Code generation is emerging as one of the most popular applications for large language models (LLMs), but not all agents are equally good at all development tasks. Google created a benchmark earlier this year to evaluate how LLMs perform in Android app development, and Android Bench is getting a big update today. The leaderboard now includes a raft of new models, and Google has adopted a new framework that should be easier to use. Developers are invited to run their own tests and submit feedback that could shape the future of Android Bench.
While they are popular coding tools, LLMs don't get everything right. Separating the useful outputs from straight-up slop means choosing the right tool. Android Bench aims to demonstrate which AI agents do best on a suite of 100 Android development tasks. After launching Android Bench in March, Google has added metrics like cost and efficiency, as well as open-weight models.
To keep Android Bench relevant, Google is updating the test with eight new models, including all the latest heavy-hitters: Claude Fable 5, Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Opus 4.8, GLM 5.2, Kimi K2.7 Code, MiniMax M3, Qwen 3.7 Plus, and Qwen 3.7 Max.
Apple is hoping the Supreme Court will reverse a contempt finding that threatens to block the tech giant from charging high commission fees when developers divert iPhone users to non-Apple payment methods for app purchases.
The contempt finding came in a case where Epic Games accused Apple of violating a judicial order requiring changes to its App Store, which charged a 30 percent commission for using Apple payment methods and did not allow developer links to alternative payment methods.
That order required Apple to allow developers to include links to make payments outside the Apple ecosystem, but Apple did so only after requiring a 27 percent commission for allowing the link-outs. In December, Apple lost an appeal after defending its commission as reasonable. At that time, the 9th Circuit concluded that Apple violated the spirit of the order by charging fees so high that they βhad a prohibitive effectβ on developers who saw little benefit in updating apps to save only a small amount on fees.