Android Is Apple’s Burger King | Hacker News Reader

Android Is Apple’s Burger King

regulargeek.com

23 pointslawn30 comments

Affirming the author's point, Burger King just added a new breakfast sandwich to their menu. In their advertising they are surprisingly open about its origins:

In a new 30-second commercial from agency Crispin Porter & Bogusky, BK's mascot, the King -- armed with a flashlight and donning a hoodie -- breaks into McDonald's headquarters in the wee hours of the morning to copy the recipe for McD's Sausage McMuffin with Egg sandwich. A voice-over says, "It's not that original but it's super affordable ... egg, sausage and cheese on a toasted English muffin."

http://adage.com/article?article_id=143106

You can't get the onions taken off a burger at McDonalds?

I'm with you; I have no idea what that headline is supposed to mean.

Maybe it's a secret that you can "have it your way" at McDonald's as well. I always order the big Mac without onions or pickles.

Agreed, I've been able to do this in every McDonalds in a half-dozen countries. My brother hated pickles and always got them removed, I don't know what McDonalds this guy goes to but he should really complain to head office about them for poor customer service because McDonald is much better with customers than this article is suggesting. I've had them substitute and switch almost everything at one point or another and in multiple different stores without a problem.

The only company I've known to be better is Wendy's who will do virtually anything you want to a burger.

I haven't eaten at Mcdonalds since i was a kid, but when I was a kid, every time we went there I asked for no onions on my burger. And every single time, there were onions on the damn thing.

This would be true if Android didn't suck.

I've had an iPhone for three years and got a Nexus One, supposedly the best Android handset, last month. My company makes some of the top book apps on the iPhone and we decided to pay for a port to Android. So, I used the Nexus One as my primary phone for a month.

It's awful. The keyboard is inaccurate, the interface is awkward, the default mail app requires the use of hard to hit hardware buttons to check a different account or even compose mail. The icons have no consistent theming, making the platform look thrown together. Android just is just not a good operating system.

The hardware itself? Fine, though the OLED display oversaturated colors, which makes the apps all look 'off'. They had developers targeting one type of display, then changed to one that makes everything look strange- not exactly stellar platform planning.

To say that Android is following in the footsteps of Apple and then improving on the product is ludicrous. Android is like Windows 2.0. Maybe in another ten years they'll have a successful clone of the iPhone OS 2.0, but, for now, they're still nowhere close to being there.

And of iPhone 3.0 or 4.0? You've got to be kidding.

The fun-part: 99,9% of end-users don't care about any of what you just said. They care about being able to get a fancy touchscreen handset with "apps and all" for $99. That's how android is gaining initial market share.

I personally have a G1 and yes, it sucks. But I've also seen the progress they made during the one year I have owned it and it's quite impressive, to say the least.

Your assessment that android is not up there with the iPhone yet is correct. But the nexus is much closer to the iPhone than you make it out to be. For each of the shortcomings you mention there are also upsides (multitasking!). I'm giving it 2-3 generations before the android handsets surpass the iPhone. Unless apple comes up with some big changes ofcourse - like introducing multitasking which will be considered a basic smartphone feature soon.

If history has taught us anything then that open always wins. If the apple closed platform manages to suppress the android open platform perpetually then that would be a first.

"If history has taught us anything then that open always wins."

The web and unix-like OS's are the only two examples I can think of off the top of my head where open platforms have done well. Windows was closed, and its much more popular for consumer desktop apps and game development. Video game consoles are all closed and there are no open alternatives I'm aware of.

I'm not saying I don't think open might win in the long run, but I don't think I would agree that history has taught us that it always wins. Not yet anyway.

In fact, the iPhone/iPad is vastly more open than any game console: you can develop commercial applications for it on an almost level playing field with the largest title producers, and market your products on the same shelf as they do, at a tiny cost. What do pro dev kits for the X360 cost again?

Bad example, you can get on the XBox360 marketplace for $99 dollars these days.

The iphone was vastly more open than almost any phone before it was. Just android is completely open.

I'm not sure you've heard about Symbian, it's only 47% of the smartphone market [1]. You can develop apps for Symbian and install them on your device very easily. Unless you are doing anything hardcore they can even be self-signed (since Symbian OS 9.1 released in 2005 apps have to be signed to be installed) as long as they don't need any hardcore capabilities.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

Is Symbian to Nokia what XNA is to the X360?

I don't know, but Symbian does have the largest value share of the platforms at Nokia (S30/S40, Symbian, Maemo).

Give me a break. People writing XNA games are not on a level playing field --- at the platform level --- with people writing retail titles.

This is correct. The XNA framework for indie XBox 360 game development has serious technical limitations that set it apart from the "professional" development kit (which I am not able to obtain the price for, as I am not already an established game production company).

Being forced to write in managed code on top of a library of entirely managed code with an uncontrollable garbage collector is one technical issue off the top of my head.

But the price part isn't relevant- iPhone is $99, the only advantage Android has right now is being on more carriers in the United States. All signs point to Verizon being up to bat in July, nixing that single advantage.

I'm not sure that open matters as much on a phone- the iPhone, as a 'kind of open' marketplace, is able to filter for quality and provide a more consistent interface for getting applications. Browsing the Android Market just isn't a good experience.

Open usually wins because better applications result- so far, that hasn't come even close to happening. The Android UI elements ensure nasty looking out of the box products without major tweaking, and the Mac designer culture has lead to beautiful interfaces for iPhone that aren't available anywhere else.

History's useful as a guide, but sometimes things happen that break the cycle- it's my belief that that is the case with iPhone OS.

Maybe I'm showing my age but the Android model is somewhat similar to what 3DO had in mind... single OS on multiple game console manufacturers and profit off the licensing fees. That didn't turn out too well.

I don't know what world you live in, but in mine, Apple is crushing Google, so I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of users don't care about the "progress" Google is making either.

The iPhone sold 25.4 million units last year (15% of the market share). There were 7.7 million Android units (8% of the market share) sold. As the first iPhone came out 1.25 years before the first Android phone, this is by no means a crushing. Android has only recently been advertised, most of that by Verizon (99% of my customers who ask about android ask about Droid, not Android).

The fact you can get android phones for free/cheap and on almost every carrier is likely enough to grant them a larger eventual marketshare than iPhoneOS. There are only so many AT&T subscribers (or people willing to be AT&T subscribers after that wiretapping thing and their poor performance in cities).

You can like the iPhone better (and I do) and still admit "Oh hey, Android phones are getting sold a lot these days".

Source: http://technorati.com/technology/android/article/nearly-8-mi...

How can 15% = 25.4 million while 8% = 7.7 million?

Yeah, looks like I had issues with copy pasting and rounding. Look at the article for real numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "crushing". As far as I know the battle has only begun a few months ago, and obviously apple-marketshare is dwarfing android marketshare today - android is the newcomer.

However, I think the simple problem that apple will be facing soon is that android undercuts them. You can buy android handsets in all price-ranges, whereas apple will probably want to keep the iPhone a premium item.

In consequence that means daddy is more likely to buy his daughter a $99 android for her first handset than a $499 iphone. And when that handset breaks she will be familiar with android, thus might tend to look at the higher range androids before the iPhone.

That's how the userbase is building already. And as we know, userbase means developer interest, developer interest means apps, apps mean improved experience. Improved experience eventually means trouble for the iPhone's unique selling point ("best expirience money can buy").

Where exactly do you come up with these prices? It is pretty easy hit apple.com and see that an iPhone 3G is $99 and a 3GS is $199. This is what is killing Android -- the supposed price differential no longer exists and so they have to go head-to-head with the iPhone on features and ecosystem. For the former the feature list on phones at these price points are pretty similar, and on the latter Android does indeed get "crushed" by the Apple ecosystem.

Excuse me?

The iPhone 3GS without contract starts at $499 today, almost 1 year after its release. The nexus was introduced at $529. A HTC Hero starts at around $345.

Wanna bet what the difference between the 3GS and nexus looks like in a year from now?

If you start looking into older models (G1 vs older generation iPhone) the difference becomes more dramatic, that's where I pulled the $99 figure from. You can already grab a G1 for around $100 on eBay. It won't be long before the new (and more worthwhile) low-end models enter that price-range.

That's when the trouble for apple starts. A G1 is obviously no competition for an iPhone of any generation, no matter the price-point. A droid or nexus in the sub-$200 range? Now that's a different story.

And yes, you can buy all phones with a 2 year contract to stretch out the cost. But that doesn't change the price difference and much less the trend that android handsets are racing for the bottom whereas the iPhone is (so far) firmly set in the premium segment.

You're betting on a wholesale restructuring of American phone pricing. As of today, phones are purchased with contract, and iPhones are being sold at the same price as Android phones. Unlocked iPhones are being sold at the same price as unlocked Android phones.

Thus far, Apple has shown a willingness to go for a volume pricing strategy- they aren't making the same pricing mistake twice. They're playing to win.

You're betting on a wholesale restructuring of American phone pricing. As of today, phones are purchased with contract, and iPhones are being sold at the same price as Android phones.

Huh? I'm betting on nothing. I just quoted the retail prices of the devices as google found them for me. Whether you purchase them with contract or not doesn't make a difference other than pay now versus pay later.

Yes, apple may lower the iPhone prices to match up the cheaper android devices. There's just a tipping point where that won't make sense anymore. It won't be long before we see nexus-grade devices hit the street for half the price of a comparable iPhone, with equal build quality and feature-set. What then, will apple sell the latest iPhone for $199 without contract? Will they add some gimmick to justify the premium price (what could that be then?)?

Touchscreen phones are becoming a commodity and apple can't change that. This is not a "bet" or guess, it's just plain old market forces at work (many manufacturers competing for the android market versus, well, apple).

Note that this is a bit of a different story than the mp3 player market. The ipod arguably still is the best mp3 player you can buy and afaik apple still holds the clickwheel patent to ensure that doesn't change too soon.

In the smartphone market the difference is nowhere near as clear cut. Android already is pretty close and apple doesn't hold any patents to push it back (unless you think they can win the multitouch case). So, as said, in short order we'll see android phones that match the iPhone experience. In fact, I'm quite sure soon enough we'll see android apps that skin your android to look near indistinguishable to an iPhone. Unless iPhone OS makes great leaps before that this might become the ultimate humiliation. How will apple sell me their $499 brick when my $199 brick plus a $5 app makes it look like theirs, plus multitasking and stuff?

That's the crossroad where apple will have to decide between trying to compete on price against the likes of HTC - or letting the iPhone fade back into a niche.

I develop professionally for both platforms, and have both types of phones (And ironically do book, sound and video apps as part of my development life)

Android (the ecosystem, not the development environment) is different than the iPhone, but not better or worse at this point. Both have strengths, and once most phones are carrier upgraded to 2.0/2.1 (as they're supposed to be before 7/1/2010), some of the biggest weaknesses will go away. The amusing thing is that none of the fundamentals are better on android beyond the multitasking, and it's apple's willful overcontrol of their ecosystem which grants 80% of android's wins.

The developer tools suck for android compared to the Apple ones (I've spoken about this at length in past comments), especially their lack of GUI layout tool.

Android is a great product though. If the iPhone wasn't here, people would be buying it in droves still (and people are buying it in droves, which wouldn't be the case if apple went for a more carrier agnostic approach). There is no quality control so everything looks different, for sure. Google's apps are meh for the most part. However that little bit of openness makes it so people can do what they want on the phone, and it has an API for most everything. Here are things android can do that the iPhone can't:

Reactive intents to handle events on the phone via custom third party apps.

These intents means the phone's ringer can be turned off for certain numbers at 6pm, other calls can always be ignored, other calls can result in loud warning rings. Apple has no way at all to even change half the sounds, never mind ringer profiles for different times of days like cell phones have had since 1999 even in the default interface, never mind actually writing a 3rd party API for it.

Android phone apps can interact with the calendars. Apple's can't.

Android phones can use custom ringers. Apple's Can't

Android phones can record telephone calls, Apple's decided that's verboten no matter what.

Android phones can help manage the small resources on the phone. Apple gets pissy when you even think about looking in areas of the phone beyond your sandbox.

Apple phones are forbidden from using third party calling services. Android phones can use whatever they want (this really bugs me, as I use 2 different calling services to help with business issues).

Additionally, android supports physical keyboards (did you know women with nails can't really use onscreen keyboard? Their nails don't register on touches so thumb keyboards are very awkward if usable at all for them).

Oh yeah: Other strengths: Available on all major carriers at the moment. The current height of agnosticism for the iphone is that you can hack your iPhone to run on t-mobile.

The Apple error handling capability, especially when dealing with movie player errors, is practically non-existant. Android has much better disaster recovery abilities

Where are the apple strengths?

The UI is prettier (but not always more usable) for most apple apps.

The on screen keyboard is stronger on the iPhone platform

The dev tools are far and a away better

The documentation and examples are much better for iPhoneOS

The MoviePlayer is much better on iPhoneOS (even though they did a vast, app breaking revamp for 3.2).

The fact the apps are compiled C code based of GCC makes the platform easier to target with 3rd party languages (like Corona or others)

The fact there are so many fewer phone installed OS's (and that the user is stuck where their handset manufacturer provides them) means apple has a big win on consistent underlying OS.

The constant screen aspect ratios allows cheaper fixed width art.

The creation of support technologies (such as Notifications, In-App purchases, and HTTPLiveStreaming) make the apple iPhone do certain things quite a bit easier.

So all and all: the iPhone is more polished. But lacking an iPhone for their carrier, many people are very happy with android phones (at least the android part, people are POed about the battery life in the G1). Additionally, many people find the Apple Will Control Your Life not just idealistically chafing, but also in the way of what they're trying to do every day. I'm seriously considering swapping to an android phone for everyday use once they upgrade them all to 2.0/2.1 so I can get reasonable 3G performance (and so I can use multiple dialers). But at the same time, I'm buying an iPad (Which ostensibly I'll need to use for work to debug iPad apps, but I also expect to surf with it on the couch). Apple has repeatedly exercised control in areas which do not help it's technical fundamentals and has lost out to android in those areas. It's almost comical that Android is better than iPhone in some places only because Apple is controlling about certain things.

>If the iPhone wasn't here, people would be buying it in droves

What about the article's point that if the iPhone weren't here, Android would not be nearly as good as it is now?

Audio programming on Android is a particular pain point right now. There is no low level audio API and this makes it impossible to develop certain types of applications. Until Android can provide better audio support, the iPhone sound apps are going to destroy the Android competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com