You don't need to register as a developer to get the command line tools.

Some of the Java development tools (JNI-related stuff), oddly, used to require (free) registration. Don't think they do any more, though.

So... Paid for alternate launchers and task switchers are the future of mobile operating systems?

I know I'm feeding a troll here (I've checked your comment history) but what the heck. What is a "task switcher"? And corollary question, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Why would I bother to answer a deliberately offensive comment from someone who's own posting is deeply partisan?

I use both platforms on a daily basis. I used an iPhone exclusively for 3+ years before my first Android device. I'm working on products that help devs on both platforms to make their apps better.

Being a developer, I have solid reasons to prefer one over the other for my personal use but I know a large number of people prefer the other. If that makes me somehow "partisan", so be it.

Now, would you explain what you meant by a "task switcher"?

Or perhaps you could simply admit that you made that comment based on the name "Tasker" without having any idea what the heck it was. That would work too.

Ok - so you've justified your opinion. How do you justify your offensiveness?

> It's just crass selfishness... but here it is.

Are you being sarcastic?

> Apple's provisioning process on the other hand is the most painful thing I ever experienced.

Your information is years out of date. In XCode, you click 'use this device for development' and all the provisioning is done fully automatically.

So no. It is not far easier to get your app running on the device itself. That is just false.

I get the impression that everyone in this thread with strong negative opinions, regardless of platform, hasn't spent more than half an hour on the other one.

> Also, that it would cost a lot in development time to get something "just right" for the App Store for it to be accepted, whereas with Android you can keep on iterating and pushing changes without having to spent a huge amount of time making everything look perfect, and be absolute minimal in terms of bugs.

This is highly misleading. The App Store review process does delay iteration, and heavily crash apps are rejected but there is no requirement to spend a huge amount of time making things look perfect or absolutely minimal in terms of bugs.

There are more Android apps than iOS apps, and this advantage has always been present.

So, why aren't Android apps already of superior quality?

Well, so many reasons ... until 4.0 the whole framework was ugly and the tools were very immature compared to where they are now. Few developers, especially ones who care about design, had much or any experience building apps for Android. A lot of early Android developers were either people with no experience at all or iOS developers who tried to apply iOS principles to Android development and failed hard. And it's possible the Android user base in general cared less about design so that in itself was not such a high priority (perhaps this is not so true now).

But aside from all that, this discussion is not really about quality per se. It is about figuring out your business idea, getting it right. Whether you then go and execute it well after that point is a different point.

> But aside from all that, this discussion is not really about quality per se. It is about figuring out your business idea, getting it right.

But surely the same logic applies to this too. Why haven't we already seen all kinds of innovative business ideas emerging through the rapid iteration that Android supposedly enables?

There are probably more innovative Android apps. Problem is nobody cares about the apps that much. When they choose a phone, they choose the phone first. Apps are an afterthought.

iPhone caught on for the phone itself, its ability to browse the web and make calls. iPhone didn't even start out with apps. Even then, apps didn't come into play because customers demanded them.

So you're saying Android users don't care about innovative apps? That makes this whole discussion moot.

I'm saying no users care about apps, or buy phones based on apps.

*no = very insignificant

This is all predicated on the idea that you being able to release apks easily gets users who care enough too give you valuable feedback that you can use to learn and improve your app faster.

There are more apps on the play store than the iOS store, and apks have always been easy to work with and had this same advantage.

If this advantage has always been present, why aren't the apps already better than iOS apps?

You've been able to share apks "forever" (since before the G1, I believe), but Google's official beta-testing framework (Play Store integration [don't even need unknown sources], rolling/controlled updates, beta test volunteers, etc. plus the pattern of tying that to a G+ community) is brand-new since I/O this year.

And it seems to be a compelling package - pretty much every app beta I care about has switched to it (even those that already had an existing off-Play-Store setup).

Just because you have potential does not guarantee you use it.

Many businesses started on iOS first, producing an Android version as an afterthought by contractors. Others produced a minimum viable product which made them money, so they felt no need to iterate. This means upstart competitors can easily take away the market share of established products. It's a good thing for startups.

So you're saying that there is an opportunity in the Android market because the apps are generally significantly worse than those in the iOS store?

I'm saying there's more opportunity because the expensive applications built by large developer teams are still being built for iOS first. Android is still an afterthought in some app categories.

Most successful startups began with a niche. Look at AirBNB's cheap conference attendees or Microsoft's Altair owners.

Where have you seen these anecdotes?

On here. There have been various front-pagers on here by people demonstrating better Android sales than iOS.

But it is incredibly variable. How are they marketed? Do they pander to the demographics? Do they take advantage of the platforms? Are they crowded segments on each platform? How does it compare to the incumbents in those segments? Etc. It is impossible to separate all of those, which is why such comparisons are usually bunk.

The only reality that is acceptable on HN is that Google is unstoppable and benevolent to geeks. An optimistic view of their competitors counts as shilling.

Android has never been a premium brand - it's a lowest common denominator product. This is perfectly appropriate.