Why Android may not Kill the iPhone?

With Google lately showing off the primary Android-powered device, there has been plenty of press attention over the open supply operating system. Given the problems a few iPhone builders have in writing packages for the Apple device, delivered about by using a restrictive NDA that prohibits them from discussing code and, therefore, collaboratively solving troubles, is Android a more appealing device for the app builders? And if it’s far, does that imply it will be an iPhone killer? In a word, no. Here’s why:

Android is already very past due; Google tousled via maintaining builders placing on. They went a few ways to seek to repair that, but a lot of damage was already done. The iPhone platform has been around for a year, and the legit SDK for numerous months, giving it a head start. But the real problem is going to be the handsets. The entirety is trouble. Android is open-source, meaning everyone can use it, and everybody (including handset manufacturers) can make their own changes.

So, on the one hand, you have the iPhone, walking Mac OSX (well, iPhone OS, which is largely the equal aspect). Every reproduction of iPhone OS is more or less similar (at least in case you consider version 2 to be iPhone OS and cut-price model 1 that’s now jogging on the simplest a minority of devices).


iPhone OS currently runs on the best four hardware devices: iPhone 1st generation, iPhone 2n technology (3G), iPod Touch 1st generation, and iPod Touch second era. Between the ones, there are most effective four differences in be-had hardware: digital camera (not found in both iPod), GPS (no longer present in iPhone 1 or both iPod, even though place-conscious services are nonetheless supported in both via either wifi interrogation or cellular tower triangulation), cell phone/mobile community get right of entry to (iPhone most effective), and 3G statistics (best found in iPhone 3g). You can also argue a case for the vibrating characteristic that’s iPhone best, but this sort of phone-centric aspect infrequently warrants a point out.

So, if you want to put in writing an application for iPhone OS, it’s exceedingly clean because of exactly what you’re handling. For example, if you want to get right to entry to an image, the OS does all of the heavy lifting for you – it gives you a clean manner to check if you have a digital camera to be had. If you have, it lets you access it in a preferred way. If now not, you get to get the right of entry to the built-in Photos app. Either way, you will get access to images in a preferred manner.

If you want place-based offerings, you get the right of entry on all the hardware. If you manifest to discover yourself self-walking on an iPhone 3G, the working system will offer GPS information so that your region stuff will be more correct. Still, it’s going to work on the other hardware, nonetheless. Everything else is identical across all devices – equal screen size, resolution, languages, keyboards, accelerometers, audio capabilities, etc.

Compare that to an Android device. You can walk on any individual or potentially loads of different gadgets on the hardware side on your own. You don’t know what screen length you’ve got – it could be massive like the iPhone and tiny like a Nokia turn cell phone. How do you even start designing a consumer interface when you don’t know how much area you must do it in?

Then, you do not know the number of colorations you could support or if the device has a keyboard or is no longer there. It may have a touchscreen, or it may not. It would possibly have a joystick or d-pad, or it may not. So, how do you allow users to interact with your software if you do not know all the above?

Types of Apps

There are three main types of apps: desktop, mobile, and web. Like those mentioned above, desktop apps are usually much “fuller” and contain features. In contrast, the mobile or app equivalent is simpler and easier to use. This makes sense when you consider that most desktop and web apps are built to be used with a mouse and keyboard and a much larger display, but mobile apps are intended to be accessed with a finger or stylus on a small screen.

Web apps might be full of features, too. Still, they have to leverage the internet connection and web browser program capabilities, so while some are heavy-duty and can perform well, like mobile or desktop programs, most web apps are lightweight for a reason. They might install hybrid apps if an app mixes a wolf and a desktop app. These apps have an offline, desktop interface, dir, etc., access to hardware and other connected devices, and an always-on connection to the internet for quicker updates and access to internet resources.

Unlike the iTunes App Store, which vets all software earlier than setting it on sale, ensuring a minimal degree of first-class, inside the Google store, anything is going. Which method will be swamped with vain apps (many of which won’t make paintings for the motives previously mentioned)? Users will download one or more apps, see they don’t have pictures, and surrender. Chances are they’ll in no way find your photos of art among all the junk.

Apart from that, Android is a great idea. The cell market wishes for it because Nokia offered Symbian and could probably kill it, and Windows Mobile is horrible. So, Android will stimulate a few competitions. And if Google sees out its imagination and prescience, it will end up strolling DVD players, washing machines, and who knows what else. So it’s a useful project.

But for writing apps and getting them distributed, iPhone OS is light years beforehand. It’s also given Apple’s purchase advertising and marketing information behind it. Android is too techie and could take longer to capture with most people. After all, aside from iPhone users, who buys a smartphone based totally on which OS it runs?

Sandy Ryan
Writer. Music advocate. Devoted bacon trailblazer. Hardcore web fanatic. Travel junkie. Avid creator. Thinker. Skateboarder, coffee addict, record lover, reclaimed wood collector and RGD member. Producing at the junction of minimalism and mathematics to craft delightful brand experiences. I'm a designer and this is my work.