on both platforms lack bluetooth support? I think that's a
more interesting question to ask for mobile "phone" OSes.

------
lloeki
one of the most appalling part (ignoring that record-breaking emoticon picker)
is not the selected apps themselves but the left-aligned icons in the top
status bar. Their lack of quality shows even more when contrasted with the
carefully designed right-aligned part (I suppose that one is OS-tied and
therefore from Google).

------
bennesvig
The WakeMate app is superior on the iPhone compared to it's android version.

------
aresant
Same reason John Carmac began focusing dev efforts on consoles - when hardware
specs are consistent it's much easier to build highly optimized software / UI
rather than trying to support endless configurations.

<http://techreport.com/articles.x/8665/1>

------
bkaid
From the apps I've worked on, iOS is a much more profitable platform and thus
gets the majority of the focus and the initial app releases. Then apps get
ported to Android (where they get heavily pirated and generate a fraction of
the sales - regardless if time is spent making the app as good or better than
its iOS counterpart.)

~~~
valjavec
All apps shown are free.

------
gubatron
laziness, different developer teams... I don't think it's Android's fault at
all.

With enough time and assets you can build pretty amazing UIs on Android.
Everything is there for you to create custom components and override styles.

