One such "platform" is made up of the 80% of android phones that are cheap and basic with small data plans and limited access to slow wifi.
The anecdotes from the 80s & 90s when annual PC sales for any given year were a substantial portion of the overall PCs in use at the time are interesting. The realization that software could be written for the newest machine and it would run everywhere soon enough is not directly applicable to the smartphone market. I think that out of collective habit, many apps assume that building for this year's flagship models is the best course. It may be, but it effectively means your market is much smaller, especially for free, network effect apps.
These apps and their ecosystems rise and fall fast. Tablets & smartphones are spreading downmarket with devices being sold today @ 10% of the first androids.
A $50 phone won't run everything, but it will run some things - useful things.
It depends on your revenue model. If you want to charge for the app (or make money via IAP) then newer devices are better, since those users are the ones that spend most of the actual money. If you're relying on network effects and giving it away then you have to hit everything.
The really fun thing about WhatsApp is that it is essentially a product for the developing world, and to make money doing that you have to be seriously efficient.
i m using lenovo a 269i android 2.3.6 .it does do lot of thing for 50 phone.i no need high end graphic card.it just a phone which i can call. whatsapp and gps.enough for me.
the 80% of android phones that are cheap and basic with small data plans and limited access to slow wifi
Ignoring the fictional statistics, the cheap devices (e.g. Xiaomi) in countries like China still tend to be surprisingly powerful, and you hardly need to design down to them. And it's a rare app, beyond something like video conferencing, that puts any real burden on connectivity.
It is pretty much fictional, or rather arbitrary because you can draw the line between low and high end wherever you want. I actually got it from here:
And it turns out I misrepresented the fictional statistic. The "real" number is 66%. Though I suppose if you count older mid tier models (this counts sales) still in use, 80% might be pretty close.
IMO you still need to design dow a bit, especially for data poor users. Also smaller screens. In some cases I think craigslist is the thing to emulate.
While I don't normally agree with dismissing something from the source -- in this case Apple Insider -- the way that the article digs to try to generate their manufactured numbers borders on comical. Secondly, the metric that it is "junk" (the article's word) because the ASP is $200+ is asinine, if you will. As is the notion that such makes it a "feature phone" (where ASPs were in the LOW double digits).
A $200 device in many Asian markets is a decidedly premium device. The Xiaomi Redmi, for instance, is a $139 (retail!) decidedly decent mid-range device. In no way does anyone have to design down at all for devices like that, the notion being absurd.
I agree. OTOH, justifying with facts that there are a lot of Android phones in use that are several steps under the S4 in terms of hardware and data/wifi availability & affordability is almost superflous.
Androids are penetrating markets that were never penetrated by PCs or the web or even residential electricity.
You absolutely need to "design down" if you want to support all of android. Go build an app with a reasonable number of users and you'll learn this the hard way.
Good thing I never said "all of android", as there will always be edges that in many cases aren't even worth targeting.
I did, however, say that many of the cheap phones are quite powerful. And they are. And as someone who has several widely deployed games on Android -- one category where there is much more demands than categories like WhatsApp -- it is absolutely no problem at all.
I generally test things on the Nexus One just as a bottom end comparator. Compared to many of the devices from bottom-tier manufacturers now, the Nexus One is grossly underpowered. It is always surprising what it can run with gusto.
The anecdotes from the 80s & 90s when annual PC sales for any given year were a substantial portion of the overall PCs in use at the time are interesting. The realization that software could be written for the newest machine and it would run everywhere soon enough is not directly applicable to the smartphone market. I think that out of collective habit, many apps assume that building for this year's flagship models is the best course. It may be, but it effectively means your market is much smaller, especially for free, network effect apps.
These apps and their ecosystems rise and fall fast. Tablets & smartphones are spreading downmarket with devices being sold today @ 10% of the first androids.
A $50 phone won't run everything, but it will run some things - useful things.