Android SDK frustrating developers due to bugs, lack of documentation

A month after Google launched the Android SDK, it looks like unresolved bugs, poor documentation, and the lack of a public issue-tracking system are causing some developers to say that the platform "isn't ready for prime time." The lack of solid documentation and unorganized feedback mechanism aside, however, Ars Technica's Ryan Paul took the SDK for a spin and found that it has a lot of potential, saying "Despite some of the bugs and limitations in the API, it is definitely a viable and effective platform for application development," but that "it doesn't make it easy to create applications that have a really polished look and feel." Given how much bake time Android had before the announcement, it's a little strange that Google let it out the door without at least proper documentation, but there's still plenty of time -- we're not going to see any Android devices for another year, after all.

[Gadgie @ Dec 19th 2007 3:51PM]

SDK*

[RyanM @ Aug 11th 2008 6:35PM]

DSKs are like that.

[Simon B. @ Dec 19th 2007 3:55PM]

Proofreading anyone? It may seem nitpicky but "Android DSK"? and then a little later..."The lack of solid documentation and unorganized feedback mechanism aside showever"..."aside showever"... ummm...what?

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Dec 19th 2007 4:01PM]

That what's happens when you drink before you write the article.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2007 4:29PM]

Whiny developers expecting a 1.0 release to be perfect. Go back to writing Facebook enhancements!

[gb @ Dec 19th 2007 5:11PM]

Writing code is hard.

Learning a new framework is hard.

Learning a new framework without good documentation is frustrating.

Learning a new framework that is buggy without good documentation is demoralizing.

Hopefully this negative exposure will help google get it together.

[Jonathon @ Dec 20th 2007 11:45AM]

Agree with gb.

The documentation isn't *that* bad (but it isn't good either). But couple that with the fact that it isn't obvious how to accomplish even basic tasks due to really weird (or just different) naming conventions and it does make for quite the frustrating experience.

I wrote a couple of basic apps (just to see how the platform looked/worked) and it was very underwhelming. I imagine that big companies that can get directly in touch with core developers will be able to make great applications. But us hobbyist programmers don't stand a chance...which is interesting since that is where Google earmarked money.

[pooptypeuptypants @ Dec 19th 2007 4:12PM]

you don't think Yoda drinks eggnogg?

[Johan S @ Dec 19th 2007 4:23PM]

The Android SDK sucks.

The SDK is geared towards encouraging QVGA apps, and discouraging anything with higher than QVGA resolution (which is half the resolution of iPhone).

If they don't launch with higher than QVGA phones and applications (ideally VGA or WVGA) I guarantee Android will fail.

[jake @ Dec 19th 2007 8:24PM]

read this comment: len @ Dec 19th 2007 8:01PM
OWNED! Anyways I myself would doubt if google would release an SDK with only QVGA support. It's not that hard to have a configurable screen resolution. Even J2ME kit has multiple profiles you can use to develop your app. Since Android is based on java, I see no reason why it can't do the same. The only reason why they might have QVGA/sub-QVGA as a default profile is because that is still the most popular resolution for a vast majority of form factors. And why wouldn't they offer phones at VGA or WVGA if it is commercially viable. The ultimate goal of phone manufacturers are to make money.

[GKA @ Dec 19th 2007 10:40PM]

On what basis do you claim that the Android SDK is "discouraging anything with higher than QVGA"
You are aware that you can change the simulator to HVGA mode right? And that all the hardware prototypes of HVGA as well?
Sure sounds like they don't want you to use HVGA ....

[Randavance @ Dec 19th 2007 4:22PM]

And somewhere in the googleplex a guy who wrote the "poor documentation" is muttering curses under his breath.

[Erick @ Dec 19th 2007 7:47PM]

I know a guy who designed the Gotcast.com website and it was reviewed as a cookie cutter on a popular tech sector blog. He spent months designing it. Some people just dont quite get how hard it is to get something to look or work the way it does.

[WCanyon @ Dec 19th 2007 4:24PM]

Google only moves things to "Release" when they've been in Beta for a few... well never, right?

[Frank Contrail @ Dec 19th 2007 4:48PM]

Wonder how many of those whiney developers work for Access.

[Mutiny32 @ Dec 19th 2007 5:06PM]

If they are having issues with a feedback and issue tracking system, why don't they use something like Launchpad (http://launchpad.net)? Ubuntu uses it and it is an excellent tool for issue tracking and emhancement discussion.

C'mon Google, you're Google for cryin' out loud. You hire geniuses to do crap like this.

[John Doe. @ Dec 19th 2007 7:27PM]

So basicly its like any Google product? They lunch it before its ready to go and call it a Beta...except in this case the industry is calling them on it...About time someone did. Google's wares by and large are crap.

[David Clark @ Dec 19th 2007 6:24PM]

Everything Google touches doesn't turn to gold?

Someone stick their finger on the leak in the wall.. I feel a flood of bad product on the way.

[Joey Geraci @ Dec 19th 2007 7:08PM]

Give me a break. Everything Google touches eventually turns to gold, even if it takes a couple months of tweaks before it gets there. And their success rate is far above everyone else's.

[len @ Dec 19th 2007 8:01PM]

On what do you base that statement? The last time I read a comment like that, the author had not read the docs, did not understand that the Android simulator could launch with a default skin in "HVGA" mode (same as the iPhone, and mimicking one of the hardware prototypes), and had no idea that the size of the screen is actually fully configurable.

[Jerome E. @ Dec 19th 2007 9:49PM]

...maybe he'd have read it if the documentation were done a bit better?

To be fair, I have not seen the documentation myself, as I have no plans to develop for Android. But having done a bit of software development, I know SEs aren't always the best with words that are not "if" or "then."

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2007 10:21PM]

Maybe Google should think twice about this... Writing a development platform for mobile phones isn't the same thing as writing a search engine. Maybe some of those Microsoft Haters out there will finally see how wonderful the dedication to application developers that Microsoft has. Sure there stuff isn't as cool and flashy as the iPhone but when your tying to make something that anyone can develop for is several different programming languages you are talking about alot of stuff to account for.

It will be interesting to see how Google does with Android. Will everyone flock to it because its "open" even if it sucks?

[Mario @ Dec 20th 2007 3:50AM]

I've never seen anything well documented from Google. They think we all are so clever as they are.

[arma @ Dec 20th 2007 10:38AM]

Just made so noobs don't make apps on their own, look at facebook, now they have apps more than users. Google doesn't want it, who wants to win - will figure out how to use Android.

[ShyGuy91284 @ Dec 20th 2007 2:52PM]

This is an early version that will have issues. Most companies provide beta (and even alpha) software and development kits to partners for products far before release so people can start developing software and add-ons early. The only difference here is they provided it to anyone who is interested, many of which may have expected a complete product. I applaud them for making it available to everyone so early and risking their company image instead of waiting a half year longer for it to be "perfect".