This sounds more like a clueless rant than anything else.
> much like pretty much any website does not use HTTPS.
Apart from that just sounding line an awful sentence, that sentence is pretty much the same as saying "well bobby doesn't eat his vegetables, why do I have to!"
The author then claims his server would be burdened by the additional overhead of SSL. Funny, because I remember reading an article back when FireSheep was in the spotlight from Google stating that SSL only adds an additional 1-2% overhead tops. Over-exaggerate much?
> It turned out Amazon fails to filter out devices that should not be supported according to the Manifest file.
Welcome to the world of fragmentation. Honestly, that is the biggest difficulty with coding for Android. I really don't think you can blame Amazon for this, however. Even the Apple App Store lets iPod Touch users download applications only designed for the iPhone (unless they changed it recently). But this is an issue you have to deal with on every platform. Apples had the big PPC/Intel issue with requiring 2 binaries, one for each processor type. It's up to you to make it as clear as possible to the user if their device is supported or not.
>3. Where are my customers?
Put your email address in the description? How about in the app itself?
>Since there are so many devices available, supporting them all is difficult.
That's like a car mechanic saying "There's so many types of engines, I don't think I can learn how to fix them all!" Programming isn't something your mom can do on her way home from a soccer game. It can take an enormous amount of time, dedication, and skill. Once again, the author is blaming Amazon because coding is "hard".
The author then goes off about a review that was left filled with inaccuracies. That's yet another problem you'll have to deal with in a service like the Android Marketplace or Amazon Appstore. If they let you cherry pick reviews, it would lead to developers burying negative reviews that reveal their application does something "evil". The more time you spend getting all upset about a comment a user left, the less time you're spending improving your game or application and the less I actually would want to spend money on it.
As for the price change, the author provides next to no information on this.
Don't get mad at Amazon because you found out what Fragmentation and trolling from commenters is.
The whole point of the Manifest file is to make sure that Android Apps are not offered to incompatible devices. Need OpenGL ES 2.0? You can specify that and eliminate all the OpenGL ES 1.0 only devices. Need a high-res screen? You can specify that, and so on & on.
Apple do exactly the same thing with their Apps: You can specify which features your App needs & the iOS App Store will only offer it to the appropriate devices. Need a gyroscope? Your App can't run on a 3G iPhone.
This really isn't rocket science. If Amazon really are ignoring the Manifest file shipped with the Apps submitted to them then that is a huge failure on their part & most definitely not the fault of the dev in any way whatsoever.
> Welcome to the world of fragmentation. Honestly, that is the biggest difficulty with coding for Android.
This horse was beaten so many times, it is already dead.
> I really don't think you can blame Amazon for this, however.
Sure you can. Google Market handles this condition gracefully, i.e. if you can't run it, it will not show it to you. So why to hold Amazon to lower standard?
Every Android application comes with file called manifest. It specifies many things, but in the context of this debate also permissions and device capabilities required. If your app requires gyro, accelerometer, high-dpi display, OpenGL ES 2.0, specific texture formats or whatever, you put it here.
And here comes Google relationship with device manufacturers. As you certainly know, Market is not a part of the open-source android release, but proprietary app, that has to be licensed, if you want to distribute it on any device. So when the manufacturer licenses the app for the specific device, it also provides Google with device capabilities. Google puts it into the market, so they can show you only those apps, that your device is capable of running.
Amazon, of course, does not have such a database, and also does not have relationship with device manufacturers. It is up to them to find a way to build similar filtering mechanism. Nobody said, that building competing market is easy and that reviewing apps is enough. Good luck trying, though.
It seems slightly odd that Amazon can't have their Market App run a bunch of tests on install that generate the appropriate set of device capabilities. The major ones (Android version, OpenGL level, screen size, presence of GPS etc etc) are just a single API call each. Hard to believe that Amazon is unaware that this is a huge end-user experience fail for their customer base.
(Reading between the lines of the original blog post, possibly they just failed to enforce device restrictions for the free "App of the day" promotion.)
Yes, one would suppose that the Amazon market client would report device capabilities and the market would adjust response to that. Let's hope that they will learn.
Comments
This sounds more like a clueless rant than anything else.
> much like pretty much any website does not use HTTPS.
Apart from that just sounding line an awful sentence, that sentence is pretty much the same as saying "well bobby doesn't eat his vegetables, why do I have to!"
The author then claims his server would be burdened by the additional overhead of SSL. Funny, because I remember reading an article back when FireSheep was in the spotlight from Google stating that SSL only adds an additional 1-2% overhead tops. Over-exaggerate much?
> It turned out Amazon fails to filter out devices that should not be supported according to the Manifest file.
Welcome to the world of fragmentation. Honestly, that is the biggest difficulty with coding for Android. I really don't think you can blame Amazon for this, however. Even the Apple App Store lets iPod Touch users download applications only designed for the iPhone (unless they changed it recently). But this is an issue you have to deal with on every platform. Apples had the big PPC/Intel issue with requiring 2 binaries, one for each processor type. It's up to you to make it as clear as possible to the user if their device is supported or not.
>3. Where are my customers?
Put your email address in the description? How about in the app itself?
>Since there are so many devices available, supporting them all is difficult.
That's like a car mechanic saying "There's so many types of engines, I don't think I can learn how to fix them all!" Programming isn't something your mom can do on her way home from a soccer game. It can take an enormous amount of time, dedication, and skill. Once again, the author is blaming Amazon because coding is "hard".
The author then goes off about a review that was left filled with inaccuracies. That's yet another problem you'll have to deal with in a service like the Android Marketplace or Amazon Appstore. If they let you cherry pick reviews, it would lead to developers burying negative reviews that reveal their application does something "evil". The more time you spend getting all upset about a comment a user left, the less time you're spending improving your game or application and the less I actually would want to spend money on it.
As for the price change, the author provides next to no information on this.
Don't get mad at Amazon because you found out what Fragmentation and trolling from commenters is.
The whole point of the Manifest file is to make sure that Android Apps are not offered to incompatible devices. Need OpenGL ES 2.0? You can specify that and eliminate all the OpenGL ES 1.0 only devices. Need a high-res screen? You can specify that, and so on & on.
Apple do exactly the same thing with their Apps: You can specify which features your App needs & the iOS App Store will only offer it to the appropriate devices. Need a gyroscope? Your App can't run on a 3G iPhone.
This really isn't rocket science. If Amazon really are ignoring the Manifest file shipped with the Apps submitted to them then that is a huge failure on their part & most definitely not the fault of the dev in any way whatsoever.
> Welcome to the world of fragmentation. Honestly, that is the biggest difficulty with coding for Android.
This horse was beaten so many times, it is already dead.
> I really don't think you can blame Amazon for this, however.
Sure you can. Google Market handles this condition gracefully, i.e. if you can't run it, it will not show it to you. So why to hold Amazon to lower standard?
Ah, does it really? I don't have an Android phone so I honestly wouldn't have known unless you said something.
Every Android application comes with file called manifest. It specifies many things, but in the context of this debate also permissions and device capabilities required. If your app requires gyro, accelerometer, high-dpi display, OpenGL ES 2.0, specific texture formats or whatever, you put it here.
And here comes Google relationship with device manufacturers. As you certainly know, Market is not a part of the open-source android release, but proprietary app, that has to be licensed, if you want to distribute it on any device. So when the manufacturer licenses the app for the specific device, it also provides Google with device capabilities. Google puts it into the market, so they can show you only those apps, that your device is capable of running.
Amazon, of course, does not have such a database, and also does not have relationship with device manufacturers. It is up to them to find a way to build similar filtering mechanism. Nobody said, that building competing market is easy and that reviewing apps is enough. Good luck trying, though.
It seems slightly odd that Amazon can't have their Market App run a bunch of tests on install that generate the appropriate set of device capabilities. The major ones (Android version, OpenGL level, screen size, presence of GPS etc etc) are just a single API call each. Hard to believe that Amazon is unaware that this is a huge end-user experience fail for their customer base.
(Reading between the lines of the original blog post, possibly they just failed to enforce device restrictions for the free "App of the day" promotion.)
Yes, one would suppose that the Amazon market client would report device capabilities and the market would adjust response to that. Let's hope that they will learn.
Then you probably shouldn't have said anything, no?
According to the official breakdown of Android devices by OS version only 0.6% of devices are on 3.0 or later. http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-ve...
And even devices with the same version of Android will have differences.
Sorry, what is the point of your response?