
BBC dismisses complaint from Android whiners about iOS favo(u)ritism - shawndumas
http://www.marco.org/2013/06/03/bbc-android
======
josteink
This post summarises everything you need to know about Marco Arment and his
entire blog. End to end trollbait and best avoided.

That said: I can see why BBC subscribers who pay with their tax dollars are
unhappy about seeing their tax-dollars invested in closed, proprietary
solutions and ecosystems, while the open counter-parts remain ignored.

It doesn't hold water logically and it is against the contract on which BBC is
funded.

~~~
Joe8Bit
As far as I've understood it, the BBC isn't ignoring Android, the rollout of
new features is simply delayed for a platform that's logistically
significantly more complex to roll out multi-device supporting apps too.

Also, I'm not too sure about it being against the BBC's 'contract', could you
let me know what you're referring to? As far as I'm aware the BBC has no
legislative or regulatory duty to favour open platforms.

~~~
josteink
The content the BBC produces should be open and accessible to the British tax-
paying public. Plain and simple.

Preferring to provide that content via locked down, proprietary solutions with
DRM and god knows what over simple and open solutions would definitely go
against that contract.

~~~
Joe8Bit
I agree with you, it SHOULD be open, but there's nothing in the BBC's CURRENT
public service charter that would MANDATE it to give preference to open-source
eco-systems/platforms. As I said, I happen to agree with you: it SHOULD read
that. But it currently doesn't, as far as I'm aware.

Going back to the original point, it's not been suggested this is a POLICY
decision on the part of the BBC to prefer one platform over the other (be it
open or closed) but rather a pragmatic one based on the technical/test
complexity of developing for the Android platform (and supporting MANY devices
on it). I can personally attest to this last fact, as anyone can who has built
cross-platform native mobile apps.

------
ancarda
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if there was any preference to the
platform. The marketshare of iOS is 25% and Android is 38%[1]. In that 25%
almost all iOS users have a consistent screen size, DPI and even OS version.
Any changes (think of Retina display in iOS 4), the OS handles transparently.
The fragmentation of Android makes it a lot more work to support.
Additionally, there's only one store; The App Store. Android has Google Play,
Amazon's Store and possibly a dozen more.

iOS in my opinion has much richer tools (Xcode, Instruments, Simulator) to
develop with too. I should point out as an iOS developer, I don't exactly have
extensive knowledge of Android. If there are rich tools to deal with
fragmentation in a seamless way, please let me know. I'd be interested to see
how it stacks up to developing for iOS.

I can only speak anecdotally about iOS vs Android but I'm preparing to launch
a startup this summer, we're going to have an iOS app but not an Android app
until later this year. The primary reason would be we're extremely limited for
time and money and the last thing we need is testing the app on 50 different
phones just to find the UI doesn't fit on some of them and the performance is
sub-par on some. What a pain. Our testing is conducted entirely on our
personal iPhones (2x iPhone 5, 1x iPhone 4) along with the simulator and that
works out as completely sufficient. The experience we get in the palm of our
hands is guaranteed to be almost identical to potentially millions of users.

I can see why there would possibly be a preference. It's a dream to develop
for this platform.

[1] [http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-
monthly-201205-20130...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-
monthly-201205-201305)

~~~
josteink
Feel proud about your stance. You are in good company. I'm sure people said
the very same thing as they made 1024x768 MSIE-only websites.

~~~
koffiezet
You can hardly say iOS supports only one resolution now can you? Thing is -
Apple dictates certain limitations AND provides the tools and api's to make it
more convenient to support those different resolutions and dpi.

On Android you not only have to worry about resolution and dpi, which you
could do on simulators, but you also have to take into account which display
technology is used. Text on pentile displays can look horrible on the real
device, while looking perfect on the "same resolution" in a simulator (real
world story here).

That and designing a good UI which's size is dictated by an unpredictable
aspect ratio, size (resolution + DPI) is bloody hard. Just look at the total
lack of tablet apps for Android.

So yes, if a developer pours the same effort into an Android app as it does in
an iOS app, you get poor results. Welcome to the real world.

------
yarrel
The Register is hiring?

As a licence fee payer, I object to the BBC taking my money and favouring
proprietary platforms. They bend over forwards to work with and on DRM-
encumbered platforms, so they're no strangers to "complexity".

~~~
koffiezet
So the BBC using DRM-encumbered video-streams is perfectly ok with you? :)

------
gglanzani
I think there are two things to be considered here

* Marco experimented with Instapaper. Many people (or a few vocal people) were asking for ages for an Android client for Instapaper. When it was released, sales were disappointing (or at least not what expected).

* BBC develops for iOS first, as it seems that it takes less time.

Out of these two pieces, Marco says what he will do as an (indie) iOS
developers, not as a BBC employee or consultant. He doesn't say BBC should not
develop for Android.

All these issues about open/closed, do not exist if you cannot pay the bills.
It seems like he couldn't had he been actively developing for Android besides
iOS. I think he has a point.

