As a software solutions architect, I appreciate that approach because from a technology and core competency standpoint, it makes sense. From an engineering perspective, the team may not be large enough or most importantly, they may simply want to focus on 3 specific platforms in order to provide us, their customers, with the best product for these platforms they can produce. So please keep that in mind when disappointment about this yields a “thats a shame” response. While from a consumer standpoint it would be very desirable to have these offerings in every platform imaginable, it simply may not be feasible for Shapr3D to support something like Android with current team sizes and team capabilities.

Additionally, integrating modeling engines from lower level programming languages with Java applications is not a straight-forward process. Adding Android would mean also adding a Java capability to the team, along with very specific competencies in Java application deployment. From a logistics perspective, it is admirable enough they are able to support 3 delivery platforms and do so incredibly well. I think it is impressive that a team (as the website says) that grew from 7 to 100, is able to support macOS, Windows, and iOS writing native code for each of their offerings with C#/XAML, Swift/Objective-C/C++ for iOS and macOS.

Shapr3d app for android