Best One: Android and iOS?

[sweenish]

Folks: I was specifically referring to people who are actively concerned about their choice of operating system. I know that the majority, those people in the middle, don't fret over the OS their phone is running. I said as much earlier! I also acknowledged that there are "basic" Android users and iOS power users.

This thread is really about discussing those subtler differences that matter a lot to tech enthusiasts. That doesn't mean making mountains out of molehills, but there's not much point to this discussion if we don't explore what draws fans to specific platforms.

Let me shift the goalposts so my posts don't seem so ignorant! That's you.

Even people in "the middle" care to an extent what their phone is running. My wife would count as being in "the middle," and she would still be using WP if the apps were there. As an OS, it really was great and she still misses some of its features like the app list and the alphabet grid. She refuses to use iOS. So she's on Android.

Your arguments are old, and no longer relevant. Claiming that you're only talking about the niche minorities doesn't make it any more credible. Because why are you bothering to make the case for those whose choice is obvious based on their niche desires?

 

[xhtmljunkies123]

I just hate iOS & I'm true lover of Android since last 5 years. Android is very easy to operate & multi functional. It is also user friendly & not complicated like iOS so simply Android is the best OS.

 

[Red Storm]

I just hate iOS & I'm true lover of Android since last 5 years. Android is very easy to operate & multi functional. It is also user friendly & not complicated like iOS so simply Android is the best OS.

Well, at least it took 3 pages...

As an Android fan iOS has come a long way from the early days, but it is still frustratingly short of what I want/need. I "survived" having to use a 6+ for months, but now that I have an Android daily driver again (Note 5), I feel like I got my mobile computer back.

 

[mrochester]

I'm very demanding when it comes to smartphone OS performance and I don't tolerate lag, slowdown and choppiness well. iOS might have some quirks in this regards but it is light years ahead of Android. I can do everything I need to on iOS, so I may as well go for the hat trick and get the best performing OS too. That's why iOS is my favourite.

There's also a moral element to it too. Google has to be one of the most anti-competitive business in tech with its predatory pricing and data mining. I really dislike Google's business practices and much prefer Apple's practice of paying money and getting a product in return. I also trust Apple far more than Google. These reasons also have an impact on the OS I prefer.

 

[openwheel]

Without Google, iOS and Apple crumbles. Fact.

Remember when iPhones couldn't be used as a proper Nav?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Google has to be one of the most anti-competitive business in tech

And Apple hasn't been anti-competitive with all its patent lawsuits? Or the way it tried to crush free music streaming services in backroom dealings just to make Apple Music more appealing?

Don't kid yourself, none of those companies are angels. You are just picking which type of evil you prefer.

 

[mrochester]

And Apple hasn't been anti-competitive with all its patent lawsuits? Or the way it tried to crush free music streaming services in backroom dealings just to make Apple Music more appealing?

Don't kid yourself, none of those companies are angels. You are just picking which type of evil you prefer.

Absolutely, but Apple's practices are far less damaging to the industry than Google's. Just look at how little competition there is in the smartphone operating system market as a result of Google's predatory pricing vs how much competition there is in the streaming music market, despite Apple's actions.

I have absolutely no problem with one company taking another to court in a bid to uphold patents that have been granted; that is after all, the entire reason the system is there. I do have a problem with a company giving away products for free to crush the competition in that market and subsiding the cost of that product from an unrelated revenue stream (as Google does with Android). That is very anti-competitive and incredibly damaging.

 

[Red Storm]

Absolutely, but Apple's practices are far less damaging to the industry than Google's. Just look at how little competition there is in the smartphone operating system market as a result of Google's predatory pricing vs how much competition there is in the streaming music market, despite Apple's actions.

And that has nothing to do with the complexity requirements of developing an entire OS compared to a service/app...

Also do you not remember how bad it was before Android? Paying several dollars just for things like ringtones?

 

[mrochester]

And that has nothing to do with the complexity requirements of developing an entire OS compared to a service/app...

Also do you not remember how bad it was before Android? Paying several dollars just for things like ringtones?

My question would be, why would anyone pay for a ringtone when devices come with loads built in?

But the complexity of developing an OS and ecosystem is precisely why it needs to be possible to make money from it to be successful. And Google's predatory pricing of Android has made it so that it is not possible to make money from a smartphone OS as how can you compete with free? Thus competition has been reduced.

 

[openwheel]

how do you compete with free?

Well, apparently is to charge a premium. Isn't Apple doing quite well with loads of cash from iDevice profits? What's the problem again?

 

[mrochester]

how do you compete with free?

Well, apparently is to charge a premium. Isn't Apple doing quite well with loads of cash from iDevice profits? What's the problem again?

The problem is, if I'm an innovative startup with a great idea for a smartphone operating system, the barrier to entry to that market is so high because Google have already set the value of my product to nill by giving away their own operating system for nothing. But Google can afford to do that because they use the profits from an unrelated business to destroy the competitiveness of other markets. My innovative product will never see the light of day because it would be nigh on impossible for me to make any money out of it.

The people who suffer from that effective shut-down of the market? Yep, you guessed it, Us consumers.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Absolutely, but Apple's practices are far less damaging to the industry than Google's. Just look at how little competition there is in the smartphone operating system market as a result of Google's predatory pricing vs how much competition there is in the streaming music market, despite Apple's actions.

Apple's actions are recent, and haven't been given time for full effect. I personally expect Spotify to eventually die due to their backroom deals, which would be a huge restriction on competition in that market.

Google gives away their OS and has to compete with itself. You say there isn't competition in the marketplace but Xiaomi has become one of the world's largest phone makers via the MIUI Os, which is basically an Android fork. No one has made an iOS fork, because they can't. The lack of success of other OS options in the domestic market has more to do with Google's excellent services (an non-iOS phone without Google Maps is crap) than some sort of predatory tactics.

If what you imply is true then Amazon would have never made the Fire Phone because Google wouldn't let them. The Fire phone flopped because people like real Android in the West enough to demand it, and not because Amazon was blocked from having the pieces needed to build their own phone OS. The Fire tablet line shows there can be competition in the market if it is good enough to survive.

I have absolutely no problem with one company taking another to court in a bid to uphold patents that have been granted; that is after all, the entire reason the system is there.

You REALLY don't have a problem with Apple patenting a tablet form factor that I have seen in Sci Fis since Star Trek and then forcing everyone to pay for that form factor? You don't mind them patenting pinch zoom when Minority Report showed us that being done YEARS before Apple released the iPhone? You don't mind the fact that Steve wanted Android GONE, not just paying royalties but GONE, and in his dream world the only company that could sell a modern smartphone is Apple?

If that isn't anti-competitive I don't know what is.

I do have a problem with a company giving away products for free to crush the competition in that market and subsiding the cost of that product from an unrelated revenue stream (as Google does with Android).

Now you are just making stuff up. Ad revenue from mobile ads on Android brought in BILLIONS of dollars for Google last year. They aren't subsidizing Android with any other revenue stream, Android as a platform makes Google enough money to continue development.

Now maybe you personally don't like the ad supported business model, but you would be in the minority on that. For decades most television content was ad supported, most of the web pages on the internet are ad supported, heck even live events like sports games have ads everywhere. By society's standards Google isn't some evil company for having an ad supported business model, it is part of a large crowd.

In fact I would go so far to PRAISE the business model of Android because it has democratized mobile devices. If only the Apple model was in the market (the model where you pay so much for the device that it completely covers the development costs plus margin) then we wouldn't have decent $100 phones. About a billion people who will get on the internet for the first time the next decade wouldn't have that opportunity if only Apple sold modern smartphones. I don't think Apple's iPhone business model is evil, I am just glad there is lower-cost competition.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The problem is, if I'm an innovative startup with a great idea for a smartphone operating system, the barrier to entry to that market is so high because Google have already set the value of my product to nill by giving away their own operating system for nothing. .

First of all, the cost is more than nothing. Google forces phones that want the Play Store to go through rigorous testing, and the cost of that is on the phone maker. Plus there is some evidence that Google asks a fee for access to those services.

Plus your little rant ignores the reality- companies ARE competing with Google. Blackberry has modern devices running their OS with hardware and price points near Google products. Amazon had the Fire Phone with flagship specs and good pricing. Windows Phones actually sell cheaper than Androids in many cases.

Now are any of competitors taking up a significant market share? No. But that isn't because they aren't priced competitively or because Google pressures Verizon not to carry those devices. They don't do well because they are WEAK competitors, and they can't give an experience near what iOS or Android provides.

In developing markets where consumers aren't as spoiled Android phones without Google Play are all over the place. As I mentioned earlier Xiaomi became a giant without using a blessed version of Google's OS on their devices.

You could compete with Android, anyone can. Firefox has a phone OS. Ubuntu has a phone OS. There are OSes like Sailfish or BB10. The problem is that the smartphones are a MATURE market, so you have to do something better than anyone else to compete. Which is the same for all mature markets, look at the trouble Tesla has had breaking into the regular car market with a billionaire backing them.

 

[mrochester]

Apple's actions are recent, and haven't been given time for full effect. I personally expect Spotify to eventually die due to their backroom deals, which would be a huge restriction on competition in that market.

Google gives away their OS and has to compete with itself. You say there isn't competition in the marketplace but Xiaomi has become one of the world's largest phone makers via the MIUI Os, which is basically an Android fork. No one has made an iOS fork, because they can't. The lack of success of other OS options in the domestic market has more to do with Google's excellent services (an non-iOS phone without Google Maps is crap) than some sort of predatory tactics.

If what you imply is true then Amazon would have never made the Fire Phone because Google wouldn't let them. The Fire phone flopped because people like real Android in the West enough to demand it, and not because Amazon was blocked from having the pieces needed to build their own phone OS. The Fire tablet line shows there can be competition in the market if it is good enough to survive.



You REALLY don't have a problem with Apple patenting a tablet form factor that I have seen in Sci Fis since Star Trek and then forcing everyone to pay for that form factor? You don't mind them patenting pinch zoom when Minority Report showed us that being done YEARS before Apple released the iPhone? You don't mind the fact that Steve wanted Android GONE, not just paying royalties but GONE, and in his dream world the only company that could sell a modern smartphone is Apple?

If that isn't anti-competitive I don't know what is.



Now you are just making stuff up. Ad revenue from mobile ads on Android brought in BILLIONS of dollars for Google last year. They aren't subsidizing Android with any other revenue stream, Android as a platform makes Google enough money to continue development.

Now maybe you personally don't like the ad supported business model, but you would be in the minority on that. For decades most television content was ad supported, most of the web pages on the internet are ad supported, heck even live events like sports games have ads everywhere. By society's standards Google isn't some evil company for having an ad supported business model, it is part of a large crowd.

In fact I would go so far to PRAISE the business model of Android because it has democratized mobile devices. If only the Apple model was in the market (the model where you pay so much for the device that it completely covers the development costs plus margin) then we wouldn't have decent $100 phones. About a billion people who will get on the internet for the first time the next decade wouldn't have that opportunity if only Apple sold modern smartphones. I don't think Apple's iPhone business model is evil, I am just glad there is lower-cost competition.

I guess this is where our philosophies differ. I'm a technology enthusiast so I would prefer to see a more innovative market rather than a stagnant democratised one. It's a shame the two cant co-exist but I know which I prefer.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I guess this is where our philosophies differ. I'm a technology enthusiast so I would prefer to see a more innovative market rather than a stagnant democratised one.

Hey I like a dynamic market too, that is why I rock Android. Within the Android ecosystem things are constantly changing.

Phone makers rise (like Xiaomi) rise while others (like HTC or Sony) fall off. We constantly see new SoCs, new features, or a redefining of bleeding edge specs as Android phone makers try to outdo each other. We see Android push into new markets, like wearables or VR, before Apple does. In the Android market we see innovation all the way from the low end (the value of the Moto G) to the high-end (the edge of the S6).

Lets compare that to the iOS ecosystem shall we?

In iOSland, the big major "new" features are mobile payments via NFC (something Android has had since 2011), larger screens (again in Android since 2011), a watch device (almost a whole year behind Android) and OIS on the camera (in Android since the M7 in 2013).

You know what we don't have yet in iOSland though? Greater than 2GB of RAM in a phone (something Android has had since 2012), worse than 1080p screens on the 5 inch model (Android has had 1080p since 2013), using NFC for something other than payments (popularized by Samsung in 2012), or any type of waterproofing (in Androidland since 2013). Apple USED to really innovate with their phones- they were first to a digital assistant in Siri, and they were first to have a completely useful fingerprint reader (though not the first to have it period Moto beat them to that), but the iPhone 6 and 6+ were blatantly sold on their larger screens which is a feature that Android completely blazed the trail on.

Seems to me if you like competition and new horizons in technology you would PREFER the Android business model because the competitive nature forces companies to innovate. Seems like the Apple model, where only they can make iPhones, allows them to hold their punches to milk everything they can out of the market. Why else would the $500 iPad have SO much better specs than the $880+ phablet iPhone? Because tablets are a declining and competitive market, that is why.

You have your priorities mixed up in my opinion, probably to retcon justify your decision to use an iPhone. And you shouldn't do that, there are perfectly good reasons to use an iPhone without making up reasons or slinging mud.

 

[openwheel]

How's is only buying Apple product actually supporting innovation? That's some bazaar thinking. These days Apple is merely a follower in the tech industry with a huge cult following.

 

[openwheel]

on a side note, Windows 10 is fantastic. I sure hope windows phone can actually become popular, the tiles are so much better than icons/widgets.

 

[dawheat]

The problem is, if I'm an innovative startup with a great idea for a smartphone operating system, the barrier to entry to that market is so high because Google have already set the value of my product to nill by giving away their own operating system for nothing. But Google can afford to do that because they use the profits from an unrelated business to destroy the competitiveness of other markets. My innovative product will never see the light of day because it would be nigh on impossible for me to make any money out of it.

The people who suffer from that effective shut-down of the market? Yep, you guessed it, Us consumers.

That's a load of BS and I think you know it. Even before Android gobbled up marketshare, it was pretty clear no one but the giants had the resources to build a smartphone OS - they've gotten far too complex and sophisticated for a startup to compete with.

Take Windows phones for example - it's hardly the cost that keeps it from being a success. It took a giant throwing hundreds of millions (if not billions) at it to barely get close to parity the last several years.

There are only so many app ecosystems that can be supported - even Amazon, with all their funding, can barely make a scratch there.

If anything, Android has made it possible for non-giants to complete as companies like CM can branch Android to their liking. Without being able to use Android as the base and gain the major functional advances with each update, they'd never be able to be a realistic OS.

Honestly, I think Google deserves a lot of credit for enabling what would traditionally be underserved markets far more capable devices than what has been the case. Whether it be at the $100 price point or near flagship devices at $300.

 

[Nebor]

I've never used Android, but I used Windows Phone for years, and now I use iOS. I assume that Android the best OS though, based on it's popularity and how customizeable it is.

For me, I don't want a mobile computer. I want a text message machine that can do google searches.

 

[mrochester]

Hey I like a dynamic market too, that is why I rock Android. Within the Android ecosystem things are constantly changing.

Phone makers rise (like Xiaomi) rise while others (like HTC or Sony) fall off. We constantly see new SoCs, new features, or a redefining of bleeding edge specs as Android phone makers try to outdo each other. We see Android push into new markets, like wearables or VR, before Apple does. In the Android market we see innovation all the way from the low end (the value of the Moto G) to the high-end (the edge of the S6).

Lets compare that to the iOS ecosystem shall we?

In iOSland, the big major "new" features are mobile payments via NFC (something Android has had since 2011), larger screens (again in Android since 2011), a watch device (almost a whole year behind Android) and OIS on the camera (in Android since the M7 in 2013).

You know what we don't have yet in iOSland though? Greater than 2GB of RAM in a phone (something Android has had since 2012), worse than 1080p screens on the 5 inch model (Android has had 1080p since 2013), using NFC for something other than payments (popularized by Samsung in 2012), or any type of waterproofing (in Androidland since 2013). Apple USED to really innovate with their phones- they were first to a digital assistant in Siri, and they were first to have a completely useful fingerprint reader (though not the first to have it period Moto beat them to that), but the iPhone 6 and 6+ were blatantly sold on their larger screens which is a feature that Android completely blazed the trail on.

Seems to me if you like competition and new horizons in technology you would PREFER the Android business model because the competitive nature forces companies to innovate. Seems like the Apple model, where only they can make iPhones, allows them to hold their punches to milk everything they can out of the market. Why else would the $500 iPad have SO much better specs than the $880+ phablet iPhone? Because tablets are a declining and competitive market, that is why.

You have your priorities mixed up in my opinion, probably to retcon justify your decision to use an iPhone. And you shouldn't do that, there are perfectly good reasons to use an iPhone without making up reasons or slinging mud.

But they ALL still use the same OS. How on earth does Android encourage innovative when I'm getting the same software experience from device to device (other than perhaps a different skin)? That's certainly not innovation! If you're rocking an Android phone, in my opinion you are contributing to the downward trend in innovation in the market.

You focus too much on hardware, which hasn't been of much concern for many years now. What's severely lacking is software innovation, which has been all but killed by Google thanks to the prevalence of Android due to it's predatory pricing. If only Android had an appropriate license to fee to go along with it, I bet we'd have a much more dynamic and innovative smartphone market. But alas, the damage has been done and the value has already been well and truly sucked out.

You may wish to reasses your priorities when it comes to buying smartphones and stop focussing so much on hardware features and instead look at software, which is the most important aspect of our modern consumer electronics devices.

 

[sweenish]

I guess this is where our philosophies differ. I'm a technology enthusiast so I would prefer to see a more innovative market rather than a stagnant democratised one. It's a shame the two cant co-exist but I know which I prefer.

You choosing to ignore a lot of basic facts and not know the definition of dynamic does not indicate a different philosophy. It's ignorance.

iOS is what it is today because of WP and Android. iOS probably cribbed more from WP than it did Android with iOS 7. iOS 6 was very much a metaphorical IE 6 for Apple. Just stagnant. Luckily, they have to constantly push updates out to try and convince you that a software feature is only possible on new hardware.

Android is what it is today because of iOS. If not for Apple, we'd all still be using Froyo-era UI's and dealing with a ton more GUI jank.

You're entitled to your preference, that's always the case. But when your logic doesn't check out, you will be called on it. Your preference isn't under attack, as evidenced by the first few pages of this thread. Your complete lack of critical thought on the matter is.

But they ALL still use the same OS. How on earth does Android encourage innovative when I'm getting the same software experience from device to device (other than perhaps a different skin)? That's certainly not innovation! If you're rocking an Android phone, in my opinion you are contributing to the downward trend in innovation in the market.

You focus too much on hardware, which hasn't been of much concern for many years now. What's severely lacking is software innovation, which has been all but killed by Google thanks to the prevalence of Android due to it's predatory pricing. If only Android had an appropriate license to fee to go along with it, I bet we'd have a much more dynamic and innovative smartphone market. But alas, the damage has been done and the value has already been well and truly sucked out.

You may wish to reassess your priorities when it comes to buying smartphones and stop focusing so much on hardware features and instead look at software, which is the most important aspect of our modern consumer electronics devices.

Textbook goal post shift, and lack of understanding of how Android is implemented by OEMs. Also hypocritical, because:
1- demanding software innovation
2- complaining about uniformity
3- proponent of company that is guilty of the exact same things.

They've been playing catch-up in both hardware (features, build quality has always been top notch) and software for years. But to be fair, everyone's playing software catch-up.

 

[openwheel]

That's got to be one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard. Google stifles innovation in OS by offering Android. The last thing I want in this World is 45 different mobile operating systems to choose from. As if there isn't enough fragmentation already in Android.

Android drives innovation today (Thanks to Google).

 

[mrochester]

You choosing to ignore a lot of basic facts and not know the definition of dynamic does not indicate a different philosophy. It's ignorance.

iOS is what it is today because of WP and Android. iOS probably cribbed more from WP than it did Android with iOS 7. iOS 6 was very much a metaphorical IE 6 for Apple. Just stagnant. Luckily, they have to constantly push updates out to try and convince you that a software feature is only possible on new hardware.

Android is what it is today because of iOS. If not for Apple, we'd all still be using Froyo-era UI's and dealing with a ton more GUI jank.

You're entitled to your preference, that's always the case. But when your logic doesn't check out, you will be called on it. Your preference isn't under attack, as evidenced by the first few pages of this thread. Your complete lack of critical thought on the matter is.

The lack of critical thought appears to be coming from the Android side in this thread.

My statement has and will continue to be that Android has effectively strangled the smartphone operating system market by being free. And that stangulation of the market has led to hundreds if not thousands of devices all running the same operating system. The market would be much more varied and much more innovative if instead of having one enormous homogenised operating system we had multiple effectively competing operating systems.

I've absolutely no idea why people interested in technology would be advocating a world of fewer choices over a world of more choices. Why on earth would you want the only choice to be Android?

 

[mrochester]

That's got to be one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard. Google stifles innovation in OS by offering Android. The last thing I want in this World is 45 different mobile operating systems to choose from. As if there isn't enough fragmentation already in Android.

Android drives innovation today (Thanks to Google).

That's precisely what I want; more choice and competition for the consumer. Not less (thanks to Google!).

 

[mrochester]

That's got to be one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard. Google stifles innovation in OS by offering Android. The last thing I want in this World is 45 different mobile operating systems to choose from. As if there isn't enough fragmentation already in Android.

Android drives innovation today (Thanks to Google).

Serious question, if I wanted to start a software company and make a smartphone operating system, how would you propose I do that?