Hacker News Reader

Comment by sedev | Hacker News Reader

The takeaway for me is this: Android and iOS' creators made different tradeoffs in their UI programming. The iOS creators, overall, correctly predicted that a fast, smooth, responsive UI was something that users would care about enough that it was okay to pay a performance cost in other areas in order to make the UI as responsive as it is on iOS devices. Android's creators made a different tradeoff, and the UI on Android devices showed clearly - and continues to show - the problems with that tradeoff.

View on HN

I think it the takeaway is slightly different: When many of Android's fundamental design decisions were made, specifically making UI animations take place in a normally-scheduled application thread, the prime competition/inspiration was the keyboard- and trackpad-driven interfaces of competitors such as Blackberry.

Apple, on the other hand, decided that a touch-based interface was the way to go. As such, Apple designed iOS to make rendering in a special, real-time priority thread to ensure responsiveness.

The interesting thing would be an estimate of the amount of work needed to move the android ui-rendering to its separate real-time thread. Would it even be realistically possible?

If this is true than it blows a hole in the assumption that Android was designed with a touchscreen in mind.

It wasn't: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9869123-7.html?tag=mncol;t...

I'm not so sure that the iOS creators predicted anything. They started off with OS X, which already had a smooth, responsive, GPU backed UI (Cocoa/Quartz Extreme). I don't think that they had to compromise on performance, but they did have to spend extra money on a GPU.

Likewise, a good low latency sound system with MIDI support was added to iOS not because Apple correctly predicted that smartphones and tablets would be popular for music production, but because those were features already present in OSX.

AFAIK, the Android designers started out making a Blackberry clone, and creating a similar software stack would have been a lot more work at a time when the competitors were all running 2D GUIs with no GPU acceleration or fancy animations.

This is correct. However, the Android team made their decision with the assumption that Android would power keyboard and trackball devices. That was never the case, so they made the wrong decision based on a faulty premise.

I don't know about saying "That was never the case...". At the time the decision was made, a blackberry-style device was indeed the target. The problem was when the target shifted to iPhone instead.

Android would power keyboard and trackball devices. That was never the case

Er, there are a lot of Android devices that are keyboard and trackball powered.

I think he meant to say kb devices without touch screens.

Apple is also willing to put a lot of burden on the developers. Having a separate UI thread is more difficult than doing all rendering in the main application thread. Supporting only native code without garbage collection is also more difficult on developers too.

Except that all UI stuff is done in the applications main thread ...

How was the iOS decision more "correct"? Android is clearly succeeding despite the lack of UI refinement, so it's hard to hold one as victorious.

There is definitely a different philosophy, though. The Android approach was that it was better to be correct -- if you scroll a page or a webpage, that what scrolls into the viewport needs to be correct, while iOS happily scrolled in a checkerboard. I prefer the stock Android approach (some devices, such as the GS II, sub in the "better to be fast" approach, giving smoother superficial interactivity) so long as there is enough hardware that the result isn't too painful.

The iOS decision was more correct because it has proven itself in the marketplace. Consumers overwhelmingly demand touch interfaces on their smartphones and tablets, as opposed to stylus, trackball, or any other that has come before it.

Android started as a platform trying to out-Blackberry RIM. When the iPhone was released in 2007 they switched to a model of trying to out-do iOS.

That wasn't at all the focus of the comment that I replied to. I get that you're on this "keyboard/trackball" thing (sidenote -- did you know that Android devices still come out with keyboards and trackballs?), however the difference between the two platforms is largely simple architectural differences having nothing to do with form factor.

"Proven itself" how, exactly? Last I checked Android devices were outselling iOS. Now, there's room for argument here about what the proper design is for a mobile OS. But if you're going to support your platform flamage with statements like "Consumers overwhelmingly demand" you need to synchronize the argument with the facts.

"Last I checked Android devices were outselling iOS."

Source? There have been many reports of Android phones outselling the iPhone, but I am not familiar with the ones about Android devices outselling iOS devices (iPod touch, iPad, etc.)

Probably because that would be incredibly difficult to calculate. There isn't really an Android equivalent of an iPod, for a start. Do we include Nook and Kindle Fire devices in the figures? Because that would affect things.

At least cellphones is a more like-for-like comparison.

I do not disagree, but the parent referred to data that shows Android vs. all iOS devices, so I am quite interested in reading it.

"Proven itself" can mean that iOS grosses more than Android. Last I checked iOS users spend more on apps/services than their Android counterparts.

If that's because Android's interface is laggy, then why do people keep buying Androids?

IMHO, iOS users spend more on apps because iTunes is better than Android's Marketplace - this may have been a deliberate decision by Google nonetheless. Did you know that I am not allowed to sell Android apps in the Marketplace because my country is still not approved for registering a Google Merchant account? That's right, it's almost 2012 and while I can sell apps on iTunes, I can't on Android's Marketplace. However I have no problem integrating AdMob in those apps. So it's like Google wants ad-supported instead of paid apps, which considering their main business model it isn't that shocking.

However, you can't say that Android and its UI is not a success.

People keep buying Android for lots of reasons, they can be a lot cheaper, they have more options (keyboards, big screens), they are pushed a lot by carriers, lots of carriers don't carry the iPhone.

The interface problem with Android might come in to play when people are considering their second smartphone, and devices are a lot faster these days. Of course, no one should need a dual core or quad core CPU for a smooth experience on their phone.

That doesn't answer the question, which has a context: if people don't buy Android apps because the interface is laggy, then why do they keep buying Androids?

I have an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy S which recently upgraded to Gingerbread. The iPhone experience is indeed more "smooth", however that doesn't bother me because the advantages that my Galaxy S gives me outweigh the smoothness of the iPhone.

As an example, on my Galaxy S I was free to install a calls / SMS blocker. You can blacklist certain numbers and then it's as if those numbers don't exist - not only it blocks the calls / messages, but it also removes all traces from the logs. Last time I checked these types of apps where banned from iTunes. On Android it isn't so cut and dry either, as these apps are using private APIs that aren't documented, however they are allowed on the Marketplace.

Another example would be the kickass integration my device has with my Google Apps account. For instance all my phone numbers are synchronized with Google Contacts. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure this is only a matter of preferences and I could probably do the same thing on the iPhone, however this works both ways and I'm having an easier time with my Android to do what I want.

The only annoyance I have with my Galaxy S is the slow upgrade cycle. It will probably take forever for Samsung to deliver to me an upgrade to Android 4. Which is why my next phone will be a Google Galaxy Nexus, or whatever blessed phone will come next after it.

> then why do people keep buying Androids?

Do they? The big Android surge only came in the last year, so the vast majority of Android users are on their first.

Total devices in the field. At Apple's iPhone 4S launch event on October 4th, CEO Tim Cook said that the company had sold 250 million iOS devices to date--including iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads, and (I assume) current-generation Apple TVs. Shortly thereafter, Google CEO Larry Page said that 190 million Android devices had been "activated." (Google talks about units in terms of activations, not sales.) http://news.cnet.com/8301-33200_3-57323943-290/ios-vs-androi... Dated Nov 14, 2011.

So very near equivalence in sales (which look even closer if you take into account the fact that iOS has been on the market about 30% longer than Android) is an argument for consumers "overwhelmingly demanding" the tighter animation scheduling of iOS?

I'd say if anything this argues for a total absence of correlation with user experience, no?

> The Android approach was that it was better to be correct

How do you define "correct"? The "correct" behavior is dependent on what you're trying to achieve. What you're trying to achieve should be defined with reference to the user: what will make the user happiest?

In a multi-touch interface, where you're trying to maintain the direct manipulation illusion, preserving "feel" at the expense of showing the rendered content a split-second earlier is almost certainly the right trade-off. The user will chalk the checkerboard up to page loading and their internet connection. They'll chalk hiccups in manipulation up to the device itself.

There are big assumptions. Preference for lag or artifacts is subjective (for example, the checkerboard drives me nuts; I prefer occasional shutter). Users will chalk up the checkerboard to device too, as they never seen anything similar on any other device.

>Android is clearly succeeding despite the lack of UI refinement

I'm not sure Android is clearly succeeding. Samsung, etc. are succeeding. If they switch to a superior OS (Windows?) but keep similar pricing I suspect only a very small core of hardcore Android fans would remain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com