Software Vs, Hardware: Android and iPhone

Two major smartphone platforms have dominated 2008: Android and the iPhone SDK. However, these two phone systems have vastly different models: the iPhone chooses to focus on software, while Android focuses on hardware. This is evident in the release of the 3G iPhone, where the only new hardware feature accessible to developers (so far as I can see) is the GPS. Android has a myriad of hardware features, but also a myriad of possible features to support. For example, in Google's Maps application for Android, thene is a feature within street view that requires the device to have an internal compass as well as GPS. It is logical to assume that phones without compasses will not have this feature available to them. The thing is, consumers do not like to see features "grayed out"; disabled features only add complexity and a feeling of "my phone is bad because it Cannot do <insert feature here that the phone does not support but is in the interface anyway.>" Consumers like to be able to use all of the features of their phones, because even if they do not use any of them besides the part that makes calls, they like to have that feeling of "my phone can do this" satisfaction. This also creates a headache for developers, especially those developing installer software, because apps have to worry about dependencies. Because there is no central way to specify the hardware dependencies of an app in android, people may end up installing an application and then finding out that it doesn't work because they don't have a specific piece of hardware. Compare this to Apple's model, where everything will run on either an iPhone, iPhone 3G, or an iPod Touch, which all have pretty much the same feature set. And for those 2.5G iPhones that do not have GPS, it can be assumed that smart developers will have an intervening if statement that uses cell triangulation instead.

In the aforementioned scenario, Android is beginning to look a little fragmented hardware-wise, as it embraces the Microsoft model of providing only the software and letting the hardware makers build the phones, while Apple is taking its traditional stance of keeping its cards close to the chest and exerting a tight degree of control on its hardware and software, which enables it to provide deeper integration. And with a centralized application distribution system, similar to the style of the Linux package manager with money added, Apple manages to make a tidy profit out of it. Google manages to get its money's worth too, just in a different form: people using the internet more often. And with more people to use the internet, more people use search, and thus see its adds. This is not the only effect however, as more people using the internet makes internet advertising that much more viable, due to a larger and more diverse audience. Therefore, Google sells more ads, and as more people set up web sites, Google buys more ad space. Although both strategies are valid, I prefer Apple's strategy of militant compatibility across devices, because it guarantees a better overall user experience with the device. I would imagine user experience would be important for Google, as the better user experience people have with the web, the more they use it. Although each platform is different, Apple and Google may just have to compete for the high-end smartphone market (both phones require fairly good video cards.) Apple and Google have gotten along in the past, the question is: can they do it in a market they are both attempting to flesh out in vastly different directions?

Technorati Tags: 3G, Android, Apple, Cell Phones, Google, gPhone, iPhone, iPhone SDK, Linux, Open Source, Smartphone, Usability