Ask HN: Has iOS irrevocably fallen behind? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Has iOS irrevocably fallen behind?

53 pointsaditya42135 comments

There is no good place to ask this, since there are loyalists on both sides. I can only hope that Hacker News has enough sane-minded people who will answer this properly (if it gets upvoted enough to show up on the front-page, of course).

After watching the complete Google I/O keynote and WWDC '10 keynote, even I have to admit that Android (Froyo) has left iOS behind on features. Articles like [these][1] might say that Apple has given a solid reply, but I don't think they have. When I see features like Android's cloud-to-phone messaging APIs, I long for them to be in iOS. But then iOS 4 has nothing of this sort. Froyo also has APIs to make app data searchable, which iOS 4 doesn't for non-Apple apps. And these are just a few things that looking back at it now makes iOS 4 just seem so much weaker. Gingerbread will be out in October if I believe Engadget, and that will pull Android further away from iOS. People can talk about fragmentation — which will become less of an issue with Gingerbread, and the fact that users don't care about such features. But developers do. If Apple falls behind on features that developers want, the App Store numbers they like to tout to loudly will stop growing so rapidly.

To be honest, as a user, iOS 4 adds nothing that truly stands out as "THIS is why I must have the iPhone" except for Facetime and the Retina Display. Being a long time Apple loyalist and enthusiast, it both worries and saddens me to see Apple so blatantly miss the boat. So my question is, has Apple dropped the ball after a solid start and fallen behind so much that the trickle of developers will slowly become a full flow which they won't be able to stop?

[1]: www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/06/08/apples-ios-wwdc-strikes-back-after-googles-android-io/

View on HN

As a developer I think you're obsessed with features. Whereas users don't necessarily want those features. Apple's bet is that users will reject the platform with more features in favor of the platform that works better.

Let's take your examples. When most people search their phone they're looking for information in either mail, contacts, or SMS messages. They don't want the data from the other hundred programs on their phone cluttering up the important results from those areas. So in this case Apple's stance is actually an advantage for the users.

On the cloud to device API it is nice but it's not like you can't accomplish the same goal simply by polling. So while this is an area where android is superior I don't think it's a feature that makes that much of a difference.

All that said the greatest argument against android winning because of features is the fact that they've always had more features than iOS. I mean if multitasking wasn't a big enough feature to woo users to android than I don't think something like cloud to device messaging is going to do it.

"Apple's bet is that users will reject the platform with more features in favor of the platform that works better."

For as long as Mac OS X 10.2 (that's when I jumped on board, so I can't comment about the OS 9 days), this has been how Apple has operated.

Mac OS X is actually pretty feature devoid, out-of-the-box. First thing I have to do when I get a new machine is install Google Search Box, Growl, Skitch, MarcoPolo just so it feels like it works right. I don't count these as applications; I think of them as base OS features. By laundry list of features, Windows comes out on top.

What is different is that Mac OS X's UNIX underpinnings, coupled with a thoughtful Cocoa API means that developers can fill in the gaps for power users, whereas everyone else is happy with the experience they get. I'm not sure if Apple's strategists really understand this, or if it is just the engineers. You could be forgiven for thinking the UNIX core is just some accident of history due to NeXT rather than any conscious effort.

iOS doesn't support extension like this, and it's deliberate and calculated. The App Store is not there to protect normal users, it's there to protect Apple. If you gave users the option of App Store apps and also the ability to install unsigned apps (with appropriate scary warnings), all the people Apple claims to be concerned about would function exactly as they do now, downloading from the App Store and avoiding everything else. Why would they need to do otherwise? Instead, we have an App Store that seems to be all about sticking it to Google and maintaining some Disney-esque political landscape. It's nothing like the Apple we used to know.

Its simple actually...

1) Apple was first-to-market. And I don't mean the iPhone. The iPod was when apple just used a rocket booster to jump ahead of the game, and finally their steam is running low.

- The iPod was revolutionary. - The iPod was never quite cloned "correctly" there was more to the iPod than meets the eye. By the time Apple removed the DRM restrictions it was too late for consumers, Apple had already made a dent in the market which others could not recover from. - When everyone finally caught up to the iPod... poof there goes the iPhone again darting apple ahead of the game. For at least 2 years before again anyone even came close. - The iPad is another attempt to do the same, but by now it did not dart them as far as the iPhone did. The competition is now riding on unicorns and are hard to out-meneuver.

2) Apple literally filled the void of the tech industry. The void was in usability. It was simple, give users a very friendly UI, and lets do away with core concepts we find important but most don't. I don't know how to explain "files" to my grandfather. He asks me "will my programs be there when I leave home with my laptop?" I tell him yes and no. You need an internet connection because to him his "programs" are the websites he visits. He can't even grasp the concept of moving files from hard disk to usb flash drive. To him "files" are mythical unicorns. And I see this from many people, he is just the best example. Apple is trying to cater to the audience of people who are completely lost with computers by making computers behave like "real" objects are inside them. The ipad is a great example because it makes things tangible. A child can understand it.

The point at the end is this: Apple never had "features" they had "usability". OSX is a great OS because it combines user friendliness with unix. That is why developers love it. Hey I can't get over how awesome it is that uninstalling an application is dragging it from applications to trash (just got a mac). And to top it all off its quite easy to find all configurations and such for any installed application. On top of it all I don't feel like I need to re-install mac osx every 6 months like I had to with windows xp. AND to make it even better their keyboard shortcuts are a perfect fit for a laptop keyboard without having to resort to a lack of home/end/page up/page down keys. I swear check out those 4 frequently used keys layout in ANY pc laptop. It is insanity. Look at mac, the defaults are made so that you can use the say layout/combinations everywhere, brilliant!

In the end apple is running out of steam. I think they will level out in a year or two taking their place as the new Microsoft of the industry (which is fine). I just wish macs were not so f-ing expensive. I mean I feel like I am getting inappropriately touched by Steve Jobs every time I add more ram to my order.

If you are paying Apple to add ram to your order, you certainly are being touched inappropriately by Steve. It's not your imagination.

Apple is trying to cater to the audience of people who are completely lost with computers by making computers behave like "real" objects are inside them. The ipad is a great example because it makes things tangible. A child can understand it.

Whoa, pour the kool-aid back for a moment. How does iOS fix the file problem? Seems to me they just got rid of the functionality completely. That doesn't solve anything. You can sync your iTunes shwag, but when it comes to email, contacts, documents, etc, grandpa is even more up the creek than before.

> As a developer I think you're obsessed with features. Whereas users don't necessarily want those features.

The Apple iPhone is a mobile experience.

Those of us who are fortunate to forgo its "lack" of features, understand that it can add value to part of the routine and boredom of day-to-day life.

It's actually fun to do something productive and/or kill time with it while out-and-about.

Repost but from presentation by Jared Spool of User Interface Engineering:

1st generation - It's about the Technology (Big mainframe computers - had to go to specialized training at HQ to be able to use it, let alone program it. Early dotcom sites where you could theoretically buy something if you could figure it out)

2nd generation - Features (Mobile phones with streaming TV, MP3 - all thrown in, loosely coupled, none integrated, some Internet portals)

3rd generation - Experience (Craigslist, MySpace (it does what their target market wants them to - peer communication), Google is getting there... Facebook is getting there, flying sheep aside).

In Jared's opinion, the Apple iPhone leapfrogged directly to the 3rd generation - it's not a phone, it's not a portable computer - it is a great way to kill time (everywhere I go I see people trying to kill time on their mobile phones, rarely is it an iPhone).

"When most people search their phone they're looking for information in either mail, contacts, or SMS messages."

Why even bother with a smartphone and an app store then?

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point but let me clarify my own and see if that addresses it. What I'm saying is when people use the phone search they are trying to search the phone part of the device (SMS, email, etc...). That doesn't preclude developeres from putting search in their own apps they just can't clutter up the phone search with results from their apps.

That in mind I see Apple's point here as being "we think developers will abuse search if they are allowed in and we don't think users want that so we're keeping them out". Not "Google beat us to that feature"

Apple might not be right in thinking that I'm just trying to point out that's their design philosophy and not a sign that Android has leap frogged them.

Hm, I am actually not sure what kind of searchability the OP is talking about. Of course you can't have random apps clutter a search in contacts. What happens on Android is that an App can specify that it is ready to answer certain types of searches. In certain situations, the user can choose the app he wants to search.

Lot's of useful applications for that come to mind. Do I have to ship a spell checker with my app, or can all apps share a spell checker? And so on...

Of course, yes, it could result in utter chaos, with 100reds of apps to choose from for a particular search. That kind of problem is really overblown, though, just like the multitasking problem. If an app annoys me or sucks too much energy, I just uninstall it...

That goes for pretty much any kind of "developers are going to abuse feature X" argument - annoying apps just get uninstalled, end of story.

There is a problem of potential sneaky apps, I guess. That is also existent on the iPhone, I suppose (don't they do their own user tracking), but of course there is slightly more potential with background tasks. Some common sense can eliminate most of the problems, though (ie why does an ebook reader need my GPS coordinates? Skip it).

Assuming the user can tell which app is misbehaving, they may already depend on it or be invested in it by the time they discover the problem. It may be the only app of it's kind.

Clearly, Apple is not simply trying to block bad apps, they are trying to force apps to be better, through the platform. I too am skeptical of this approach, but I understand where they're coming from.

  > What I'm saying is when people use the phone search
  > they are trying to search the phone part of the
  > device (SMS, email, etc...).

  > That in mind I see Apple's point here as being
  > "we think developers will abuse search if they
  > are allowed in and we don't think users want that
  > so we're keeping them out"

This is a straw man. Apple can weight the search so that search hits in the more important apps are always at the top of the results.

Google could do the same thing but unfortunately when I use the search function and search for "Rachel" (I have two in my address book) the first result is a web search for Rachel Maddow -- useless.

I was pointing out that if Apple enabled developers to their data into the main search functionality, it doesn't necessarily mean that the search results will be useless.

Ok well...first...you're using "straw man argument" wrong since I'm not trying to refute Apple's position (not trying to be snide but just to make you aware for future use)

On your point you're certainly right but I'd argue this is where we get into the realm of "pragmatist vs perfectinist". There is a UI hit to returning 1,000 results as opposed to 2 or 3. It's a small hit but it is there. Apple, as the creator of the device, has the right to choose to be perfectionist about things even if it makes developers unhappy

In my original post: s/straw man/weak argument/

I'm in disagreement with the idea that developers will abuse something that Apple has ultimate control over.

A few will abuse it, ruining it for everyone, unless Apple polices it vigilantly, which is a lot of work and tends to cause PR problems.

An app that goes wild can simply be uninstalled.

s/will abuse/can abuse/

I guess I should have been clearer. Apple can make it so that it's impossible for developers to abuse it.

Yes, Apple has that right. Is just a matter of choice for Apple and for developers.

Developers developers developers developers

I'll say it again. Apple iOS and the platform is at least 5 years ahead of all competitors.

Keep this in mind, noone has an answer for the iPod Touch or the iPad yet. The iPod Touch outsells the PSP and nearly the DS in devices and in terms of content sales via iTunes (games and entertainment, none come close).

The iPad is another gaming console in a way and a pretty cheap laptop replacement. Not to mention the book market.

The iPad and iPod Touch make up over 65%+ devices sold by Apple and brings the total iOS devices to over 100 million.

Other companies keep thinking this is a Phone only market. When in fact the iPhone is only about 35-40% of Apple's devices that use the iOS and the iTunes/Appstore platform.

Where is the response to that? How many years will it take others to understand this. Apple is owning the mobile and handheld market and is making a ploy for all entertainment devices not just phones. Apple has to love that the competition looks past 65%+ of their market every new device.

The iPod Touch and iPad are the equivalent of Apple II's in schools and candy cigarettes when it comes time for kids to grow up and buy a phone. All their apps and games will be there waiting for them when they get one. This market is about so much more than phones...

And why is the rest of the market so fixated on phones?

Because Google cannot sell an Android device on its own. They tried, remember?

Google as an institution knows even less about selling retail products than the average hot dog vendor. Meanwhile, Apple has very deliberately spent a decade building the best direct-to-customer retail operation in the tech industry, perhaps even in any industry.

So Google's customer-facing sales operation consists of mobile phone carriers. That's been effective so far, though I still wonder how much of its success is driven by the existence of iPhone carrier exclusivity -- nothing motivates Verizon to sell, sell, sell those Android devices like the threat of losing a flood of subscribers. But carriers are only interested in selling phones, because phones come with usage fees and contracts.

The lack of direct connection to the customer has all sorts of side effects on Google's business, and one is that they have no obvious way to effectively bring an Android-powered iPod Touch to market. They need to build a retail system from scratch - an even more difficult version of the task at which Gateway, Sony, and Microsoft have already failed - or they need a partner. Which partner? Existing gaming companies, the ones with the brands, all have their own platforms. Microsoft, for the moment, has their own platform. PC vendors have been selling commodity widgets for so long that they've forgotten how to sell something new. Is Google supposed to just buy shelf space at Best Buy and hope? Go back in time to the 1990s and ask the old Apple Computer how well that strategy worked.

> Because Google cannot sell an Android device on its own. They tried, remember?

I'm not sure about that, if you're talking about the N1. They barely even tried to sell it, I see the N1 as defining a (tentative) baseline for Android, which is supported by rumors of its configuration (1GHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 800xwhatever 3.5" screen) being the minimum configuration required for gingerbread.

"5 years ahead of all competitors."

I like your future guessing skills :-). I don't think I have clue what's going to happen next month.

How long would it take a company, even of Google's size, to create a handheld android device that competes with game handhelds? How long would it take to create a tablet that is as successful as the iPad? How long would it take to create a platform and store and get all the deals with the music industry, movie industry, book publishers, attract video game developers and more that could beat Wal-mart? All that isn't happening in a month...

I think 5 years is actually pretty generous considering it took Apple about 10 years (while they control both the hardware and software side making it much easier) and everyone else can see the path that worked.

To answer your first two questions, it would take many years. But unless you're privy to insider information from a lot of different companies, you can't rule out that all those devices are several years into their development already. I would be shocked if there aren't at least a couple Android tablets that have been under development for more than a year. As for your third question (how long to line up the content providers): not very long at all. Once Apple has paved the way, it is much easier to get those same media companies to give the same deal to a competing device, since those media companies don't like Apple having that much control over their content i the first place.

I don't know if we're going to be using handheld devices like the iPad 5 years from now.

I don't want to make fun of you or anybody but trying to predict the future, seems to be something everyone fails.

People fears to say "I don't know" it's kinda like religion, lol.

I disagree, we can use the past to inform the future so it's not the same as religion. I think it's a much better bet to say that devices like the iPad will be more popular 5 years from now than to bet that they're going away. Sure it's silly to put specific numbers to it, but we can estimate the broad strokes to a better than chance accuracy.

Don't predict the future. Bet on the future. If you want to have the mobile skills that will be in demand two or even five years from now, pick what that will be and invest in learning them. You can always hedge by dabbling in the other platform.

For me, I am learning iOS first and Android later (Actively pursuing and coding iOS projects and monitoring the latest flavor-of-the-month Android state-of-the-art and evolving best-in-class Android apps with interest)

@igorgue: Not trying to predict the future just stating how long it would take to catch up to present products/platforms based on how long it took Apple to create them. The nature of this question was speculative and I was basing it on some current present facts. I don't know for sure but that is the way it seems, this whole topic is about predicting the future.

So you don't think handheld devices like the iPod Touch, DS, PSP will be around in the future? iPad aside if you don't think people will use larger screen flat devices in the future.

I thought we were having a discussion not just joining the religion of 'I don't know', how fun is that? Ok then the probability of people carrying personal media, creative, entertainment, gaming devices is probably going to go up rather than down. But I don't know for sure...

I just don't know, that's my opinion, maybe we're going to be using something like Futurama's eyePhone.

> Apple iOS and the platform is at least 5 years ahead of all competitors.

I disagree. The technology in iOS is pretty much at par with the competition -- a little better in some areas and a little worse in others. A few years ago, they were clearly on top but Android is decisively closing the gap.

But I understand you're just not speaking of their technology: they've got a very clear market lead in handheld devices and that's a gap which is much harder to bridge. But the competition is closing in fast here as well -- by Christmas there will be lots of Android (and perhaps other platform) tablets. Most will be cheaper yet just as capable. Android is already outselling the iPhone.

Also, it is clearly a phone-only market. The reason the iPhone exists at all is because Apple saw the writing on the wall: the iPod was going to be irrelevant when phones contained all the same capability. Mobile devices that aren't connected (in some way) to a mobile network are going to irrelevant soon.

Apple isn't making a play for all entertainment devices. They make one model of phone, one model of PDA, and one tablet. They purposely (and profitably) think small. Their goal isn't and has never been world domination.

It's funny you bring up Apple II's in schools because I'm almost certain we're going to get a great lesson in history repeating itself. Except this time it won't be Microsoft with the dominant platform, it will be Google.

Market share is not the same as technical quality. By that logic MS Windows is also years ahead of it's competitors.

In terms of desktop market share Windows is still years ahead. I think this is the same approach that Android is taking, they want the market share and to become the new windows on mobile.

The one problem with that is that the iOS is actually more like windows creating a common platform, similar form factors and simplifying the features and complexity of the consumer handheld devices. That is actually the same approach Windows took to get your mom on the internet and using office.

For far too long the mobile market was fragmented. Windows consolidated the desktop market to create many more platforms and markets for people. Apple iOS is a common platform in mobile while the others are still pretty fragmented. Apple is looking to do the same for entertainers, developers, marketers etc. Once they open it up by selling at Wal-mart and get other carriers it will be a true test.

Most people consider Apple's products to be superior technically than Microsoft's respective products.

That explains Apple's share of the computer market perfectly.

That explains Apple's share of the iPod and iPod Touch markets perfectly.

Snark aside, most consumers don't know software and hardware well enough to understand who has a superior product. They know that they click on the blue E to get to the internet. That's it.

By that logic, they also "know" that if they want a smartphone, they should buy an iPhone, and if they want a tablet, they should buy an iPad.

I'd argue that most people know that an iPhone or iPad will buy them the best experience currently available in their respective markets.

But they also know the figure on their weekly paycheck. And as the difference in user experience between iPhone/Android is narrowing, many[1] seem opt for second-best at half the price.

[1] http://moconews.net/article/419-android-sales-exceed-iphone-...

I think its more like 5months. I do get it.. they are driving amazing innovation, and exceptional polish that everyone else will have to copy. But they will catch up, because its fundamentally about engineering - its better when you decouple hardware and software.

Most people wont pay for the difference of that extra level of superb integration that Apple offer.. the gap will close as there is so much volume and competition in the mobile and tablet space.

I actually think we are close to optimizing the mobile form factor.

What other hw features could you have on these devices.. [natural spoken language translation in realtime?] its all software from here on up.

What other hw features could you have on these devices.

Solar panels, e.g. Apples's patent for a screen integrated one, contactless inductive charging, pixelqi style sunlight readable display, e-ink style display which uses no power to keep a static display, display privacy with a display that can change it's viewing angle right down, make the back optionally touch sensitive as well, if you remember Doc. Brown from back to the future had some augmented reality binoculars, you could speculate about possible camera improvements which would aid that kind of thing such as infra red sensitivity to help apps locate people in scenes, haptic feedback more than just 'vibrate', and again very speculatively dynamic changing materials - e.g. If the handheld device could change texture, kinetic charging, pico projectors, pressure sensitivity both on the screen and on the device generally, someone made a nice hack to wear a magnetic ring so they could gesture above their phone and sense it using the compass - theremins can do similar using some kind of em field distortion, could a device integrate anything like that without a huge aerial?

I'm not sure if you're saying there's nothing else we could put in a device now in hardware terms, or if there's nothing else interesting we could put in a handheld device ever, or just nothing we could put in that a consumer would want, but I'm not convinced for any interpretation.

its better when you decouple hardware and software.

Citation needed.

Im saying theres not much more we could put on a mobile device that is a game changer [and yes I entertained the tricorder idea with a DNA sampler & diagnosis, but I guess thats out of range for a decade ]

Agreed longer battery life has room for improvement, but would it change usage, given current devices can be used for 4 or 8 hours already?

re decoupling hw / sw : Ill give an explanation, rather than a citation :

We write in high level languages that use logical abstractions, not machine specific ones. These can be ported across various hardware platforms, and thus reused, saving work.

I think everyone prefers to have the same HTML5/javascript api work on all devices.

brings the total iOS devices to over 100 million

so Apple's shipped about the same number of iOS as MS has Windows 7?

http://www.asymco.com/2010/06/10/the-next-100-million-ios-de...

I'm not particularly an Apple fan boy, but I do admire their design decisions. Apple has an _uncanny_ ability to take a block of marble (a set of features for a phone) and grind away at it until what's left is a minimally complete set of features that are (in general) perfect.

I was definitely the first to gripe and complain when the iPhone didn't have cut and paste, but I'll also be the first to admit that they _did_ get it right when they finally released it.

I was also one of the many loud voices complaining that I couldn't run backgrounded apps, but when you look at the HTC phones coming out right now running Android and full backgrounding, and you hear the stories of how the battery runs out by the early afternoon, you start to realize that, it is true, "it is easy to add <feature x>, but it is hard to get it right" (or whatever it was that jobs said in his announcements)

I'm not saying that the features in Android aren't impressive, they very well may be, but Apple's design decisions don't just go after "impressive", they try to go after "perfect", and sometimes getting features perfect means cutting them until you're ready

Your entire post is targetted as "features that developers want" and you're right, you need a healthy ecosystem of developers, and Google is certainly building one. However, you also need a healthy ecosystem of consumers who love the product, and at the end of the day, I really think most developers will go to the platform where they can reach the widest audience. Apple cares about their consumers first, and their developers second (and sometimes it feels like second last), but it seems to work for them...

edit: of course, sometimes apple's PR doesn't respond to consumers as best as it could (i.e. the "you're holding it wrong"), but I'm trying to focus on design/product decisions

"However, you also need a healthy ecosystem of consumers who love the product, and at the end of the day, I really think most developers will go to the platform where they can reach the widest audience."

This is exactly what I was thinking. It is an interesting question- do consumers follow developers or do developers follow consumers? It seems that those agreeing with the OP would argue the former while those disagreeing would argue the latter.

Unix has developers but no consumers. Android is the same. The iPhone was a huge success before it got any developers. The Wii had very few games on launch compared to competing platforms. And the recent resurgence of the Mac seems to have been led by consumers. There were not that many Mac apps in 1998 when the iMac came out.

History seems to suggest that developers (especially those who want to get paid) go where the consumers are.

The only exception is, perhaps, DOS/Windows? I'm not sure I remember the history right though. It could be that consumers switched to Windows because of the cheaper hardware, and developers followed.

Android has no customers? Seriously? There are thousands of Android devices shipping every day. I still see no way that this doesn't end with Android in a (far and away) market dominant position. They're already well on their way.

Do Android users buy even a tenth of the apps that iOS users do? If simply having the greatest number of handsets in circulation supporting a particular platform equalled victory, Java-based feature phones or Symbian handsets would have trounced the iPhone years ago.

Do Android users buy even a tenth of the apps that iOS users do?

Probably not yet.

I'd blame this mostly on the low number of "killer" apps in the android market. Many good apps have arrived, but the number is nowhere near the appstore, yet.

Here's the kicker, though: This will inevitably change. It is already changing. When you compare the android market today versus a few months ago then you'll notice quite a number of high-profile apps have appeared.

As a developer you can't ignore android anymore. You're not building an iPhone app nowadays, you're building an iPhone app and an android app.

And it won't be long before the priorities reverse.

Once android devices outnumber iPhones by 10:1 the question will be whether you build an iPhone app along with your Android app - not the other way round.

Remember Apple is at its absolute peak today. There's nowhere to go from here in terms of features or polish.

Sure, they can add voice recognition, brush up the hardware even more and perhaps they'll even find another killer-feature or two to add. But HTC and Google are breathing in their neck now, the gap in user experience is closing. From there the primary differentiating factor becomes price. And competing with HTC on price will be tough[1].

[1] http://moconews.net/article/419-android-sales-exceed-iphone-...

Remember Apple is at its absolute peak today. There's nowhere to go from here in terms of features or polish. Sure, they can add voice recognition, brush up the hardware even more and perhaps they'll even find another killer-feature or two to add.

There's nowhere to go in features or polish unless they add more features or polish more - what kind of argument is that?

From there the primary differentiating factor becomes price.

Because Apple have always been driven out of markets by competitors with lower prices...

There's nowhere to go in features or polish unless they add more features or polish more - what kind of argument is that?

I meant to say that they're about to hit a wall with that. What do you think they could add or change to prevent android from catching up?

Because Apple have always been driven out of markets by competitors with lower prices...

Depends on your definition of "driven out". They have about 10% of the desktop market - which may be considered "driven out" by some.

> Unix has developers but no consumers. Android is the same.

What? 160,000 new Android phones are now activated each day I thought?

Versus how many iPhones + iPod Touch + iPad?

The parent comment wasn't making a comparison. That was an absolute comment that Android has no consumers.

But to answer your question I don't know how many iOS devices are shipping each day. Do you?

> The parent comment wasn't making a comparison. That was an absolute comment that Android has no consumers.

It's always a comparison.

> But to answer your question I don't know how many iOS devices are shipping each day. Do you?

No, which is why I'm asking. If I knew I wouldn't have to ask.

I think it works the other way around as well. It's not a coincidence that Apple marketed the 3G and 3GS models with the "There's an app for that" line - the sheer number of (useful) applications in the App Store is a huge selling point for the iPhone and a real asset for Apple.

Go tell your mom about the new features that Froyo has. Watch her eyes glaze over as you talk about "cloud-to-phone messaging APIs" and "APIs to make app data searchable".

Now show her the iphone 4 retina display.

After you show her the retina display, show her the HTC Evo display.

"OOooo... I can actually read some of the text on that one!" she'll say.

Pixel density is nice and all, but a lot of people would rather have a bigger screen.

This illustrates Android's biggest advantage and biggest weakness versus iOS. Choice.

The trick for Google is to introduce some standards that will make different Android phones more consistent. Hell, they could do the same thing for the hardware. Crank out a cellphone chipset that manufacturers can customize instead of rolling their own and then being 8 months behind the latest Android release, if even that! Then the variety of Android phones out there will be a true strength and not a weakness.

No, most people would not. Most people want a phone that is easy to carry around, and then the biggest screen you can get on that device.

I find android phones offering bigger and bigger screens a distraction. Sure, it suits some people, but most people are just going to find that phone too big.

most people are just going to find that phone too big.

Which is why you can get smaller android phones as well. With iPhones they come in one size, and if it isn't the perfect size for you, the you either have to learn to live with it or not get an iPhone. With Android you can chose smaller than iPhone, same size as iPhone or larger than iPhone depending on personal preference.

Now show her the iphone 4 retina display.

The Droid has been shipping for 8 months with a 265 ppi display; funny how that was a meaningless spec that only geeks care about until recently.

But that is part of the very intelligent marketing of Apple. Your mom doesn't understand what 265 ppi is. Retina Display is the clearest display your eye can see. That she understands.

Apple's marketing is superior to Google's (or pretty much anyone else's).

I work at Apple (recent hire, admittedly), and there's a big focus on communication (part of the 'Apple Way') rather than on geeky stuff. I suspect that this isn't the case at Google.

ps. I'm not saying this to act like a fanboy towards my employer (really, I'm not). Experiment: ask someone to name 3 or 4 android phone models. Watch their eyes glaze over. They may ask: "what's Android?" The point I'm making is that there's the iPhone, which most people have heard of, and then there's the mass of confusion from other manufacturers. This is the case in other product lines too, such as MacBooks vs pc laptops.

Those features obviously don't appeal to the general user: they appeal to the developers. The developers are ultimately responsible for creating apps which speak to the general user. The iPhone without apps would at most be 50% of what it is now. Cool features to developers attract developers, and they in turn purify those raw features in to cool easily understandable applications. Cloud to phone Apis is not meant to be a marketing point for your mother.

Smartphones have enormous potential to supplement and even substitute PCs for everyday uses of non geeks. (Plumbers, store owners, salesmen, lawyers, accountants, doctors etc. etc.) Searchable app data will be important to make this happen. There is nothing frivolous about a feature that allows users to, for example, quickly access one of dozens of customer profiles.

Many of those uses already have specialized apps, which do search within their context-relevant data, in context-relevant ways. iPads in medical environments are a perfect example. Why, if you're searching for symptom X, would you want to find emails with X, text messages with X, and that image which just happens to contain X in its filename?

Essentially every laptop / tablet / whatever-PC in use in the medical field works similarly - they use one application which handles all relevant data, and it doesn't search outside that. And this is on a PC, which is essentially wide open to application interoperability (if not as easy to do). Developers and users have already apparently decided that it's not as important / desirable as many would like to believe.

Granted, there are cases where this is useful, but it's a fundamental iOS / Android(/Unix) design choice. Android favors interoperation through APIs, iOS favors using one application for the job at hand.

    Why, if you're searching for symptom X, would you want to find emails with X, text messages with X, and that image which just happens to contain X in its filename?

You could very well want any of those things searchable for symptom X if the email, text message, or Image has relevant details for symptom X. Perhaps the image is an X-ray, the email is a diagnosis from a colleague, or the text message is relevant data about the diagnosis. The very fact that you think they should have to load 3+ different apps to find all the data relevant for symptom X or purchase a high priced propietary app that somehow bundles email, imaging, documents and sms all into one interface shows a lack of vision. Just because every medical device in the field works that way doesn't mean it should.

But without it being in database X, it's (very) hard to know the context of those sources. Without context, you're more likely to get irrelevant data which just happens to contain X. Unless your machine has no irrelevant-to-your-current-query data in it (unlikely). And in that case, the whole device is effectively a one-trick-pony, significantly less useful than simply being bound to a single application.

Know of a search API which properly handles (every possible use of) context? Without that, people distrust searching because of irrelevant results. Google does well because of PageRank; as far as I'm aware, nobody has arbitrary-context searching which is effective, because it's such a ridiculously complex and/or processing-intensive problem. Such a filter would probably be integral to passing the Turing test, so we'd probably have heard of it if it existed.

I think your inflating how useful having it in a database is. The context comes from reading/viewing the content. A database isn't automatically going to fix that. If you need information about "Lupus" (yeah I know it's never lupus) and it's about Tom your new patient. And you know you getting either an email or SMS from Greg the specialist on the way to the office and all you have to do is hit the search button and type in Lupus, Tom and Greg to get that information then your phone has just made your life easier.

The context space is much smaller on a device like a phone and it's quite possible to craft a query that finds what you need faster than finding the app, opening it finding the search option then typing it in.

On my Android phone I love the search feature. It's a lot like having quicksilver on my phone. A single button that gets me access to everything.

On a simplistic smart-phone, sure. But most beasts-of-burden nowadays have at least a few gigabytes of storage. That's not any smaller than a PC - few applications have that much data (aside from games), even in the medical field.

I may very well be inflating things, but the instant you mention "craft a query" you've lost 99% of people, minimum. They'll type "lupus", and give up if they don't find what they want. Or "Tom", and stop trying if they don't find Greg and Lupus as well. And then resort to finding the information through whatever roundabout means they last succeeded in.

Beware the average user's depth of knowledge of your system; many don't understand how to use tabbed browsing, and possibly more use Google to find the Facebook login page despite the login link appearing at all times when you're logged out. If you're trying to get as many people as possible, you've gotta plan for the bottom to be as functional as possible. And there are more at the bottom than at the top.

Does iOS provide some special support for high-resolution screens that Android doesn't? If not, then that's a hardware feature that any rival could easily pick up. Remember how Motorola Droid first upped the ante on screen resolution at the end of last year.

Retina Display is shipping. You can't argue against that with a hypothetical.

The point is that it's not an iOS feature, it's an iPhone feature. The original question is about the operating system, not the hardware. This distinction doesn't matter much for the iPhone, but it certainly does for Android devices.

Ultimately, what matters is that the Android set of actual phones you can buy competes in the marketplace with the iPhone line. There's no competition between operating systems per se--this isn't Windows vs. Linux.

I can argue with the HTC incredible that launched with a 252 (IIRC) screen. It's actually a rather similar form factor, and I'd argue that the screen is pretty damn close to the iPhone in overall clarity.

To say that incremental hardware improvements are hypothetical, I think that you have to argue against history on this one.

It's hypothetical that future Android hardware will outpace the display quality of future iPhone hardware for sure. And even if it's likely, the question isn't whether Android will overtake iPhone in the future, but whether Android is ahead of iPhone now.

Then show her the AMOLED screen of Nexus One that has a similar (though slightly lower) resolution.

Seriously? To my eye, verticals look ragged on that screen, thanks to the not-nearly-as-high-res, hexagonal pixels.

Edit: I see discussion of gamut. To quote http://www.displaymate.com/Nexus_One_ShootOut.htm: The Color Gamut of the Nexus One is much larger than the industry standard … which is actually bad because it makes all colors appear too strong and over-saturated. … all they do it distort the colors in the images and photos on-screen

What good is it to have a larger gamut if the software doesn't support it? All graphics online & in apps use standard sRGB color space information. There’s simply nothing to display outside of that gamut in 99.9%+ of cases.

This situation perfectly demonstrates what has been what is, and will continue to be, Apple's unique advantage: true hardware and software integration. iOS may be behind o features, but the software is only part of the story.

There is absolutely no comparison. The nexus one can't even render all colours properly.

No screen can render all colours properly, and from what I've read the AMOLED screen on the Nexus One has a far larger colour gamut.

There is a right way to explain a feature to a person, and a wrong way.

As an unabashed Apple hater who thinks the company is little more than hype and marketing, I have to say strongly NO, iOS has not fallen behind the other OSs.

You point to Android specifically, but I don't think anything you've mentioned is a selling point on the device/os specifically.

is 'cloud-to-phone messaging api' really something that a customer is going to be looking at when comparing devices? And if so, is it actually a feature that can't be replicated in any OS quite simply?

I think the market share challenges in the mobile space are less about OS feature capabilities like you describe than the more basic requirements like battery life, screen quality, design and brand perception.

Using your cloud-to-phone example again, is this really that much different from app notifications in iPhone (I'm pretty sure that is in the api). You say it's the features that developers want, but developers need to focus on the needs of consumers, rather than just what's the geekiest thing I can build.

If Apple is falling behind anywhere, I suspect it is in the UI design, which I don't find particularly compelling. It does a decent job of getting out of the way, and it is nicer than blackberry, but it very quickly seemed to have gone from cutting edge to ho-hum. I don't look at an iphone and think that it is beautiful and easy to use. The home screen with all the buttons and no way of organizing them seems clutter, and the grid is bland without any character.

Just a small correction: Apple actually has introduced the ability to organize your apps in iOS 4. Nothing revolutionary, basically just folders, but it is something.

notifications in IOS need to be completely redesigned, they are terrible at the moment, and trivial things can completely interrupt a tweet/game/email.

I don't understand your first sentence.

1. That I/O keynote was something else in terms of mindshare. Before, Android was an ugly also-ran where devs were making a tenth of the income they made on iOS. After, Android was still ugly and making a tenth of the income for devs, but was transformed into an inevitable iPhone-killer. The facts were the same. If you bash Apple for hype, take Vic with a pinch of salt.

2. iOS 4 is packed with features for devs. Some of the new APIs and block-based animations have taken hundreds of lines of code out of my apps. Doing common tasks like throwing a new view on the screen are massively simpler compared to doing the same on Android.

3. Feature comparisons impressed IT managers in 1989 as they sat choosing between Word and WordPerfect from a list in Byte. Users don't care; they want things that work. They didn't care that the iPod didn't have wireless or as much space as a Nomad, and they still don't.

4. Seriously, features don't factor into it. For 8 years companies were trying to best the iPod by ladling in features, and each time the market told them to go zune eggs.

5. The phone companies are absolutely destroying Android. They're still launching devices with hacked-up versions of 1.6, with no promise of when Froyo will ever make it on there -- that is if the carriers decide to allow it. Imagine if Microsoft had been launching XP but Dell decided it would keep on shipping Win 98, and AOL wouldn't let users even upgrade to Win 2000. Ludicrous.

Don't use words like "irrevocably". They kind of tag your post as FUD. (Along as statements like "being a long time Apple loyalist... it saddens me...".) And, why do you really think something like this should be irrevocably? How can it be?

Then, when I read the title, I just thought 'wtf'? Behind? So I read your post because I was curious about what you mean. Again, I even more wonder what you mean by irrevocably. And how those few missing APIs should be the reason that iOS is behind Android.

Blame that on the time I posted the question (2 in the morning). But it's not FUD. This was just a question, not a statement. By irrevocably, I had a deeper meaning:

Android is shooting for share, and they will get it eventually, because of the number of devices it ships on. Once they have that, most (if not all) developers will follow. Missing APIs can be added, but users are hard to convert back — Apple and we know this from the PC vs. Mac days. My question was, has this shift already been set in motion fast enough that Apple will not be able to catch up.

(Of course, tech news on the Internet is very US centric, but those of us who are outside the US can see how non-existent Android is here. I haven't been able to factor in the whole "Android for world domination" theory just yet.)

> When I see features like Android's cloud-to-phone messaging APIs, I long for them to be in iOS. But then iOS 4 has nothing of this sort.

Isn’t that exactly what push notifications are? Apps like Notifo, and Boxcar for that matter, allow you to implement push notifications for anything (c.f. Github integration) without even a dedicated iPhone app.

> users don't care about [fragmentation].

While Joe Consumer may not grok fragmentation, it definitely impacts his experience. E.g. the official Twitter app not being available on Droid or the Incredible, last I heard.

I don’t see Apple as missing the boat so much as taking their time to do things right. Just like copy-paste and multitasking. Patience for the polish, or yeah, go to Android.

To answer your question, iPhone will, yes, always lack features Android has, for the foreseeable future, but the experience is smoother and more consistent. Strictly in this sense, it it Android that will never catch up.

(This is pretty much what Gruber has been saying: http://www.macworld.com/article/151235/2010/05/apple_rolls.h...)

Am I the only one who absolutely prefers Android's copy/paste to the iPhone's?

Could you explain how/why you do? I just can't get how you could prefer Android's three-taps-deep switch to text selection mode (for non-editable text), and the text range selection seems so damn imprecise.

I realised about an hour after I posted the question that push notifications are almost exactly the same thing, except that cloud-to-device message APIs is something Google is using themselves to show the power it has, which Apple didn't do. But yes, one could write an app (I think Boxcar is in the best position to do this) that can push "intent"s to iOS devices and open them in the proper apps like it already does with Twitter.

E.g. the official Twitter app not being available on Droid or the Incredible, last I heard.

Runs just fine on my Milestone and should also run on the Droid. But I see what you mean.

> After watching the complete Google I/O keynote and WWDC '10 keynote

I was at WWDC. There are a lot of things I saw there that I'm not supposed to talk about. Suffice it to say that the cool stuff was NOT in the keynote.

I came out of WWDC thinking that Google may very well never catch up. They don't seem to care about Android like Apple cares about the iPhone. Apple cares enough about the iPhone to learn how to do cloud services (see Push) and advertising (see iAd) better than Google, things that Apple has no experience doing well. But Google doesn't care about Android enough to invest into build quality or UI, things that Apple does well.

> But Google doesn't care about Android enough to invest into build quality or UI, things that Apple does well.

Build quality, probably not, especially since Google doesn't really do hardware. But it's been widely reported that they're making a big UI push. I expect them to do well on usability: they've got the talent to catch up to Apple on that. Aesthetics are another matter, however.

If Google cared about UI, they would buy Phonegap or Titanium. Overnight that would release developers from the unholy mixture of Java and XML and free up the development platform to millions of web developers.

you sure? I've taken an armchair perspective at google overall, and they seem to be moving toward things that "look better"...

They can afford good UI and to think they don't understand the value(if it does exist) would be incredibly naive.

> talent to catch up to Apple on that

With the exception of the better-than-Apple notifications, isn’t Android just attempting to copy lots of UI idioms from iOS in a slightly less usable manner? This is a Mac → Win GUI situation again, is it not? With engineers and programmers driving Android as essentially a Google side project, what’s to actually instill serious quality control and innovation for interfaces?

I agree that Android up till now has been as you describe, but I've no idea what they're planning for Android 3.0. I assume that part of the reason why Android's UI idioms have been a less usable copy of iOS's so far is because they were rushing to rework what previously resembled BlackBerry into something more iPhone.

I get the Mac/Win analogy, but Microsoft never really grokked UX, while Google generally does. Given that UI is their focus for 3.0, I'd assume their UX people will have more input this time around.

I hope you’re right.

If we may dive into a tangent, I am quite interested in why you say Google "generally groks UX." Their search home page is a great example, sure, and Gmail for the most part (certainly not their Contacts organizer). But then I think to Buzz, where I think the UX was terrible (I wrote about this here: http://alanhogan.com/buzz-is-already-dead, HN discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1125126). I’d love to hear your thoughts on Google and UX.

Nice critique. I never really used Buzz, because my first instinct was to turn it off, but what little experience I have with it seems to match up.

I've never worked at Google, but I know someone who interned for the UX team, who complained that UX wasn't as involved with design as they could be. I'm guessing that the usability of non-core Google projects depends a lot on whether the engineers who start them seek input from their UX people. If you're doing a 20% project and want other people to work on it with you, you've got to find and convince those people yourself. So at least initially, the involvement of UX people outside of core Google projects depends on whether their involvement is sought.

Buzz in particular appeared to have been launched with little forethought, so there's a good chance it didn't get much of a UX pass, either.

Google's always approached design as an objective engineering challenge and less as an artistic endeavor. As a result, their designs are minimalist, utilitarian, and functional, but they sometimes seem to give up the ghost when they attempt to build complex or unique software like Buzz or Wave that could benefit badly from someone with a passion for aesthetics and UX.

Regarding Android, I'm encouraged by news that Google picked up WebOS's lead designer, (as reported here: http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/05/27/palm-loses-their-lead...) as WebOS is often lauded as an intuitive and innovative user interface in a manner Android simply isn't.

When Douglas Bowman (Google's former lead designer) left the organization, he cited, among other things, a fastidious, over-engineered, design-by-committee-and-hard-numbers approach that drove him crazy. He mentioned an example where Google had A/B tested 41 shades of blue to determine which to go with. That's demonstrative of the greater issue their culture seems to suffer from: if you want to bring about creative or subjective change, you often need objective facts and figures—metrics lacking by artistic design's very nature.

I wrote briefly about Google's methods in a bit of a rant on Facebook's whiplash-inducing approach to design here: http://www.htmlist.com/design/google-vs-facebook-interface-d..., but in the end, it comes down to balance. I have high hopes for Android 3.0 because I'm hoping that they just shipped with what they had and told themselves they'd worry about making it pretty later. Later is now, evidently, and it will be really interesting to see what Google does in this next round, especially if they've removed the handcuffs and decided to trust their designers.

You don't know what Apple is working on. Nor do you know if any of those Android features will work properly or will be "all that." This is just the typical hopscotching that happens all the time in the industry. In a few months, you might be doing a post about webOS vs Android vs iOS. Buy something and just enjoy it.

As much as I dislike Apple as a company and love the idea of the Android, I think Apple has totally nailed the concept of the handheld as a sweet and sexy little unit that the average person can take great pleasure in using. It's got very little to do with "features" and everything to do with the experience. So yeah, Android might have features that make the average geek go weak at the knees but Google, at least so far, hasn't shown the ability to get past the engineering and into the joy of the interface. I'm hoping that Gingerbread will get there, but it takes a supreme focus to do good UI. Apple's got it, Google needs to get it.

I do not think that iOS' weakness versus Android would be based on its quality But on reach. The iPhone is on a single form of Phone while Android is available on various forms of phones.

Android will be to Phones what Windows is to PCs (personal computers).

Its added advantage is Google is more open than Microsoft will ever be.

One more thing, Android competes favorable with iOS. Much better that Windows does with OSX

Are you joking? The iPhone has been behind on "features" since before the G1 even came out.

Let's roll back the clock, shall we? When the first iPhone came out, the OS didn't have support for copy/paste, or MMS, or video recording, or any way to install third-party applications, or a whole ton of Bluetooth devices, or a dozen other random things that everybody claimed were totally necessary.

It is absolutely not the case that iOS had a huge head start and Android has just now caught up (from a feature perspective). Android has been banging the "We have more features!" drum since before the G1 even launched. But here's the thing: even with all those awesome features, the Android software is still nowhere near as well-designed as iOS or the apps that ship with it.

It doesn't matter - iOS and Android both have features that will require at least 5 years for the mass of consumers to catch onto. Most people still want to make calls, check their email, surf the web and play a game on their phone.

So, as long as phones can do that, anything extra is developer wankery.

If Apple falls behind on features that developers want, the App Store numbers they like to tout to loudly will stop growing so rapidly.

Highly unlikely; unless they lose their consumer market too.

Because, at the end of the day, developers will jump through a few hoops (and rightfully gripe) to sell to the biggest user base.

Not once they realize how hard it actually is to make any money on the platform.

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/06/full-an...

Is not the story worse on every other mobile platform?

It ought to get better if they use iAds. That would provide an ongoing revenue stream from each user.

I'm moving from native iPhone to web apps for mobile. The tools will catch up to flash rapidly. The browsers will kick themselves into line, so its viable to have one code base. But most of all... Javascript is just less verbose than Objective-C, and you go straight to market, bypassing appstore/signing madness.

I don't think its iOS4 specific, once you have geo-location + offline + appdata + GPU graphics you've got the killer features you need, so why go native?

WebGL will happen, theyll have to support it & its easy to do so. Now I guess you might want to do AI in-game as the device gets more powerful, and write effects shaders for rich games.. But a lot of that can be deferred to server-side, so I think even for 3D games it will soon make more sense to go web app.

What apple have is slickness and consistency... but I think the slickness of web on Android will approach that asymptotically. The web dev platform is more scaleable, less pain, and wont go away.

What is missing is a good appstore + billing system for web apps [and google will probably be there in a year]. I think it needs to support a SaaS model where I rent a group of apps at a discount on a yearly basis. That way you have people invest more effort over time, innovate, and reach beyond the iFart apps.

There's good arguments to be made both ways but you're doing a lot of speculation/editorializing about the future instead of addressing more specific examples of how you think iOS is falling behind in a more concrete way. I don't think that's a good approach to get substantive opinions. Besides this cloud-to-device feature, which sounds a lot like Apple's Push notifications to me, can you cite a few more examples? You mention Gingerbread is going to address fragmentation but Google has stated <2.2 will remain in use for lower end/legacy devices. How does that solve fragmentation anytime soon? If Gingerbread is coming out in October there is a pretty good chance 50% (at least) of Android devices won't even have 2.2 by then.

"To be honest, as a user, iOS 4 adds nothing that truly stands out as "THIS is why I must have the iPhone" except for Facetime and the Retina Display."

I am confused. You started your post as a developer and end being an user.

There are some big things in iOS4. Multitasking (done properly), iAds, Game Center and 1500 New APIs and tonnes of improvements that apple has put in after taking experiences of millions apps created by thousands of developers. And That's HUGE.

I think the important thing is that Apple doesn't include features for the purpose of having them. It's frivolous to have a feature that doesn't work properly or can't effectively be leveraged by developers. Apple patiently fleshes out everything before it's publicly released. So while Android's OS might technically be more advanced than iOS, in practicality and implementation iOS is the best mobile platform. For example, look at the front facing camera. iPhone 4 wasn't the first to have a front facing camera, but it was the first to have one that simply works — and that's what consumers want.

So, to answer your question, no: iOS hasn't irrevocably fallen behind. Has it fallen behind, technically? Yeah, probably. Irrevocably so? No.

Nothing is irrevocable. This reminds me of the people telling "AMD/Intel/nVidia is doomed" when competitor happens to release a bit better product. AMD did manage to get a profitable quarter after being unprofitable for many many years.

Apple does better frontend. Google does better backend. It will be interesting to see which makes the difference. The transparent, sync-free integration with Google services is the main reason I prefer my Android phone but if Apple steps it up with Mobile Me and bundles it with the phone they might be able to catch up.

My hunch is that Google will have an easier time staying close enough on the UI front than Apple will catching up on services but we'll see. Lawsuits might make the difference.

Probably, but also BaseCamp has fallen incredibly behind MS Project in terms of features. Apple doesn't compete on features they compete on profit margin. When Google has something that will convince people to stop paying Apple's margins then I'd start worrying about iPhone's viability as a platform.

If you want to develop on a platform where people are willing to pay premium prices for premium products then you have nothing to worry about with Froyo.

What platform are you talking about? The App Store is one of the (by the numbers) worst places to actually try to make real money as a developer. Average app price, by the numbers: around $1.90. Average sales $ per annum: around 3K. Half of all devs will earn less than $700 per year.

The App Store is in a bubble and that bubble will burst, not because the App Store is evil, but because it's in the nature of bubbles to burst.

You'd literally have gotten better traction developing ActiveX controls for IE5, back in the day.

You keep saying this like it's news. Any platform, and not just mobile, is going to end up with winners and a long tail of losers or those that are not as successful. The current iPhone sdk and app store gives the lone developer a decent chance at making something that is successful though.

But only if they are not competing with current or future unknown products of Apple. Or if they disobey some other of Apples (un-)written rules.

The problem here is not the AppStore, the problem is that developers have to distribute their apps through it.

Us nerds care about obscure nifty features, but 99% of people don't.

In fact, I think in some ways iOS 4 is a step backwards, in that it adds half baked "features" like folders and the multitasking UI (my gripe is with the UI only). They aren't nearly as well thought out as the rest of the OS.

Android does have some well implemented features which I like though, specifically Facebook integration with the address book, etc.

What makes the folders/multitasking UI less well thought out? I don't have anything that can run iOS 4 yet, so I haven't tried them out.

So I am wondering why you would particularly care, unless you are just an observer.

If you are a developer, you want to ask 1) is it programmable 2) is there a market for something that I create.

It seems that the answer is yes for both of these.

Bullet points are for bystanders.

I just wish Apple would fix this: http://jnjnjn.com/161/ipad-volume-indicator/

"Perfection is achieved by nothing else to remove, not adding more."

When did Froyo become available?

yes

Apple already won consumer mobile market, while Google with its Android will dominate emerging so-called enterprise one.

If you want to write some module or extention for your corporate system for mobile devices - Android is the obvious choice.

The history repeats itself, Google will be to Apple what Redhat was to Sun, Data General, SCO, and other now dead UNIX vendors. It just a matter of a time.

I thought RIM was the obvious choice for enterprise, though.

There are a lot of life outside US.. ^_^

The store is a selling point for users. That's the one unique thing that's not going to be written off by people (like design). It can change, Google might start getting decent quality apps. But so long as the users are there, and developers can make money, I see no reason for either the user or the developer to leave.

Yes, there is intense competition now and each player has to keep up with its OS features. We'll see who can keep their OS up to date with features that are important enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com