> So it doesn't feel like a benefit to start on the least diverse platform and then move on from there.
On the contrary. What are you trying to validate? That enough people are interested in your product. Anything that gets in the way of that is just another distraction, and there already will be more than enough of those.
> But they were however able to invest in both iOS developers, the required hardware and this tool?
Developer cost is the same. The difference in hardware costs, if there is any, is negligible.
The tool? It starts quite literally at 0$, and the first paid tier is 29$ / month.
There are two cases where I can see how it would make sense to focus on Android.
First, the WhatsApp example: you are making an app that, by its very nature, entirely relies on massive network effects, and somehow can afford to focus on growth without monetising.
Second, a product that targets people with average to low incomes.
Other than that, if you have to pick between the two, I don’t see the point in starting with Android.
This is such an ignorant First World perspective - for reasons I've stated in other comments. It's mind-boggling there are people like yourself who see's the world in such a narrow vision. As if the Third World doesn't exist and people who develop apps are only in the First World.
Really funny, that you probably consider yourself highly educated, and yet have zero ability to see why iOS is actually not the primary choice for engineers in the global south. Your two cases are beyond laughable.
I'm really sorry I'm being rude, but I highly doubt you have ever built a mobile app yourself if these are your hot takes.
It’s not where most in-app purchases income can be found.
Don’t believe me? Have a look at Meta’s ARPU on a per country basis. Over $50 in the US, around 15$ in Europe, $5 in Asia-Pacific, less than $5 in the rest of the world.
Don’t like those numbers? Look at Genshin Impact’s.
Don’t like those numbers? Look at how much people spend on the AppStore vs the Play Store. The AppStore represents 66% of global app stores revenue, and 76% of global app stores subscriptions revenue.
Sure, since Meta and Google don’t operate there, those numbers aren’t accounting for a big factor: China.
Now, if you’re building Grab in Indonesia, sure, Android makes perfect sense as a first choice.
Making a utility or marketplace app for a specific country or region? Sure, adapt to your target. You’d have to be a fool not to.
We come back to "targeting people with average to low income". Because wether we like it or not, that’s most of the world compared to Switzerland, the US, Japan, Australia, and the like [0].
You can be rude all you like, it won’t change the numbers.
And while Android has the largest market share in Europe, it still doesn’t change the fact that the iOS app store captures most of the global app store revenue.
On the contrary. What are you trying to validate? That enough people are interested in your product. Anything that gets in the way of that is just another distraction, and there already will be more than enough of those.
> But they were however able to invest in both iOS developers, the required hardware and this tool?
Developer cost is the same. The difference in hardware costs, if there is any, is negligible.
The tool? It starts quite literally at 0$, and the first paid tier is 29$ / month.
There are two cases where I can see how it would make sense to focus on Android.
First, the WhatsApp example: you are making an app that, by its very nature, entirely relies on massive network effects, and somehow can afford to focus on growth without monetising.
Second, a product that targets people with average to low incomes.
Other than that, if you have to pick between the two, I don’t see the point in starting with Android.