Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

06 Jan 2012, 2:36 pm

What's the difference?



roccoslife
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 386
Location: Essex, UK

06 Jan 2012, 4:03 pm

Android has a bit more freedom with apps, they have things like PS1 emulators on the android app store, apple doesnt allow that sort of thing. But the advantage of that is that there is a bit more quality control over iphone apps with less junk in the app store compared to android.

Theres not much of a difference in hardware between iphone and android phones. G4 is one generation behind the cutting edge though, unless the 4S counts as G4, i have no idea.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

06 Jan 2012, 5:12 pm

The "iPhone G4" doesn't exist and Android does?

Assuming you meant iPhone 4S, you're still not comparing like-for-like. Android is an OS, the iPhone 4S is hardware. I will therefore compare iOS and Android for you briefly.

If you want an OS which just works, has a lot of high quality apps, but lacks in customisation and general things for geeks to play with (unless you hack it), then go for iOS. It syncs up with things and does what it's meant to, and it'll rarely go wrong.

If you want an OS which is available on a wider range of hardware, has a lot of apps which may not be of fantastic quality (though that is changing), is very customisable and open, and has a range of custom builds to play with, but which you might have to put a bit more into to maintain, go for Android.

I personally use both and prefer iOS, but my geeky side does still have a soft spot for Android.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,398
Location: Over there

06 Jan 2012, 5:35 pm

[Moved from Random Discussion to Computers, Math, Science, and Technology]


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Aharon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 745
Location: Kansas

07 Jan 2012, 7:55 pm

My wife has an iPhone 4 and has no problems with it. My parents both have droids. My father is in his 4th phone in two months due to defects and glitches. To me, the biggest difference between droid and apple is QUALITY. Apple makes quality products with high resale value. Droid is a different story. That and droid is an apple rip off. Steve jobs wanted to see droid destroyed, because it's stolen! Thief, Baggins! Thief!! !!


_________________
We are not so different from potted plants in that, if given everything we need to be properly nourished, the outcome can be incredibly contrary to when we are not. A flower won't grow in flour, and neither can we.


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

07 Jan 2012, 7:57 pm

Aharon wrote:
My wife has an iPhone 4 and has no problems with it. My parents both have droids. My father is in his 4th phone in two months due to defects and glitches. To me, the biggest difference between droid and apple is QUALITY. Apple makes quality products with high resale value. Droid is a different story. That and droid is an apple rip off. Steve jobs wanted to see droid destroyed, because it's stolen! Thief, Baggins! Thief!! !!


Well it depends on the manufacturer of the phone. Droids are made by Motorola, who don't exactly have the best reputation. Android phones by HTC tend to be a lot more solid because they have a better standard of quality control in both hardware and software.



bryce13950
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

08 Jan 2012, 10:17 am

It cost 100 dollars to publish an IOS app. It costs 25 to publish something on the android market. You have to pay for more apps on IOS then on android. IOS does not filter out apps that will only run on later operating systems then what you have, android does. Android is completely open source to anybody with a computer, you technically have to own a mac to work with IOS. The android development kit is much easier to work with than the IOS development kit. There are a lot more apps on android then IOS. early builds of android are a little bit shaky, but since its open source any programmer can submit improvements to the OS, when you get down to 2.3 the OS is very stable. After 2 years of being on the market there are already more andorid phones in peoples hands then iPhones. Android will destroy IOS, but also watch for windows 8.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

08 Jan 2012, 10:23 am

bryce13950 wrote:
It cost 100 dollars to publish an IOS app. It costs 25 to publish something on the android market.


Rubbish. To publish an app on each platform costs nothing. It costs $100 to get a dev license for iOS, yes, but it's an annual fee, not per app, and you'll probably make more on the apps anyway.

Quote:
You have to pay for more apps on IOS then on android.


Complete nonsense.

Quote:
IOS does not filter out apps that will only run on later operating systems then what you have, android does.


Which is a good thing how? I find it irritating.

Quote:
Android is completely open source to anybody with a computer, you technically have to own a mac to work with IOS.


If you want to develop apps for iOS you need OS X, yes, but if you're just using an iOS device you can even sync it with Linux.

Quote:
The android development kit is much easier to work with than the IOS development kit.


Says who?

Quote:
There are a lot more apps on android then IOS.


Quantity isn't quality.

Quote:
early builds of android are a little bit shaky, but since its open source any programmer can submit improvements to the OS, when you get down to 2.3 the OS is very stable.


It took to 2.3 just to get it stable? iOS was stable from day one. I don't think saying that a programmer needs to modify the OS just to make it stable is a plus.

Quote:
After 2 years of being on the market there are already more andorid phones in peoples hands then iPhones.


Yes, because any company can make one, whereas there's only one company making iPhones.

Quote:
Android will destroy IOS, but also watch for windows 8.


Windows 8 will fail, and Apple and Googe will share the smartphone market.

I'm not hating on Android here, to be clear, I'm just playing devil's advocate and setting the record straight. Being biased towards either system is a bad thing.



bryce13950
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

08 Jan 2012, 11:27 am

Asp-Z wrote:
bryce13950 wrote:
It cost 100 dollars to publish an IOS app. It costs 25 to publish something on the android market.


Rubbish. To publish an app on each platform costs nothing. It costs $100 to get a dev license for iOS, yes, but it's an annual fee, not per app, and you'll probably make more on the apps anyway.


that came off wrong I meant to say what you said. Another thing I may ad is that to develop for both iPad and iPhone you have to pay the 100 dollar annual fee for both platforms whereas all you have to do for android is split layouts, and android's fee is not annual.
Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
You have to pay for more apps on IOS then on android.


Complete nonsense.

http://makingmoneywithandroid.com/2011/ ... st-report/

Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
IOS does not filter out apps that will only run on later operating systems then what you have, android does.


Which is a good thing how? I find it irritating.

You find it irritating that when you are running iOS 3.3 it shows you all the apps that are available for 4.2 even though you cannot download them?

Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
Android is completely open source to anybody with a computer, you technically have to own a mac to work with IOS.


If you want to develop apps for iOS you need OS X, yes, but if you're just using an iOS device you can even sync it with Linux.

I'm not even acknowledging the user end point of these OS's i'm just talking about why android is far superior from a developers stand point.

Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
The android development kit is much easier to work with than the IOS development kit.


Says who?

I do the android kit has a lot of built in website designer with features like click and drag layouts that allow you to see exactly what users will see. The legitimate iOS development kit may have this, but I would have to pay 900 dollars for a mac just to get it.
Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
There are a lot more apps on android then IOS.


Quantity isn't quality.

I was wrong about this, android has more free apps then iOS, but android is gaining apps faster then iOS.

Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
early builds of android are a little bit shaky, but since its open source any programmer can submit improvements to the OS, when you get down to 2.3 the OS is very stable.


It took to 2.3 just to get it stable? iOS was stable from day one. I don't think saying that a programmer needs to modify the OS just to make it stable is a plus.


apple has the people at apple working on iOS. Android has the people working on the android team working on android + an army of programmers working on making the OS do everything better for free. The OS was pretty much stable by 1.6 everything past that was improvement, and less then 10% of the phones that exist run anything before 2.0.

Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
After 2 years of being on the market there are already more andorid phones in peoples hands then iPhones.


Yes, because any company can make one, whereas there's only one company making iPhones.


Why didn't 3DO beat out playstation or N64 or even Sega Saturn for that matter? By the time the competition had hit the market 3DO was cheaper then all of them, and anybody could make a 3DO.

Asp-Z wrote:
Quote:
Android will destroy IOS, but also watch for windows 8.


Windows 8 will fail, and Apple and Googe will share the smartphone market.

I'm not hating on Android here, to be clear, I'm just playing devil's advocate and setting the record straight. Being biased towards either system is a bad thing.

Don't count out windows yet the new OS is looking to be very versatile, and Microsoft has just been doing the same thing they always have done waiting to see what everyone else does, and then going in with everything they have. I'm not saying windows is going to take over again, but they are just biding their time don't count them out yet.

Of course all of this is pretty much irrelevant since in 5 years an OS will be a simple means to access the cloud and it really wont matter what OS you have anyways.



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

08 Jan 2012, 5:11 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maemo looks the best, imo. It's the closest to an actual Linux OS on a phone. If I could ball out, I'd totally buy a Nokia N900.

Anyway, my opinion is that Apple OS is clearly the most technically sophisticated OS compared to Android. It's written off the Mach Unix kernel, and from what I understand, it's a miniaturized version of OSX. Android on the other hand, seems to me, like a Linux kernel that's covered in a bunch of Java crap that makes things really slow and inefficient. Google had it's reasons behind it, it makes the phone easy to develop for, and allows for a lot of hardware interchangeability, but overall, I don't like Android.

My comparisons are based on older phones, though. My mom's iPhone 3GS, and my and my sister's Motorola Android phones, mine running 2.1 and her's running 2.2. My phone is pretty glitchy with the factory 2.1, and I've been too lazy to try to upgrade it to the hacked up 2.3 OS available for it. I like Android's CONCEPT, much more than Apple, I traditionally hate Apple's stuff and the way they market computers, but I gotta admit iOS is much better. My main beef with Apple's iPhone is actually just more the design of the phone itself, my Android phone (old one, Motorola Backflip) has a physical keyboard I like very much, whereas Apple makes you use a touch screen which makes any typing more or less a huge pain.

My beef with Android, though, is more the, inefficiency in it all? My phone's specs are pretty lowly by Android standards, 528mhz, 256mb RAM. I ran SNES9x on my phone, and I couldn't even get full speed out of it, without using the onscreen touch keyboard thing. It was running Harvest Moon at like 50% speed. To me this is pathetic, as on Windows 98, I was running it full speed on like a 133-166mhz (can't remember which it was) Pentium 1, with like 16 or 32 megs of RAM, and a 4 gig hard drive. I understand the difference in platforms, but I'd get similar results emulating, on say, a Dreamcast with similar specs (200mhz, and it was ARM processor, too.) So I don't quite understand, and I've had various friends try to sorta explain this away, but I don't understand how I can get half the speed out of something with literally exponentially more power, 3x the processing power, and 8 to 16x more RAM.

To me, it just shows that Android is programmed to be wasteful as hell, and I think it's more a trend in modern computing in general, it's easier to program that way, and also people's tendency to want ridiculous things like transparent windows or whatever. This goes along with the impression of Android just not feeling as "clean" and "crisp" as iOS. My mom's old iPhone, an original 3G, similar specs to my Motorola Android phone, and it was much crisper and cleaner feeling and generally faster than my current Android phone.

I realize the iOS phones aren't as powerful as Android phones, but it's completely irrelevant really. The only reason like, dual core 1ghz (or are we up to dual core 2ghz?) Android phones are coming out is because the OS is programmed to be inefficient, mostly due to Java, and you need that stupid amount of power to do simple things like run an SNES emulator.

Anyway, I'm not too much of an expert about this kind of thing, but that's my opinion.

Last thing, too, Apple isn't completely original when designing much of anything. They're only good at bringing said original things to a broader market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada This came out before the iPhone, same design features. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto Apple copied the Mac from that. So Apple pretty much should quit crying, imo.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

08 Jan 2012, 5:54 pm

but if i build an android compatible micro i can install it for free and fiddle with it,


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


CloudWalker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 711

08 Jan 2012, 10:45 pm

What I hate about iPhone is that you can only sync to 1 computer. You'll need to use 3rd party programs if you want to upload stuffs from another computer that the phone is not officially tied to.



CloudWalker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 711

08 Jan 2012, 11:05 pm

Dreamcast used Hitachi SH4 not ARM. SH4 is superscalar which ARM doesn't use until Cortex-A8. I think it's more CPU problem than OS. From what I gather, Snes9x isn't exactly smooth on iPhone 3G either.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

09 Jan 2012, 1:26 am

Apple, Inc. is the one and only company behind both the iOS software and the hardware (iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and now even iPod nanos). Because of this, Apple exerts most of the control over the platform and has significant leverage over the carriers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint/Nextel). Apple operates the iTunes Store and iOS App Store.

Google does the bulk of development for the Android operating system/platform and provides the official Android Market, but its influence is less centralized. Google has worked with device manufacturers HTC and Samsung in the past to create a sort of prototypical Android smartphone: first the Google Nexus One, produced with HTC; then the Nexus S, produced with Samsung; and most recently the Galaxy Nexus, also produced with Samsung. The Galaxy Nexus, for example, is Google's attempt to demonstrate what Android 4.0 (codenamed Ice Cream Sandwich) can do. The Android 2.x line was the previous smartphone line (2.3 Gingerbread being its culmination) and the more transient 3.x Honeycomb line meant for tablets only; 4.0 is meant for both smartphones and tablets. Amazon operates its own Android app store, called the Amazon Appstore, that is used with, most notably, the Amazon Kindle Fire tablet. Since the Android platform is largely open source like this, such customization and forking is bound to happen.

Despite the relatively open nature of the core Android platform, issues with device manufacturers and mobile carriers make the experience significantly less open. For example, updates to the Android operating system may be delayed for months if they ever show up; a workaround to this is various rootkits and custom ROMs that usually void the warranty. The quality and experience of an Android device can vary considerably since manufacturers and carriers have more of the freedom; ironically, this can make the iOS a somewhat more "open" platform in some ways despite Apple's notorious heavy hand in what apps get approval for the App Store.

I myself use an iPhone 4S on a CDMA wireless network.



40djbrooks
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 144

09 Jan 2012, 2:02 pm

Well I have both the iphone 4 and galaxy S2 and I think both have their good and bad points.

Android is more open to manipulation and it is great for people who want to tinker, the iphone is for people who just want to setup and do what they require it do.

I found it more of a fiddle to add tracks on my galaxy s2 than my iphone, I think itunes makes the process so much easier. It is swing and roundabouts.