Something feels off about how startups evaluate Android developers”

The more Android projects I see, the less convinced I am that resumes, years of experience, and app portfolios tell the full story.

A few apps in the Play Store and 5+ years of experience look great on paper. But I've also seen projects struggle because the real challenges had nothing to do with writing code.

Requirements changed every week. User feedback forced product pivots. Technical shortcuts became long-term problems. Communication broke down between product and engineering.

What stood out was that some developers handled those situations surprisingly well, while others seemed far less effective once things became messy and unpredictable.

That's what made me question how much traditional evaluation criteria actually matter.

When an Android project succeeds, it often feels like the biggest contributors aren't just strong engineers—they're people who can navigate ambiguity, make trade-offs, and keep moving when there isn't a clear answer.

For those who've worked on Android products, what's the strongest signal that someone can truly own a product—not just build the features they're assigned?