This, at the same time that Android users are switching to Apple in large numbers, and spending by those who favor Apple product far overshadows outlays by the Android crowd. It's as true with Android as in other segments of life choices: Mediocrity has a huge following.
As long as they purchase the phone and data plans for their developers... If the developers foot the bill out of their own pockets it's none of their damn business what phone they use!
I've been a mobile developer for 10 years now, starting with feature phones. And yes, prior to the iPhone, the worst phone imaginable is usually the one you have to target. Back in the day it was Samsung A660. Terrible, but it was the cheapest. So it was the priority.
The experience will be misleading unless they make them use the awful Android phones.
You know, Facebook is already running on Android and it has been for years. It's not like they're suddenly going to start developing for it. So they obviously have some type of lowest-common-denominator running on it. They just want their devs to spend more time using it and "try" giving it the same experience as an iPhone... laughable to say the least, but Facebook needs to keep their billion+ people happy.
This, at the same time that Android users are switching to Apple in large numbers, and spending by those who favor Apple product far overshadows outlays by the Android crowd.
It's as true with Android as in other segments of life choices: Mediocrity has a huge following.
Yep...
The sad part here though Android makers are going to profit ( and likely boast increased sales cause their products are the best ever lol ) Can't help but wonder if HTC, Samsung etc put this idea into the Facebook CEO's head lol
Price is just one consideration, it was just an example.
The point is that you can afford it (possibly easily) but don't want to, because it's hugely overpriced (this is maybe better to understand considering a $10000 AWatch while the real price (including nice profits) is $2000 or so).
But again that's an example.
There is a difference between just not wanting something and not wanting something because you don't want to pay for it (i.e., it's overpriced or you can't afford to pay that price even if you do have that much money) It might be a generalization but Apple's core customers definitely fall under the first category. Android customers (like the majority of the world) fall under the 2nd category.
You know, Facebook is already running on Android and it has been for years. It's not like their suddenly going to start developing for it. So they obviously have some type of lowest-common-denominator running on it. They just want their devs to spend more time using it and "try" giving it the same experience as an iPhone... laughable to say the least, but Facebook needs to keep their billion+ people happy.
Why is it laughable to want to try to give all of your users the same, quality experience no matter the platform?
The iPhone is extremely popular in some countries like the U.S., U.K., and Japan, but some 82.8 percent of the world's smartphones are based on Android. Most people can't afford an iPhone -- which starts at $649 for an unlocked 16-gigabyte iPhone 6s -- whereas the low cost of Android development allows for a mix of low- and high-end devices.
These kind of stats keep getting used but they aren't backed up by Google's and Apple's data:
1.4 billion active users (this is all Android devices) making up 82.8% would mean Apple's active userbase for all iPhones and tablets is about 290 million. This is highly unlikely considering Apple crossed 1 billion units sold total in January. There may be Android devices that Google doesn't track in Asia but they must be counting some to hit 1.4 billion.
Also, while price is an issue, the payments are almost always monthly and there are affordable options:
You can get a really basic Android phone for under $50 but I don't see that Apple's pricing would hold them back so much as to get under 20% active userbase.
Price is just one consideration, it was just an example.
The point is that you can afford it (possibly easily) but don't want to, because it's hugely overpriced (this is maybe better to understand considering a $10000 AWatch while the real price (including nice profits) is $2000 or so).
But again that's an example.
It is actual a strange decision because he seems to be mandating that the affected employees switch their corporate phone. Testing old phones is what testing groups are for. And devs of course, but in that case giving each (Android) developer a cheap android phone as well as a corporate phone.
As for the rest of the staff, dont piss then off with $50 phones they need to use as a primary device.
Not at all, I stated only facts.
The component and production price is known of the iPhone and the AWatch.
The retail price is also known.
fact - fact = fact (and sometimes a ripoff)
On the surface, it seems like a reasonable course of action however there is a major flaw in his logic. I am guessing those moving from an iPhone to Android will get a high end, well supported Android phone. The problem being that most Android users don't have such phones. They buy bottom tier phones, often running older Android (4.x).
Given that reality, I think the switch will be rather pointless.
+1 - User Experience is defined by the User, not the environment.
(Speculation ahead) For all the posters suggesting this is a good move:
Bullsh--. This is an admission of failure of their QA processes. Or maybe QA is doing their job, but has no traction with other departments, and this is the only way to get the other departments' attention.
This is far from a good move. Things should. NEVER get to this point.
It is actual a strange decision because he seems to be mandating that the affected employees switch their corporate phone. Testing old phones is what testing groups are for. And devs of course, but in that case giving each (Android) developer a cheap android phone as well as a corporate phone.
As for the rest of the staff, dont piss then off with $50 phones they need to use as a primary device.
In the new world, it's called A/B testing, and it's done in production and done with live, not test users. Seeding your alpha group guinea pigs (e.g. corporate users), allows you to test internally and/or in parallel with your consumers ("Hey suzie, you have a Nexus running Lollipop... are you seeing this?") in real world situations, and gain real world results.
More companies should simulate third-world environments when testing. I find many apps (including some Apple apps) completely unusable in large parts of the world.
In the new world, it's called A/B testing, and it's done in production and done with live, not test users. Seeding your alpha group guinea pigs (e.g. corporate users), allows you to test internally and/or in parallel with your consumers ("Hey suzie, you have a Nexus running Lollipop... are you seeing this?") in real world situations, and gain real world results.
Yeh. No need for the average employee to be burdened with a crap phone for that though
Comments
It's as true with Android as in other segments of life choices: Mediocrity has a huge following.
Indeed.
I've been a mobile developer for 10 years now, starting with feature phones. And yes, prior to the iPhone, the worst phone imaginable is usually the one you have to target. Back in the day it was Samsung A660. Terrible, but it was the cheapest. So it was the priority.
The experience will be misleading unless they make them use the awful Android phones.
You know, Facebook is already running on Android and it has been for years. It's not like they're suddenly going to start developing for it. So they obviously have some type of lowest-common-denominator running on it. They just want their devs to spend more time using it and "try" giving it the same experience as an iPhone... laughable to say the least, but Facebook needs to keep their billion+ people happy.
LOL So true! Great ad campaign idea! You should do their PR
Yep...
The sad part here though Android makers are going to profit ( and likely boast increased sales cause their products are the best ever lol ) Can't help but wonder if HTC, Samsung etc put this idea into the Facebook CEO's head lol
Price is just one consideration, it was just an example.
The point is that you can afford it (possibly easily) but don't want to, because it's hugely overpriced (this is maybe better to understand considering a $10000 AWatch while the real price (including nice profits) is $2000 or so).
But again that's an example.
There is a difference between just not wanting something and not wanting something because you don't want to pay for it (i.e., it's overpriced or you can't afford to pay that price even if you do have that much money) It might be a generalization but Apple's core customers definitely fall under the first category. Android customers (like the majority of the world) fall under the 2nd category.
These kind of stats keep getting used but they aren't backed up by Google's and Apple's data:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-says-android-has-1-4-billion-active-users-1443546856
1.4 billion active users (this is all Android devices) making up 82.8% would mean Apple's active userbase for all iPhones and tablets is about 290 million. This is highly unlikely considering Apple crossed 1 billion units sold total in January. There may be Android devices that Google doesn't track in Asia but they must be counting some to hit 1.4 billion.
Also, while price is an issue, the payments are almost always monthly and there are affordable options:
https://www.att.com/cellphones/iphone/iphone-5-used-phone.html#sku=sku7530404
Apple's newish models really start at $449:
https://www.att.com/cellphones/iphone/iphone-5s.html#sku=sku6880885
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-iPhone-5s-Unlocked-Cellphone/dp/B00F3J4HCA
You can get a really basic Android phone for under $50 but I don't see that Apple's pricing would hold them back so much as to get under 20% active userbase.
Facebook simulates the slow connection too:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/28/9625062/facebook-2g-tuesdays-slow-internet-developing-world
Not entirely unreasonable.... just hope they're paid well!
I hope they're getting hazard pay...
It's also a subjective opinion.
As for the rest of the staff, dont piss then off with $50 phones they need to use as a primary device.
Not at all, I stated only facts.
The component and production price is known of the iPhone and the AWatch.
The retail price is also known.
fact - fact = fact (and sometimes a ripoff)
On the surface, it seems like a reasonable course of action however there is a major flaw in his logic. I am guessing those moving from an iPhone to Android will get a high end, well supported Android phone. The problem being that most Android users don't have such phones. They buy bottom tier phones, often running older Android (4.x).
Given that reality, I think the switch will be rather pointless.
+1 - User Experience is defined by the User, not the environment.
Bullsh--. This is an admission of failure of their QA processes. Or maybe QA is doing their job, but has no traction with other departments, and this is the only way to get the other departments' attention.
This is far from a good move. Things should. NEVER get to this point.
It is actual a strange decision because he seems to be mandating that the affected employees switch their corporate phone. Testing old phones is what testing groups are for. And devs of course, but in that case giving each (Android) developer a cheap android phone as well as a corporate phone.
As for the rest of the staff, dont piss then off with $50 phones they need to use as a primary device.
In the new world, it's called A/B testing, and it's done in production and done with live, not test users. Seeding your alpha group guinea pigs (e.g. corporate users), allows you to test internally and/or in parallel with your consumers ("Hey suzie, you have a Nexus running Lollipop... are you seeing this?") in real world situations, and gain real world results.
This makes sense, if the majority of your customers use one device, you would want to know how their experience differs.
Any professional developer has a variety of devices and computers to test with. You don't have to switch to any specific platform, you use them all.
Yeh. No need for the average employee to be burdened with a crap phone for that though