Android v IOS, Discuss

waynegalway

bd250110 wrote: »

I think this "materialistic" and "iSheep" chat is ridiculous. A decent Android costs about the same as an iPhone 4/4s. It's like saying Fandroids are "cheap", both are significantly cheaper on the secondhand market. As a point though, the 3Gs has definitely aged better than the HTC Hero, for example. How many Hero's do you see on the street? 3 years later the 3Gs is still one of the biggest selling devices. Maybe people are "sheep", but I would say this. Blackberry's were quite the phone for teens/tweens to have about 12-28 months ago, yet sales figures are through the floor now, because people realised that they are difficult to use and don't offer some of the features of iOS or Android. If iPhones were as "crap", "restricted" and "locked down" as some fandroids always maintain the phones would not remain popular, indeed growing in sales.
It is true customers are "sheep", from Nokia 3110s, to flip phones, Moto Razars, BB and later iOS/Android. Android, probably because of it nature, has not been able to capture the customer in the same way as the consistent, harmonius message from Apple. Appe is one brand, plugging one product with one agenda, Android is pushed by Google with one agenda, the manufacturers with another. Its not as consistent, it never will be. THAT is the main difference.

For the record, the video speaks of "customising", i.e. making a device individual and to your preferences. He chose not to use stock apps to accomplish many of these tasks, this has made it more difficult than necessary. I don't think Dolphin offers any huge advantage over mobile Safari, for example, so why wind yourself up in knots over it?

I agree on the stock apps thing.....I tried out dolphin for a day (gave it a right good go) and didn't like it at all. Safari does a fine job.

Also the "Issue" he has about the "back" button....I just don't get it, how difficult can it be to click on a back button no matter where it is on the screen? I use the mobile web-app version of Youtube instead of the stock one, and the back button is where it always is in Safari, no problems there.

I think the "Sheep" thing is interesting, and it comes more from a psychological thing than any brilliance on the part of the device. We live in a world where free will is an illusion, and we like to show off the things we think we are in control of (such as buying one brand of device/car/pair of sunglasses instead of another), as we believe they give us a sense of identity in an otherwise mundane world. When we start to build this identity for oursleves, we learn to defend it, it's just human nature. It's not the devices that we are defending, it's our choice that is under scrutiny, and that can be hard to back down from.

Zascar

I just love this standard response people give when a better more efficient and ergonomic solution to something is suggested, that is different to what they are used to. People go "Sure why would you want that? It works fine just the way it is! So what if you have to click twice or do xyz - it's fine the way it is" etc etc. The fact is that people generally prefer what they are used to - and changing - evening to something with is easier and more straight froward, seems alien. However the way things work these days is that people are constantly innovating and changing things to make them better and more ergonomic etc. It's one thing I always admired about Google - they constantly worked on the little details to make lots of tiny things slightly better, faster or easier. That's proper innovation. Realistically almost all the other smart phone out there have several buttons - it's the better way to do it. It's apple's resistance to change around things like this that drive me nuts.

murpho999

Zascar wrote: »

I just love this standard response people give when a better more efficient and ergonomic solution to something is suggested, that is different to what they are used to. People go "Sure why would you want that? It works fine just the way it is! So what if you have to click twice or do xyz - it's fine the way it is" etc etc. The fact is that people generally prefer what they are used to - and changing - evening to something with is easier and more straight froward, seems alien. However the way things work these days is that people are constantly innovating and changing things to make them better and more ergonomic etc. It's one thing I always admired about Google - they constantly worked on the little details to make lots of tiny things slightly better, faster or easier. That's proper innovation. Realistically almost all the other smart phone out there have several buttons - it's the better way to do it. It's apple's resistance to change around things like this that drive me nuts.

It's called sticking to what you believe in.
If Apple were to change their button tack then wouldn't they be the sheep?

It was Apple who set the bar when they launched the iPhone with just one button and now they have to change to follow others?

Don't see the need for more buttons, and there is even talk that future phones will have none.

Quazzie

Zascar wrote: »

I just love this standard response people give when a better more efficient and ergonomic solution to something is suggested, that is different to what they are used to. People go "Sure why would you want that? It works fine just the way it is! So what if you have to click twice or do xyz - it's fine the way it is" etc etc. The fact is that people generally prefer what they are used to - and changing - evening to something with is easier and more straight froward, seems alien. However the way things work these days is that people are constantly innovating and changing things to make them better and more ergonomic etc. It's one thing I always admired about Google - they constantly worked on the little details to make lots of tiny things slightly better, faster or easier. That's proper innovation. Realistically almost all the other smart phone out there have several buttons - it's the better way to do it. It's apple's resistance to change around things like this that drive me nuts.

Why have multiple buttons when one works just fine. The guy in the video is an idiot. He manages to contradict himself several times to suit his agenda.

Sad Professor

I don't get it. What does the iPhone need more buttons for?

Zascar

murpho999 wrote: »

It's called sticking to what you believe in.
If Apple were to change their button tack then wouldn't they be the sheep?

It was Apple who set the bar when they launched the iPhone with just one button and now they have to change to follow others?

Don't see the need for more buttons, and there is even talk that future phones will have none.

Yes, that's exactly the way it will go. No button because physically pushing a button will be superseded by on screen virtual buttons - and I'll bet they will have several at the bottom and not just one - with back at the top. Android 4.0 can already support this, I think the Android tablets work this way.

This whole discussion totally reminds me of the ongoing debate between atheists and religious people.

TBi

Zascar wrote: »

This whole discussion totally reminds me of the ongoing debate between atheists and religious people.

I'd say it's more like the debate between different religions. Why have one god (button) when you can have multiple gods?

murpho999

Zascar wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly the way it will go. No button because physically pushing a button will be superseded by on screen virtual buttons - and I'll bet they will have several at the bottom and not just one - with back at the top. Android 4.0 can already support this, I think the Android tablets work this way.

This whole discussion totally reminds me of the ongoing debate between atheists and religious people.

Really don't see why they would have several virtual buttons when there is no need for them now.

Using an iPhone for 3 years now and just never have thought it was missing a button, real or virtual!

Don't see what your point is to be honest as I think it's App design is the important thing and not how many 'virtual' buttons it has.

Zascar

Remember those people who said "Sure what would I need a mobile phone for? Screw that - they are for yuppies" or maybe "I have no need for a car, the bus and my feet get me everywhere I need to go" - or even "My nokia 5110 makes and receives phone calls - that's all I want, I have no need for a smartphone"...

Obviously one vs several buttons etc is considerably more minor a difference, its hardly life changing like car is, but it's just one of those things you don't necessarily realise until you actually use it for yourself. Again, we're splitting hairs here - but I'm just saying that even if the difference only is tiny - one button is not as good as several.

srsly78

Obligatory comment about one button mice.

bd250110

Zascar wrote: »

Obviously one vs several buttons etc is considerably more minor a difference, its hardly life changing like car is, but it's just one of those things you don't necessarily realise until you actually use it for yourself. Again, we're splitting hairs here - but I'm just saying that even if the difference only is tiny - one button is not as good as several.

Im not sure what it is you are saying? Are you saying having more buttons is good, or bad? Android does have several buttons, some models these are physical, some are capitative and some are "virtual" depending on the device you use, which version you run and what manufacturer has created it. This is an area Google is trying to improve and basically saying, "no more buttons - use stock ICS navigation". HTC seem to have ignored this with the ONE series, but hey!
The issue is quite a personal one, but in my experience developers and OEM's have interpreted what the buttons do in different ways and this leads to inconstancies. It gets even worse when an app is a direct iOS port, because you have iOS navigation on-screen ± your physical buttons. For me, the issue is one of consistency. Apple have been quite stringent on what various swipes and navigation tools should look like. I think it makes it easier to get more out of your "limited" device. Although it may not be entirely logical or adhere to the traditional way of doing things the commands are consistent across the ecosystem. Which can only be a good thing, from the average customers point of view?

When the iPhone was launched (Im thinking of the original iPhone keynote) Jobs said something along the lines of "every app has it's own set of commands, would want to use its buttons in a slightly different way, optimised for it. What happens when you have a great idea 6 months from now, you can't add a button.....it has already shipped". Like I say, the problem with Android navigation, as it currently stands, is that is different across various devices and apps and it can make things unnecessarily frustrating. At least with one button, developers can't go too far wrong. Of course Apple have added functions to that button as they run out of simple ways to do things, so there is no definitive answer.
Another frustration is Apple's obsession with volume. You can alter volume by
1) - using the hard buttons on the side
2) - double tapping the home button when playing music - iPod control appear
3) - double tapping the home button and swiping the tray to the right, more volume controls.
4) - using the headphones
Why the bloody hell they don't replace the volume adjustment in the multitasking tray with a screen brightness option is totally beyond me. Instead you have to dig through the settings menu, for something that should be a lot simpler. At least some Android OEM's make this kind of thing super easy.

jeromeof

Zascar wrote: »

Remember those people who said "Sure what would I need a mobile phone for? Screw that - they are for yuppies" or maybe "I have no need for a car, the bus and my feet get me everywhere I need to go" - or even "My nokia 5110 makes and receives phone calls - that's all I want, I have no need for a smartphone"...

Obviously one vs several buttons etc is considerably more minor a difference, its hardly life changing like car is, but it's just one of those things you don't necessarily realise until you actually use it for yourself. Again, we're splitting hairs here - but I'm just saying that even if the difference only is tiny - one button is not as good as several.

IMO the whole back button in Android is a major flaw. Its is completely inconsistent and there is no visible clue to whether you need to push the back button. With some apps it goes to previous screen, some apps it exits them back to the home screen and with some apps it does nothing. Having a visible on screen back button when required is a much better and consistent approach. And as a few people have pointed out Google are abandoning buttons anyway with ICS in favour of "virtual buttons". But unfortuntately as far as virtual buttons Google haven't designed this well as far as my ICS tablet is concerned, the space for the virtual buttons takes up valuable real-estate on screen and you are relying on developers forcing their applications full screen. Again I think Apple approach is better, one button to "get you out of there" and if a back button is needed (or a search button or whatever) show a virtual button integrated into the application.

Kev_2012

I got a HTC Explorer with Gingerbread 2.3 on it for €149, an iPhone 4s costs €609. The HTC does everything I need.

I personally find android easier to text on.

iOS requires a Mac and also a developer licence for $100 a year to write apps for it.

iPhones - why you no gorilla glass?! :mad:

mickoneill30

jeromeof wrote: »

IMO the whole back button in Android is a major flaw. Its is completely inconsistent and there is no visible clue to whether you need to push the back button. With some apps it goes to previous screen, some apps it exits them back to the home screen and with some apps it does nothing. .

I'm not into the Android vs iPhone debate, I'm in the get whichever floats your boat camp but for your argument above I disagree.

I have an Android. I can't remember ever being confused in apps about going back or searching. At the bottom of my phone are 4 buttons.
Home / Settings / Back / Search.
They're handled pretty consistently by most apps.
If 4 buttons labelled like that are confusing to users then that may be a user issue and if it's that confusing then smartphones (of whatever flavour) may not be the best option for the user.

jeromeof

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I'm not into the Android vs iPhone debate, I'm in the get whichever floats your boat camp but for your argument above I disagree.

I have an Android. I can't remember ever being confused in apps about going back or searching. At the bottom of my phone are 4 buttons.
Home / Settings / Back / Search.
They're handled pretty consistently by most apps.
If 4 buttons labelled like that are confusing to users then that may be a user issue and if it's that confusing then smartphones (of whatever flavour) may not be the best option for the user.

I didn't say it was confusing rather it was horrible inconsistent. There is a huge difference. I agree most of the time the back button goes back, except when it doesn't, i.e. it exits the app back to the menu. Other cases are things like switching between Apps and using the backbutton, sometimes you jump out of one app back into the other sometimes you go back in the current app (even though the previous screen you were on is in a different app). Its not confusing and people learn to live with it and probably most people don't notice it but its not consistent.

gbee

I've an iPhone 4 and love it, my sons have both Android ~ I love them too. The Android seems faster but somehow just not sa slick as the iPhone 4.

I would not miss the iPhone at all if I moved

squonk

FWIW regarding the button thing, I like the 1 button solution. I got a different view of it though when I bought an iPad for my parents a few months ago. They're not overly computer or gadget literate and even with one button my mam, especially, could get confused at times. Eventually the message is getting across that if you run into any problems, just hit the home button and there ya go! With 4 buttons I really couldn't have managed this. It's too confusing.

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on an Android phone for a few weeks to try it out. I have been looking at an Android tablet belonging to a workmate for the past few days and while it's a good spec machine, I'm not too sold on the OS. He had difficulty installing flash on it but the upgrade to ICS went OK. I don't really get the point of widgets. They seem to just use battery unnecessarilly. Also, the layout on Android looks quite fiddly. There's nothing on IOS to stop you setting your apps up in the order you wish. I've looked at some of his apps and they just weren't as slick as the iPhone equivalents. Admittedly I've just tried a reader fully so far but both the Kindle and iBooks iPhone equivalents are far better. The settings menus on Android look a mess too. IOS is no saint in that regard either but at least it seems more navigable.

I've seen Linux in it's early days and Android reminds me very much of that. Yes, you could do what you wanted with Linux and chop and change everything and anything but, early on, it wasn't a setup you could go home and turn on and have verything work fuly all the time. Even so, some apps on it looked great but a lot looked naff. Now Linux has come on well with maturity and I don't doubt that Android is going to reach that stage as well. Apple take a very consistent approach. If you look at very early versions of OS X, they're not 100 miles away from a lot of what you see on a new Mac today. In some ways, that familiarity is a good thing. Look at the chaos that's going to happen when MS release Windows 8 for instance. Over time, it can be quite difficult to remember how to change X and Y in various versions of Windows. Rapid change isn't always a great thing.

I've jailbroken my iPhone before and hated the result. What I got was an unstable phone. If you don't make too many changes things are OK and the device remains relatively stable but then you have to question why you're breaking it in the first place. At the end of the day, I spend most of my working day in IT working with and configuring machines of various types. I like Macs and, by entension, iDevices because they do what they say on the tin and the config is minimal. They do it very well and are always dependable. You get your updates when they're available the same as everybody else. They also are very well designed devices. Some Android devices are well designed and put together too but there's a real feeling of quality from an Apple device that's very hard to beat. I took a trip around Curry's one day recently. I was looking through their Table selection. Most weren't the latest model and, to be honest, those that were there were either thick, or heavy and just clunky in general. The nicest one there was a Samsung tab, maybe the first Galaxy but certainly the one that kicked off the patent litigation. It was nice enough except for the big SAMSUNG logo at the front. Because of that, you automatically had a (annoying) reference point that indicated the orientation of the tablet. I don't know how many times I've looked for the button on the bottom of my iPad only to realise it's at the top. Orientation isn't as important and the button is far more subtle. For me it's the entire package that counts. A very decent OS and an extremely well thought out and well put together piece of hardware. Going over and picking up the iPad 2 that day in Curry's instantly put all the Android tablets there in second place.

DubDJ

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I got a HTC Explorer with Gingerbread 2.3 on it for €149, an iPhone 4s costs €609. The HTC does everything I need.

I personally find android easier to text on.

iOS requires a Mac and also a developer licence for $100 a year to write apps for it.

iPhones - why you no gorilla glass?! :mad:

That's Rubbish.

A HTC Explorer is not comparable with an iPhone 4S. Try maybe the Galaxy Nexus v iPhone 4S and then you have two phones with pretty similar specs. And there selling for roughly the same price.

Also iPhones do use Gorilla Glass so wrong again.

Kev_2012

DubDJ wrote: »

That's Rubbish.

A HTC Explorer is not comparable with an iPhone 4S. Try maybe the Galaxy Nexus v iPhone 4S and then you have two phones with pretty similar specs. And there selling for roughly the same price.

Also iPhones do use Gorilla Glass so wrong again.

I said that it costs FAR less but does everything I need. I know they differ immensely spec-wise. My point is, that you can't get an iOS mobile other than the 4S and that costs €609, and I would rather pay 1/4 of that for the explorer that does everything I want.

And I hate to break it to you, but iPhone do not use Gorilla Glass, hence why the screens break very easily. Source : http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/#products-with-gorilla

TBi

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I said that it costs FAR less but does everything I need. I know they differ immensely spec-wise. My point is, that you can't get an iOS mobile other than the 4S and that costs €609, and I would rather pay 1/4 of that for the explorer that does everything I want.

And I hate to break it to you, but iPhone do not use Gorilla Glass, hence why the screens break very easily. Source : http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/#products-with-gorilla

3gs is 350.

And from the site you linked:

Due to customer agreements, we cannot identify all devices that feature Gorilla Glass. Your favorite device may include Gorilla Glass, even if you don't see it listed. Ask your manufacturer or retailer to learn more.

So you can't say it doesn't have gorilla glass.

1ZRed

I doubt the iPhone uses gorilla glass but I've dropped it countless times from quite a height and have yet to even take chip out of it.
I hardly have any scratches on it even, and the ones I have are only visible when reflecting light.
I don't get why people think iPhones are so delicate.

TBi

1ZRed wrote: »

I doubt the iPhone uses gorilla glass <SNIP>

I'd be surprised if it didn't use gorilla glass.

windingo

I tend to lean more towards apple products but have to say I am the owner of an android pruely based on price, I have ipod and imac so i'm all for Apple but you get way better price plans on contract for android than apple.

Kev_2012

TBi wrote: »

3gs is 350.

And from the site you linked:


So you can't say it doesn't have gorilla glass.

I knew the 3GS would be mentioned. It's 2 generations older than the current model! And still €350. I think more than €200 for any phone is insane.

iPhones do not use Gorilla Glass, I don't know why you are insisting they do. They probably use some other brand of "toughened" glass, but it's definitely not GG.

1ZRed wrote: »

I doubt the iPhone uses gorilla glass but I've dropped it countless times from quite a height and have yet to even take chip out of it.
I hardly have any scratches on it even, and the ones I have are only visible when reflecting light.
I don't get why people think iPhones are so delicate.

I'm basing it on friends of mine who have iPhones. The screens break quite a lot from what I've seen. I'm sure others have dropped theirs and not broken them, but from my experience, they break quite often if dropped.

Quazzie

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I'm basing it on friends of mine who have iPhones. The screens break quite a lot from what I've seen. I'm sure others have dropped theirs and not broken them, but from my experience, they break quite often if dropped.

You must have clumsy friends

Kev_2012

Quazzie wrote: »

You must have clumsy friends

No, just friends who don't wrap their phones in bubblewrap.

TBi

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I knew the 3GS would be mentioned. It's 2 generations older than the current model! And still €350. I think more than €200 for any phone is insane.

You said the 4S was the only phone. I was just correcting that.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

iPhones do not use Gorilla Glass, I don't know why you are insisting they do. They probably use some other brand of "toughened" glass, but it's definitely not GG.

Please provide your proof that they don't? I never said they did, only that you can't prove they don't from your link.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I'm basing it on friends of mine who have iPhones. The screens break quite a lot from what I've seen. I'm sure others have dropped theirs and not broken them, but from my experience, they break quite often if dropped.

My friend dropped one of the original Nokia 'tough-phones' and it broke. What's your point? That things break when they fall? Wow we need an emergency PSA!

DubDJ

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I said that it costs FAR less but does everything I need. I know they differ immensely spec-wise. My point is, that you can't get an iOS mobile other than the 4S and that costs €609, and I would rather pay 1/4 of that for the explorer that does everything I want.

And I hate to break it to you, but iPhone do not use Gorilla Glass, hence why the screens break very easily. Source : http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/#products-with-gorilla

Yeah but for me the 3GS would do anything I need it to but it costs only €350, putting how old it is aside. I like my iPhone 4 because it does everything I need and more.

And I hate to break it to you but the iPhone DOES use Gorilla Glass. The released their suppliers list a few months back and they listed Corning as their screen maker for iOS devices.

See here for full details if you don't believe me! Besides i've dropped my iPhone 4 so many times and neither the glass on front or back has even a mark on it.

Kev_2012

TBi wrote: »

You said the 4S was the only phone. I was just correcting that.


Please provide your proof that they don't? I never said they did, only that you can't prove they don't from your link.


My friend dropped one of the original Nokia 'tough-phones' and it broke. What's your point? That things break when they fall? Wow we need an emergency PSA!

Fair enough, but the 3GS is still 3 years old. My point was that Apple don't have a current generation phone at a lower price point.

Well most articles on that suggest that Corning make the glass but it's not Gorilla Glass. iPhones use a lighter glass made by Corning. http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-confirms-Corning-is-making-the-glass-on-iPhones_id27664

My point is that I've seen more iPhones break than any other phone. I thought that was quite clear.
Here is a head to head test if you wanna take a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKxgsrJFhw

DubDJ wrote: »

Yeah but for me the 3GS would do anything I need it to but it costs only €350, putting how old it is aside. I like my iPhone 4 because it does everything I need and more.

And I hate to break it to you but the iPhone DOES use Gorilla Glass. The released their suppliers list a few months back and they listed Corning as their screen maker for iOS devices.

See here for full details if you don't believe me! Besides i've dropped my iPhone 4 so many times and neither the glass on front or back has even a mark on it.

€350 for a phone is still a crazy amount. For my personal use, I find that my €149 HTC does everything I need plus more. Therefore I saved €200. Simple maths.

Yeah I'm not denying that Corning make the glass, I said it's not Gorilla Glass. Please read my posts correctly and stop twisting my words.

Well then lucky you. Others haven't been so fortunate it seems.

gbee

Discussion is futile, infantile and immature. I'm not rich enough to choose, my phone was free.