Skip to content

Problem & Solution

The Problems with Existing Approaches

Problem 1: Android System Intent Picker

// Traditional approach - limited and inconsistent
Intent(Intent.ACTION_PICK).apply {
    type = "image/*"
    startActivityForResult(this, REQUEST_CODE)
}

Issues: - ❌ No control over UI/UX - ❌ Inconsistent across device manufacturers - ❌ Limited customization options - ❌ Poor user experience on some devices - ❌ Can't theme to match app brand - ❌ Limited configuration options - ❌ No camera integration

Real-world impact: Users see different interfaces on different devices, creating a fragmented experience that hurts app consistency and professionalism.

Problem 2: Building from Scratch

Many teams attempt to build their own picker:

// Common custom implementation challenges:
class CustomMediaPickerFragment : Fragment() {
    // - Need to handle camera integration
    // - Need to manage storage permissions
    // - Need to handle different Android API levels
    // - Need to implement efficient image loading
    // - Need to manage configuration changes
    // - Need to optimize for memory
    // - Need extensive testing
    // - Need to maintain over time
}

Issues: - ❌ Time-consuming - Takes weeks to implement properly - ❌ High maintenance - Requires ongoing updates as Android evolves - ❌ Fragile - Easy to introduce bugs - ❌ Performance issues - Without optimization, scrolling becomes janky - ❌ API changes - Need to update for each Android version - ❌ Permission handling - Complex, error-prone permission logic - ❌ Device compatibility - Works differently on different devices

Cost estimate: - Development: 3-5 weeks - Testing: 1-2 weeks - Maintenance per year: 2-3 weeks - Total: 6-10 weeks of developer time

Problem 3: Outdated/Limited Libraries

When looking for existing solutions, developers find:

// Example of outdated library issues
val oldPickerLib = "some.old:picker:1.0" // From 2015
// - No longer maintained
// - Uses deprecated APIs
// - Not compatible with modern Android
// - Poor performance
// - Limited features

Issues: - ❌ Unmaintained - Many popular libraries are no longer updated - ❌ Outdated APIs - Use deprecated Android frameworks - ❌ No support - Issues reported years ago still unfixed - ❌ Limited features - Don't include modern requirements - ❌ Heavy dependencies - Include unnecessary bloat - ❌ License concerns - Unclear or restrictive licenses

Specific Pain Points

1. Camera Integration Complexity

Without a good library, developers struggle with:

// The challenges of camera integration:
// - CameraX API complexity
// - Orientation handling
// - Preview management
// - Capture file handling
// - Memory management
// - Permission timing
// - Lifecycle coordination

Impact: 1-2 weeks of development for basic camera functionality.

2. Storage Permission Chaos

Android permission model changes frequently:

// Different approaches needed for different API levels:
if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.TIRAMISU) {
    // API 33+: READ_MEDIA_IMAGES, READ_MEDIA_VIDEO
} else if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.R) {
    // API 30-32: READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE + scoped storage
} else {
    // API 16-29: READ_EXTERNAL_STORAGE
}

Impact: 1+ week of testing across API levels.

3. Performance Optimization

Image loading needs careful optimization:

// Without proper optimization:
// - Out of memory crashes
// - Janky scrolling
// - Battery drain from loading
// - Network requests overload

Impact: 1-2 weeks of performance debugging.

4. User Experience Consistency

Building a good UX requires:

// Need to handle:
// - Smooth animations
// - Responsive gestures
// - State preservation
// - Orientation changes
// - Screen size variations
// - Device-specific quirks

Impact: 2-3 weeks of UI/UX work.

The Pix Solution

Pix eliminates all these problems:

Problem Pix Solution
System Intent Limitations Custom, fully customizable UI
Build from Scratch Complete implementation in minutes
Outdated Libraries Modern, actively maintained
Camera Complexity CameraX integration built-in
Permission Handling Handles all API levels automatically
Performance Issues Optimized image loading and memory management
UX Consistency Professional, tested UI out of the box
Maintenance Burden Regular updates and support

Development Time Comparison

Building from Scratch

  • Camera: 2 weeks
  • Permissions: 1 week
  • Image Loading: 2 weeks
  • UI/UX: 2 weeks
  • Testing: 1 week
  • Total: 8 weeks

Using Pix

  • Integration: 1-2 hours
  • Customization: 1-2 hours
  • Testing: 2-4 hours
  • Total: 1 day

Time Saved: ~7.5 weeks per project

Real Costs

Option A: Build Custom Picker

  • One-time cost: $70,000 - $140,000 (2-4 developers × 8 weeks)
  • Annual maintenance: $10,000 - $20,000
  • Total 3-year cost: $100,000 - $200,000

Option B: Use Pix

  • One-time integration: < $500
  • Annual maintenance: $0
  • Total 3-year cost: < $500

Savings: $99,500 - $199,500 for mid-size team

Why Existing Options Were Inadequate

Before Pix:

  1. No maintained, modern alternatives
  2. Most popular libraries had no updates in 5+ years

  3. Relied on deprecated APIs

  4. Google's solution was incomplete

  5. System intent picker too limited

  6. Android's built-in options insufficient

  7. Market gap existed

  8. Thousands of developers needed this

  9. No good solution was available

  10. Custom implementations had hidden costs

  11. Time to build
  12. Time to maintain
  13. Risk of bugs and compatibility issues

Conclusion

Pix solves real, expensive problems that countless developers face. It's not just a convenience—it's a solution that:

  • Saves time - Weeks of development
  • Reduces cost - Eliminates expensive custom implementation
  • Improves quality - Tested, optimized solution
  • Reduces risk - No device compatibility issues
  • Enables faster delivery - Get to market faster

Next: Learn how Pix compares to alternatives