Comparing the iPhone And Android 2.0

Comparing the iPhone And Android 2.0
Written by Karl Martineau
October 30th, 2009
Verizon's Droid has finally reared its head, and it looks pretty impressive. It looks like Motorola has pulled itself up by the bootstraps and released a solid piece of hardware. What I'm more interested in though is the Android 2.0 platform the phone runs.

A vocal group has been clamoring for the demise of the iPhone since . . . well, pretty much since it was announced. Despite Microsoft's continued attempts to push out a good version of Windows Mobile (recently rebranded as Windows Phone), the most recent release even disappointed Steve Ballmer himself. And since the Palm and BlackBerry offerings thus far have left more disappointment than anything else, it looks like the future of smartphones could very well turn out to be a battle of Google vs. Apple. So what do the two different models really have going for them?

iPhone

The iPhone was the first full touchscreen phone, released several years ago by Apple. Despite negativity from doubters and naysayers, the iPhone quickly established itself as a serious competitor in the smartphone market. The iPhone quickly grabbed enough market share that only RIM's BlackBerry phones can even be considered serious competitors at the moment.

Why the success? Apple does a few things very well. For one, the ability to closely integrate the hardware and software development provides a huge advantage in making sure that everything works the way it's supposed to. Although their products still have bugs and problems, their general catchphrase of "It just works" tends to hold true.

In addition , the iPhone is the iPhone. There are a few generations of it, but generally speaking, the hardware capabilities are well known, which makes it easy for developers to create new applications. They know exactly what the phone is capable of, and build to that specification. Apple's iPhone App Store has gained tons of momentum, providing a quick and easy way for users to get what they want. Although reviews from a developer's standpoint have been mixed, this software distribution model is challenging the traditional means of getting software to the people who want it.

So what's bad about the iPhone? Well, it's proprietary and closed. Very closed. Most end users don't care a hill of beans about the open vs. closed source ideological debate, but it does matter to some. And it definitely matters to developers. The root of the problem is that if you don't like the way Apple does something, well, that's tough. Find a new phone. Oh sure, you can lobby Apple, or become a developer and suggest improvements and find bugs, or even try to write your own software to work around whatever thing is particularly bugging you. But for most of us, you either live with it, or don't buy it.

Android 2.0

If you're not familiar with Android, it's an operating system based on Linux, geared toward mobile phones, and led by Google. Several manufacturers have already released phones built on Android, with varying success. Verizon's upcoming Droid phone built by Motorola is the first phone that runs on the newest version of Android, and according to Verizon, it is the iPhone killer.

Most of the new features in Android 2.0 are geared towards playing catchup with the iPhone - things like improved virtual keyboard, and a better browser. There are some new things that are pretty exciting though. Android 2.0 has the ability to aggregate multiple accounts for email. This allows you to see all messages from all your accounts without having to switch inboxes all the time, which is required on the iPhone. Increased camera capabilities have been added as well. Android supports background applications, which is something that many wish the iPhone had.

While the new Droid looks impressive and a heated battle is sure to come (at least from Verizon's marketing division), I'm much more interested in the overall war being fought here. In many ways, Android is the exact opposite of Apple's iPhone model. First and foremost, Android is just software despite the Motorola Droid's name. Hardware is developed independently by whoever wants to put Android on their phone. Since Android is open source, the software development is done by anybody that's interested, with Google overseeing development and putting everything together.

Are hardware developers at a disadvantage when working with Android then? That's a tough question. While there are lots of developers out there working on Android, the fact that it's an open system alleviates some of the concerns that would otherwise exist. For example, if you wanted to create a phone to work with Windows Phone, you're stuck with exactly what you get from Microsoft. By contrast, if you really wish Android handled something differently, you can get the source code and hack it to behave the way you want. This is a huge reason that hardware companies might pick Android over Windows Phone. But on the other hand, if you're a phone hardware company, how much of your resources do you really want to put towards software development? What about towards software development your competitors can freely use too? But you do at least have the option, and if you felt like spending the resources, you could really spend time integrating the hardware and software in much the same way Apple does.

But open software comes at a price too. The very thing that I just mentioned as one of the biggest perks of open source software - the ability to customize - is also one of it's downfalls. When you buy an iPhone, you get an iPhone. There aren't many choices, and it works just like your buddies iPhone. When you buy an Android phone, that's simply not the case. Your fancy new Droid might have a 5 MP camera and great physical keyboard, but your buddy might be stuck with a 2 MP camera and no keyboard. And the interface could be completely different. And the processor . . . I won't go on. The point is that quite frankly, many consumers want simplicity. They want to buy the thing and start using it now, not spend two months researching this phone vs. that phone by both hardware and software.

Summary

In the end, it's really hard to compare Android 2.0 and iPhone. Each has distinct advantages and disadvantages. The future will bring lots of shootouts, and I'm sure that for years to come, every new Android-based phone that comes out will be touted as the iPhone killer. But as for me, I don't think that will happen for quite a while. It's not that Android isn't capable, but rather that it isn't focused enough. Apple drives it's products with laser precision and pinpoint focus, and they typically do what they're meant to do very well. Android is like the smart kid with ADHD: flashes of brilliance that sometimes fade to nothing, focus going in so many directions that it's hard to get anything done. It might get the job done and kill the iPhone. But then again . . . you wanna go ride bikes?