Android or iPhone: Which Do You Prefer?

[WallaceCox]

Hello,

I would like to post a Researching post on here.

Just want to know , What do you like ?

1. Android

2. iPhone

Hope all are participate here.

Thanks

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I use an iPhone primarily because I was sucked into their iTunes software years ago and built up a library that I couldn't abandon. Certainly that was their goal... it worked.

In my opinion both are really great phones and software. Head to your cellphone store and test them out.

 

[vociferous]

I used Windows Mobile going back to my halcyon teenage years because it was the most powerful and customizable OS. Last year I switched to Android for the same reason, because I don't like Apple's closed iOS ecosystem and the new Windows Mobile code is just as bad.

 

[KrisOhn]

I choose Android because I disagree with Apple's business choice of being as proprietary and, like the above poster said, having such a closed iOS ecosystem.

 

[Algr]

the most powerful and customizable OS

What does this mean? My friends who have android or windows mobile have trouble doing half the things I do with my iPhone.

 

[rcgldr]

itunes

iTunes dropped DRM back in 2009, so songs downloaded since 2009 can be converted into MP3 files using Apple supplied apps. For the older ones, apparenlty you have to burn them to a cd, then use a cd-ripper to convert the songs, or you can pay Apple 30 cents per DRM song to download a new unprotected copy of that song (if it's still available for sale).

I purchase most of my songs from amazon or mp3va. There's also spotify, but you're technically "listening" to songs while recording them.

 

[ZapperZ]

I am not an Apple "Fanboy" by any stretch of the imagination. My primary work computer is a Windows machine, and I have a Windows laptop as well. My first smartphone was a Blackberry, then I got another Blackberry, followed by a Samsung Galaxy S2. It was only after that that I got an iPhone, starting with iPhone 5s, and now the iPhone 6. I also own a 3rd Generation iPad, and will probably get the new one if it gets announced this coming October.

I say all that so that you know that I don't have any kind of loyalty to one particular brand or company. All I care about is that a device works, does what it is supposed to do, easy to operate and navigate, and is relatively secure. I would guess that for most people, and the average consumer, that is what we all care about, not that we are buying an Apple produce, a Samsung, an iOS, a Android, etc.. etc.

Having said that, I did migrate, if you noticed, from an Android phone to an iOS (iPhone). I have several issues with Andriods:

1. It has become the "Windows" of the mobile operating system. This is where Google is responsible for the OS, but the hardware can be anything compatible with it. As someone who has been a lifelong Windows user, I can see how uneven the experience can be. Inevitably, there will be problems and incompatibility between the hardware and the OS, especially after an upgrade. This happened to me with my Galaxy S2 when it had an OS upgrade to Ice Cream Sandwich. The device became unstable and slow. I distinctively remember saying something to the effect that that was what I normally get if I were to do a Windows OS upgrade. I am not sure I want to put myself through that experience on my mobile devices.

2. The bloatware! Oh, can we talk about them! Not only do you get bloatware from the hardware manufacturer, you also get them from your mobile career, something that Apple strictly prohibits on iPhones.

3. Who do you call? If my Apple device have issues, I need to just contact Apple, or bring it to an Apple store, it is usually taken care of. Who do you contact when your have issues with your Android device? First of all, was it a hardware or software issue? Do you contact Google, or the hardware manufacturer, or the mobile career. Trust me, as someone who had been passed from one company to another trying to solve a problem on my Galaxy S2, this got old very, very quickly!

4. The Ecosystem. I disagree with KrisOhn's take on the "closed" business model of Apple. The fact that they make their own OS and hardware means that they have a better quality control and a better marriage between hardware and software. The latest debacle of iOS8.0.1 notwithstanding, there is less "drama" in Apple's machines and devices since they know exactly the machines they are writing the code for. I seldom get apps closing for no apparent reason, unlike my Galaxy S2, especially after the ICS upgrade. And this leads me to the issue of:

5. Security. As strict as Apple is in allowing which iOS app can appear on the App Store, this makes for a sense of security that these apps have been tested, and more importantly, not built-in with something malicious. The same can't be said about Android apps, where you don't even need to go to the Andriod apps store to get Andriod apps. There have been reports of malicious Andriod apps that either became ad pushers or worse still, collecting information on a particular device. I know that no device and no OS can be completely secure, but these are just too big of a hole to fall into that is minimized by the "closed" iOS ecosystem.

6. Ease of use and integration. That ecosystem allows for an amazingly smooth integration between various Apple products and software. I can easily see being seduced by what iOS8 can do with the upcoming MacOS. Such seamless switching back and forth between the two is what many of us want to have, i.e. we focus on capabilities and ease of execution, not specs, etc.

I also found it interesting that more than 3/4 of the faculty members in the physics dept. where I work own iPhones. Presumably, these are not (i) dumb people (ii) people who are easily influenced by "style" and "bells and whistles", and (iii) people with a lot of time in their busy lives and want to fiddle around with mobile devices.

Zz.

 

[vociferous]

What does this mean? My friends who have android or windows mobile have trouble doing half the things I do with my iPhone.

It means that Android has more available features and it has more ability to be customized, examples:

iOS and Windows Mobile cannot run unsigned code, which means you cannot even run a simple program you create yourself or someone else creates without it having to be approved by Apple or Microsoft and subject to their fees, regulations, and censorship.

iOS and Windows Mobile cannot execute low-level kernel applications, which means you can run programs that use those features, such as JIT compilers used in many interpreted languages and hardware emulation programs, so it is impossible to run many types of programs without "jailbreaking" your phone and voiding the warranty.

iOS and Windows Mobile are closed source, which means you cannot modify the operating system only through difficult (and often warranty-voiding) hacking or through the limited methods that Apple or Microsoft provide. By contrast, you could compile your own version of android for your phone tailored to your exact specifications.

Whether someone has "trouble" doing something with their phone only speaks to the limits of their competence. Most of what people do with their phones is pretty basic and is available on all three platforms (limited only by their ability to research how to do it). However, when you begin looking under the hood in terms of getting the full power out of your system, iOS and Windows Mobile fall far short of the power of Android.

Just for instance, Android is Linux, and you can run a full Linux distro like Ubuntu with KDE or Gnome on top of Android (in fact, it runs quite well in a VM on top of android if you have a fast phone). Can you run Linux on a Windows or Apple phone? Well, maybe if you are really good at hacking and willing to void your warranty.

 

[Algr]

Okay. But how many people write their own code for their phone, yet can't afford developer's status? That has got to be a tiny fraction of users, compared to the majority who benefit from not needing to understand such issues. If everyone woke up one day and found all their cars replaced with airplanes, that would hurt far more people than would benefit.

Also, how does HTML5 fit into this? You can write quite sophisticated code and run it on your phone.

 

[Algr]

Indeed I'd suspect that anyone with the technical skills to benefit from Android's openness would have no problem jailbreaking an iPhone.

 

[ZapperZ]

It means that Android has more available features and it has more ability to be customized, examples:

iOS and Windows Mobile cannot run unsigned code, which means you cannot even run a simple program you create yourself or someone else creates without it having to be approved by Apple or Microsoft and subject to their fees, regulations, and censorship.

iOS and Windows Mobile cannot execute low-level kernel applications, which means you can run programs that use those features, such as JIT compilers used in many interpreted languages and hardware emulation programs, so it is impossible to run many types of programs without "jailbreaking" your phone and voiding the warranty.

iOS and Windows Mobile are closed source, which means you cannot modify the operating system only through difficult (and often warranty-voiding) hacking or through the limited methods that Apple or Microsoft provide. By contrast, you could compile your own version of android for your phone tailored to your exact specifications.

Whether someone has "trouble" doing something with their phone only speaks to the limits of their competence. Most of what people do with their phones is pretty basic and is available on all three platforms (limited only by their ability to research how to do it). However, when you begin looking under the hood in terms of getting the full power out of your system, iOS and Windows Mobile fall far short of the power of Android.

Just for instance, Android is Linux, and you can run a full Linux distro like Ubuntu with KDE or Gnome on top of Android (in fact, it runs quite well in a VM on top of android if you have a fast phone). Can you run Linux on a Windows or Apple phone? Well, maybe if you are really good at hacking and willing to void your warranty.

This is exactly the example where one pays too much attention to the trees and forgot about the forrest, and why Apple excel at what they do while many other companies just don't get it.

Here's the thing that technical folks need to understand. The average consumer really do not pay attention to such technical detail. While this may be a big deal for those in the business, we care more about how easy it is to use, how intuitive is the system, and how well does it intergrate into other things that we want to do. Having the most powerful this-and-that means nothing if the system either doesn't "talk" very well with what it is running on, or doesn't do things easily.

Note that Apple was not the first to produce many things. They weren't the first to produce an MP3 player. They only enter the market when (i) they had a device that was fully matured and looked darn good and (ii) they have the support system in place to provide content, i.e. iTunes. This required careful thought on how people use a device, how they would operate it, and how it would intergrate into things they do everyday. These are all considerations that are independent on how powerful the OS is, how fast the processors are, or what is under the hood, and this is what many companies producing these electronics either do not think of, or do not put as much emphasis as Apple.

This is what sells, and what would attract many of us who care more on what something can do and does it easily. Design and integration with various other devices are something that I want to be able to do without thinking too much. The most powerful machine may be a god-sent for those technically-minded, but really, if it is difficult to use and flakes out on you, it is useless in my book.

Zz.

 

[vociferous]

Indeed I'd suspect that anyone with the technical skills to benefit from Android's openness would have no problem jailbreaking an iPhone.

Android only requires root access for a very small number of tasks. For instance, you do not need root access to run a JIT compiler on Android like you do on Windows Mobile or iOS.

You can write almost any code for Android you want (barring those few tasks that require root) and distribute it freely wherever you want. Most android phones will pop up a warning not to run unsigned code, but they will still allow it. You can even add another code repository other than the official Google Play store.

Not so with iOS or Windows mobile. You can only distribute your code through official channels. That's why I liked the old Windows Mobile (CE), because despite its finger unfriendliness, it was pretty much a desktop operating system that was scaled down to run on ARM hardware. That's also a big reason that I dislike iOS and Windows Mobile.

I also dislike the Apple phones because, unlike Windows or Android which anyone can license, with Apple you are stuck with a very small number of choices. Want a cheap $30 smartphone? Well, you're not going to find that from Apple. Want a phone with an active digitizer so you can take notes? Again, not from Apple. Want a phone with a built-in physical keyboard, a 50 megapixel camera, et cetera?

Hey, there's nothing wrong with the iPhone hardware (although it is still missing a number of key features that have been in other phones for years or even a decade), but it is like the old model-T. You can have it in any color, so long as it's black. I hope you happen to like the two versions of the iPhone 6 that Apple manufacturers, because you don't have any other choice if you happen to like iOS, unlike Windows and Android phones that come in a myriad of varieties.

 

[vociferous]

This is exactly the example where one pays too much attention to the trees and forgot about the forrest, and why Apple excel at what they do while many other companies just don't get it.

Here's the thing that technical folks need to understand. The average consumer really do not pay attention to such technical detail. While this may be a big deal for those in the business, we care more about how easy it is to use, how intuitive is the system, and how well does it intergrate into other things that we want to do. Having the most powerful this-and-that means nothing if the system either doesn't "talk" very well with what it is running on, or doesn't do things easily.

Note that Apple was not the first to produce many things. They weren't the first to produce an MP3 player. They only enter the market when (i) they had a device that was fully matured and looked darn good and (ii) they have the support system in place to provide content, i.e. iTunes. This required careful thought on how people use a device, how they would operate it, and how it would intergrate into things they do everyday. These are all considerations that are independent on how powerful the OS is, how fast the processors are, or what is under the hood, and this is what many companies producing these electronics either do not think of, or do not put as much emphasis as Apple.

This is what sells, and what would attract many of us who care more on what something can do and does it easily. Design and integration with various other devices are something that I want to be able to do without thinking too much. The most powerful machine may be a god-sent for those technically-minded, but really, if it is difficult to use and flakes out on you, it is useless in my book.

Zz.

I do not "forget" it. I simply do not care since the average consumer's needs are different than mine. I understand that Apple has been very good during the past decade at taking an existing, successful, but somewhat niche product (Microsoft's tablet PCs, MS, Nokia, blackberry smartphones, HD mp3 players, et cetera) and figuring out how to simplify it for lowest common denominator, leading to tremendous consumer success over their competitors.

Like you wrote, most of Apple's most successful consumer products were just extremely simplified versions of competitor's products, going at least as far back as the first Macintosh, but especially in the iPod and beyond era.

I applaud Apple for their business acumen, just like I applaud Starbucks. But at the same time, I also recognize that there are also more sophisticated products out there for cheaper, and I prefer those, because I am not an average tech consumer.

And, despite Apple's initial success in many of these markets, in the long term, the more technically sophisticated, more diverse products have tended to win-out. Windows (which could be installed on a wide variety of hardware) PC sales quickly overtook the Mac OS. Android quickly overtook iOS phones. Android is beginning to dominate the tablet market with Microsoft regaining lost share, all at the expense of the iPad.

And hey, I recognize Apple's contribution to the market. Without the iPhone, a lot of us would probably still be using stylus's on our Windows CE smartphones with no Android or Windows Phone. Without the iPad, Microsoft probably would not have shown their hardware partners how to create a proper lightweight, uber-powerful x86 tablets and we would still be using the heavy, clunky circa 2002 tablet PCs that cost $2000.

But at the end of the day, I just prefer something a bit more sophisticated and customizable than what Apple offers.

 

[fluidistic]

I choose Android because I disagree with Apple's business choice of being as proprietary and, like the above poster said, having such a closed iOS ecosystem.

Android contains some non free software (as in freedom). If one is rigorous on the free software philosophy, one should look at Replicant instead of Android. http://www.replicant.us/

 

[Rocket50]

I've had some experience with both types and have generally preferred Android.

 

[george.smith]

Well, Android leaves me more space to discover, customize and manipulate. The same thing is with computers (Linux or Windows before iOS). I would say that iOS is more for "posh" and "fancy" crew.