Thread: iPhone vs. Android argument

The thing they fail to mention is that apple's OS is designed for their single set of devices (which all maintain the same buttons/physical setup with few changes) not vice versa as with Android.

Android is just an operating system maintained by Google, most manufacturers have their own heavily modified versions of android (TouchWiz, MotoBLUR, SenseUI... etc) and they CHOOSE to do that. Google releases Android updates to all manufacturers as soon as they update, its up to the manufacturers to either push stock android to their device (customization is still required as with all forms of multi device operating systems as not all devices have the exact same components) or to push the development of their own heavily modified version THEN push it to their devices.

Google has little to no control over when an android device gets an update, the only control they have is for the flagship phones G1, Nexus One, Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus. That is because google makes an agreement with the flagships manufacturer that the phone will run only stock android and that google will supply them with a version that works on the flagship simultaneous to the release of the rest of the operating system.

Saying that the slow release schedule of android versions for certain devices is the fault of Google and/or the Android dev team is completely false. Sure Google could make their OS easier to adapt, and I'm damn sure they try their hardest, but its difficult considering they have to adapt to literally HUNDREDS of devices compared to Apple's maximum of 4 devices at any given time. And of those hundreds of devices, very few of them are as similar to each other as all of the iPhones are.

To compare the two in abosultes is a load of bull$#@!, any statistician or scientist (however meek) would clearly see that you cannot comapre the development time for an OS that has to work on 4 phones to trying to develop an OS to work on hundreds of phones.

The delayed release schedule of android can also be attributed to how unnecessary some of the updates are. There are many low end android phones that however they run android, are not really smart/superphones, they just happen to run android as a choice of the manufacturer (probably because theyll make more moneybecause they don't have to develop their own OS and because they know androids sell almost twice as fast as iphones, android having a 43% market share compared to iphones 28%) and they dont need the fancy new features that a new version of android will bring. Perhaps a manufacturer will push a release to their phones if it provides significant security updates or stability fixes, but all in all it isnt worth the corporations time/money or the consumers time/money for something so menial.

Sure I'm buying a Galaxy Nexus when it comes out, I'm doing that for many reasons, one jsut happens to be because I know its a flagship and google promises I will get new versions of android ASAP. But for 90% of the consumer market that doesn't care about getting the lastest update because all they want to do is text call and do a bit of surfing, they wont buy it because they're perfectly happy with their FroYo running LG Optimus 2X that has been out for almost a year and is on par with the bran new iPhone 4S (which by the way costs almost twice as much.)

So, this article can only possibly address the slim portion of users who care about that sort of thing, and only does address the slim portion of THEM who have an issue with the current version their phone is running.

So, put aside the ridiculous software release date argument and take a look at the hardware... you tell me what you see.

But yes, it is handy that you can update your phone to the latest version and Kudos to apple for doing that.

You had a good argument going, until you decided to look at hardware exclusively and THEN had that stupid little comment at the end. What the $#@! is that? Talk about pretentious douchebaggery of the nth degree. This is the $#@!ing reason I hate Android fanboys more than iPhone fanboys.

See, one can also make the argument that the fact that iOS only runs on 3 phones at a time (2 of which are always very very similar) makes it considerably more efficient at using the resources it has available to it in comparison to Android. Whereas Android has to be developed as an operating system for any number of hundreds of phones, iOS only has to cater to what is really only 2 phones.

Bias ruins arguments, mmkay?

Originally Posted by RawrSpoon

Bias ruins arguments, mmkay?

Look at where the article comes from, and tell me its not biased.

Android does not HAVE to be developed for hundreds of phones, google chooses to develop for hundreds of phones because they see Apple's major pitfall in the past and are taking advantage of it to become the microsoft of smartphones.

Apple has almsot double the resources available to them ($116B vs $57B) that google does. Take a look at market shares and tell me that google isnt making the smart decision. Android has 43% iphone has 28%, by not limiting their operating system to only their own devices (although they make their own devices and have the OS on them) their market share is greatly expanding.

iPhones only cater to the small portion of the market that wants a top of the line phone. For everyone else who just wants a phone that can possibly play angry birds (which is free on android) they can get a phone for free on pretty much any contract that will do so, thanks to android.

Apple has done this once before, only developed for their own systems and its failed for them. However, like insane people (recall the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result) apple is trying it again expecting a different result.

As with almost everything, they guy who gets the concept 2nd makes the most money. Bill gates took the OS concept second, and made it to run on anything (not just his own exlcusive hardware) now windows has 78% 78%! can you believe that!? of all computers out there (that use the internet).

So you say that google isnt being efficicient with android lets pull that apart.
Efficiency: First off, if you compare the two in absolutes, Apple is an order of magnitude less efficient, being twice as large should logically have twice the resources and be able to twice as fast for twice as many deivces and so on. If you compare them proportionally, apple has a small advantage over android, but still not terribly significant. So efficiency would be the wrong word, you should say selective.

Resources: Already addressed this, logically apple has over twice the resources android does and so on...

I for one prefer android despite the lack of constant updates. Apple does its thing very well, but the GUI just feels too clean and rigid. When I use it, I feel like I am playing with a toddler's toy. Things that i think are common sense are not. I am the sort of guy who hates using Window's control panel in the "dumbed down" view, i like the classic. I like options.

For example, you may need to know a bit about Unix/linux, but I can get a nice thorough dump log on android and figure out what the hell is going on. Not sure if a jailed iPhone is able to do such a thing.

Apple designed it to be an easy to use phone for all the masses, not just tech saavy...and that is great. I like OSX for that reason, my mom has my brothers old macbook and its easy for her to do things on it compared to Windows which I hated having to explain everything to her. And with OSX being a FreeBSD derivative, you have the CLI which you can customize somewhat nicely (if you know CLI) compared to a Windows computer with the wonky registry. Apple puts out great products, most people hate apple b/c of the premium on hardware or old taboos.

Sure the hardware on their computers are lower than what you can get compared to a Windows based PC at the same price, but the software is designed around controlled hardware specs and with that they are able to squeeze more out of it vs. windows which has to be compatible with a wide range of hardware.

This is evident in the phone wars as well. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter about ANYONE'S subjective opinion is, if you are happy with your phone...everyone else can go to hell. Don't sweat the small stuff, if you are happy that is all that matters.

The only people who should be yelled at are those that try to push beliefs on someone else. I am not a fanboy in anyway, but I like Android. I don't care for the iOS, but i like apple's OSX. If there is anyone that has a problem with that, that is fine. I don't personally care what you think. If you think you opinion matters to me of whats better, then you are fooling yourself into thinking you are more important than you really are.**

At the end of the day, who the f*ck cares...stop sweating the small stuff. Be glad we can make choices, I would hate to see the market WITHOUT competition.


**-not directed at anyone in particular, more generalized.

Like Denz said "stop sweating the small stuff. Be glad we can make choices, I would hate to see the market WITHOUT competition."

^^ this. Arguing about Iphone vs Android is almost as bad as political or religous arguments. People feel what they feel about one or the other, and it's almost imposible to "persuade" them differently. And Rawr..was your uh..negativity (to put it nicely) really called for?

Why did you basically make my post be a apple vs google rather than iPhone as compared to Android? And my last comment there was for your post since the article was mostly garbage in the first place. Perhaps I should've pointed that out more clearly than I did. W/e

My comment about efficiency was about the OS, not the companies. Why the $#@! would I focus on the creator and not the product? I never said Android was not efficient, but not as efficient. No need for straw man.

I'm quite happy with my iPhone (jailbroken to hell and back), but that doesn't mean I hate Android or think it sucks. I just can't $#@!ing stand people who can't let both OSes coexist.

And yes Poppet, it was entirely necessary.