5 ms·

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 defi

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.

illumin8 15y ago
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.
- interlagos 15y ago
  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.
- ajross 15y ago
  "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.
  - reidmain 15y ago
    "Proven itself" can mean that iOS grosses more than Android. Last I checked iOS users spend more on apps/services than their Android counterparts.
    - bad_user 15y ago
      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.
      - megablast 15y ago
        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.
        bad_user 15y ago
        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.
rayiner 15y ago
> 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.
- vetinari 15y ago
  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.
danssig 15y ago
>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.

illumin8 15y ago

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.

interlagos 15y ago
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.
ajross 15y ago
"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.
- reidmain 15y ago
  "Proven itself" can mean that iOS grosses more than Android. Last I checked iOS users spend more on apps/services than their Android counterparts.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    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.
    - megablast 15y ago
      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.
      - bad_user 15y ago
        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.

rayiner 15y ago

> 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.

vetinari 15y ago
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.

danssig 15y ago

>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.