iPhone vs. Android: a Study in Contrasts - Brighthand.com Smartphone and PDA Discussion Forums

Ed Hardy · 07-03-2008, 04:10 PM

Apple's iPhone OS and Google's Android OS have a great deal in common; both are Linux-based operating systems for smartphones that have been put together by companies best known for their accomplishments in the PC space. But there are some dramatic differences that make these mobile platforms almost as different as they can be.

The iPhone's operating system is completely closed. It is being developed by Apple and for Apple. The only smartphones that will ever run it are made by this one company.

Android, on the other hand, is open. It being developed primarily by Google, but with the help of a collection of companies. Many of the members of this group, the Open Handset Alliance, will release smartphones based on Android, including HTC, Samsung, and Motorola.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, and the competition between the two is going to shape the smartphone market for years to come.

iPhone: Closed System

Before Apple came along, the poster child for closed operating systems was BlackBerry. RIM has built a very, very successful company by developing a proprietary operating system to run only on its smartphones, and Apple is following in its footsteps.

iPhone The biggest advantage of this is it lets the developers target the OS for a specific group of devices. Apple's engineers know exactly what the hardware running their OS is going to be, and can tweak the OS to make it run as efficiently on that hardware as possible.

In addition, because there's just one company making BlackBerries, iPhones, etc. these operating systems and associated software are targeted to fulfill that company's goals for their products. The developers don't have to try to meet the disparate needs of a variety of companies.

The disadvantage of a completely closed platform is that limited input can lead to limited devices. For example, Apple prefers built-in memory to memory card slots. If you want a smartphone with a memory card slot, an iPhone isn't an option for you. Period.

Android: Open System

Google and its partners are creating a completely open operating system. It will even be open source, so anyone who would like to can take a look at the source code.

Android

The real strength of this system is it allows a huge amount of people and companies to collaborate on this OS. Any company who wants to make a smartphone based on Android can do so without paying a licensing fee, and can modify the software in any way to make it suit its specific needs.

The drawback of this arrangement is it can waste huge amounts of time. The OHA members are either going to have to spend a great deal of time hammering out their differences to make an OS that meets all their needs, or each one is going to have to spend time and resources modifying the generic version to suit themselves.

Even in the best circumstances, the default version of this operating system is going to have to be fairly generic, as it will have been developed by companies who plan to use it on a wide range of smartphones, with different screen sizes, input methods, processors, RAM, etc. There's the danger that by trying to be everything to everyone, Android won't be very good at anything.

Of course, companies will be able to modify the generic version to suit their specific needs, but if they have to spend months tinkering with Android, there's not much time savings over starting from scratch. And if all the versions of Android are very different from each other, the OHA loses much of the advantages of it being a cohesive platform.

Between the Two Extremes

I'm using the iPhone and Android to discuss two extremes. Most smartphone companies fall somewhere in between.

That's where I put all the mobile operating systems that are open to licensing. These aren't open-source operating systems, but they are developed in collaboration between the licensor (Microsoft, Symbian Limited, Access) and the the licensees (Nokia, Samsung, HTC, Motorola, etc.) The licensor is responsible for the development of the OS, but the licensees have a great deal of influence on what's in it.

This is a compromise which, like all such, has every disadvantage of both options. That's why many companies are moving to one extreme or the other.

Palm, Inc. is following Apple's lead and is in the process of creating a proprietary Linux-based operating system for its consumer-oriented smartphones. Generally called either Palm OS II or Nova , this will debut next year. Palm is still going to be a Windows Mobile licensee at the same time, though.

Nokia and the whole group of companies that use the Symbian OS are going the opposite direction by taking Google and the OHA's path. Their operating system -- and the S60 and UIQ user interfaces for it -- are going completely open. The Symbian OS will be open to development by anyone, and every company who wants to make a smartphone running it can do so without charge.

There you have it, two polar opposites each trying to accomplish the same thing: make a successful smartphone operating system. It's going to be interesting to see how these very different strategies play out in the coming years.

Related Articles:

berylrb · 07-03-2008, 04:56 PM

Thanks for the overview Ed. Couple of questons for you.

Will the Symbian OS incorporate part of the Android open source or are they developing their own open source Symbian OS?

How open is Symbian now, or is it closed like Apple OS? If it is closed and given that Nokia is what #2 or #1 in non-buisness sales, what is it that they foresee to base such a radical (edit) OS business model leap upon?

This move by Nokia makes me look at Palm in a whole new light as a potential investment, not there yet, ... LOL ... not even close, but hmmm ... we could have a five horse race in a year or two (Apple, Android, Rim, Symbian, and Palm) ... the lowest denominator is Palm, which means the greatest upside potential.

Matt J · 07-03-2008, 05:12 PM

Ed, I don't think the iPhone OS is Linux-based. I believe it's Unix-based.

Cripple · 07-03-2008, 05:39 PM

Actually I think the iPhone is based on Mac OS X. (See the Wiki page on iPhone OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS)
But definately can't be Linux-based. Linux licensing would prevent the code from being closed.
So iPhone OS and Android have very little in common. So ignoring the first sentence it's an interesting article.

berylrb · 07-03-2008, 06:32 PM

No, no, no ... you guys are splitting hairs

Mac OS X is Unix-based and Linux is too!
Mac OS X - link to Apple, open brand unix 03, whatever that is ...
Linux - for a concise summary linux.org, or for a nice review of linux history link here, here's a quote,

Quote:

The current kernel is fundamentally the work of Linus Torvalds and people he recruited into the kernel development and maintenance process, but the kernel he started with -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum's Minix -- was unambiguously described by its author as "an open source Unix clone."

So there you have it from the horse's mouth, Apple and Linus Torvalds!

Matt J · 07-03-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berylrb

No, no, no ... you guys are splitting hairs

Mac OS X is Unix-based and Linux is too!

Not to split hairs even further... Mac OS X is Unix-based and based on the Unix kernel, although I think it is a hybrid implementation. Linux is "based" on Unix, but is effectively a new OS developed by Torvalds.

Fundamentally, the iPhone and Android OS's are completely different; much like Windows NT and OS/2. There are some similarities deep down, but not enough to make them interoperable.

For the end-user it probably doesn't matter is an OS is open or closed source. Ultimately, they need something that is quick, stable and has developers behind it. Palm OS is closed-source, but it managed to lock 30,000 apps over its life. Linux is open-source, yet available apps don't even approach Windows in terms of number and (no flaming please) quality.

I never understood the fascination behind Linux, except the general detest for Microsoft. But, it truth Windows XP has served me very well over the years. Vista is terrible and I have never managed to get Linux to do EVERYTHING I need... just too much tweaking and obscure commands... drove me nuts.

As far as mobile OS's are concerned: Palm OS still does the job quite well. The iPhone looks like a good alternative thanks to 3rd party apps coming out. Even Blackberry might come along in terms of friendliness. The bottom line is that there is CHOICE and consumers can choose what fits their needs best. What's under the hood is really irrelevant to most.

Ed Hardy · 07-03-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berylrb

Will the Symbian OS incorporate part of the Android open source or are they developing their own open source Symbian OS?

I believe the plan is for the new Symbian Foundation is going to take the current version of the Symbian OS, merge S60 and UIQ into it, and release it as open source code. They are following Android and the OHA in spirit, not literally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by berylrb

How open is Symbian now, or is it closed like Apple OS? If it is closed and given that Nokia is what #2 or #1 in non-business sales, what is it that they foresee to base such a radical (edit) OS business model leap upon?

Symbian Limited was a cooperative effort between a small group of smartphone makers to develop an operating system they all could use. This was not open-source, and each had to pay license fees. Problem is, these companies never cooperated all that well. Nokia was such a powerhouse in sales that it was constantly being accused of pushing its weight around in the group. So the old system is being thrown out and the new Symbian Foundation has been formed. In short, the old set-up wasn't working for anyone but Nokia, so they are trying something new.

The new arrangement was chosen because Nokia wants to bring the benefits of open-source development that I mentioned in my editorial to the Symbian OS.
-

questionfear · 07-03-2008, 10:49 PM

I am curious to see how Android actually works out, but I think that in some ways an OS "built by committee" is facing uphill battles that others are not, and you gave some great examples and discussion on that.

I think though that this is a bigger weakness than anything else, since it opens the companies up to more variables.

berylrb · 07-03-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by questionfear

I am curious to see how Android actually works out, but I think that in some ways an OS "built by committee" is facing uphill battles that others are not, and you gave some great examples and discussion on that.

I think though that this is a bigger weakness than anything else, since it opens the companies up to more variables.

I've always wondered why Apple gets hammered for being closed, and Nokia, well they don't see to have any bad press at all and just keeps setting sales records? Am I missing something?

EDIT: Oops hit send to fast and now something new, thanks Ed for the reply. It still doesn't make sense to end a winning plan, unless they see something about Apple's model that is massive competition maybe, or is it RIM, just plain weird, because "it was working!" Maybe those 45M units sold in 2009 projections is not a pipe dream after all?

questionfear · 07-03-2008, 11:09 PM

I think if you make a product that enough people in your market want, you're fine. Look at RIM and Apple. They make products that people want, and no one cares what the disposition of the OS is. I think it comes down to knowing who to call when something goes wrong, and not having fingers pointed all over the place.

On the other hand, the current Palm OS is an interesting example. It started closed, became "open" in that licensees could make changes, and then "closed" again after all the licensees disappeared. The period of greatest prosperity for the OS? While it was more open.

It all comes down to execution, though logic dictates that the closed formula gives a company a bigger boost if successful since more control=more profits, more customer loyalty.