iphone Vs Android is one of the popular question which you may heard many times.I had that question too so i started my research on these devices.Here i have examined some of the major differences.
As we are dealing with the differences hardware will be the first choice which comes around.As Apple is the only one which makes the software for the iphone which makes the iphone and the software tightly coupled.On the other hand, Google offers its Android software to many phone makers (Samsung, HTC, LG, and Motorola, among others, offer Android phones). As a result, Android phones vary quite a bit in size, weight, features, user experience, and quality.It’s not uncommon to hear that some Android phones regularly overheat or freeze up or that some models are simply low quality. This inconsistency of quality isn’t an issue for the iPhone.
Apple offers users a single choice: what model of iPhone do you want (5, 4S or 4), not what company’s phone and then what model. Of course, some people may prefer the greater choice Android offers. Others, though, will appreciate the simplicity and quality offered by the iPhone.
If you want to make sure you always have the latest and greatest features that your chosen smartphone operating system offers, you have no choice but to buy an iPhone. That’s because Android makers are very slow about updating their phones to Google’s latest Android OS releases–and sometimes don’t update their phones at all.
While it’s to be expected that eventually older phones will no longer have support for the latest OS, Apple’s support for older phones is generally better than Android’s. Take for instance, iOS 5, its latest OS. It includes full support for the iPhone 3GS, a nearly three-year-old phone as of this writing. Because of that, roughly 75% of iPhone 3GS-4S users were running iOS 5 6 months after its release.
On the other hand, Android 4.0, codenamed Ice Cream Sandwich, is running on just 2.9% of Android devices 6 months after its release. This is partly because the makers of the phones control when the OS is released for their phones and, as that linked article shows, some makers have been slow to release it to their users.
So, if you want the latest and greatest as soon as it’s ready, you need an iPhone.
While the iPhone App Store offers more apps than Google Play–about 700,000 versus 480,000 (as of July 2012)–overall selection isn’t the only factor. Apple is famously strict (some might say unpredictable) about what apps it allows and how it changes its policies, while Google’s standards for Android are somewhat more lax.
Many developers have complained about the emphasis on free apps for Android and the difficulty of developing for so many different phones. This fragmentation–the large numbers of devices and OS versions to support–makes developing for Android expensive (for instance, the developers of Temple Run reported that early in their Android experience nearly all of their support emails had to do with unsupported devices–but they support over 700 Android phones!). Combine these development costs with an emphasis on free that reduces the likelihood that developers can cover their costs and not all of the best apps make it to Android, and those that do don’t necessarily run on all phones.
Just a couple of years ago, video gaming–and especially mobile video gaming–was dominated by Nintendo’s DS and Sony’s PSP. The iPhone has changed that. The iPhone (and iPod touch) has rapidly become a major player in the mobile video game market, with tens of thousands of great games. The growth of the iPhone as a gaming platform, in fact, has led some observers to forecast that Apple is well on its way to eclipsing Nintendo and Sony as the leading mobile game platform.
Beyond that, the general expectation that Android apps should be free (noted above) has led game developers interested in making money (i.e., almost all of them, and certainly all the major ones) to develop for iPhone first and Android second. In fact, due to various problems with developing for Android, some game companies have stopped creating games for it all together.
While Android has its fair share of hit games, the iPhone has the clear advantage here.
The iPhone famously doesn’t run Flash–and never will–and makers of Android tablets trumpet that their devices do. If tablets using Android can run Flash, will Android phones be able to do the same?
The answer is sort of–and only older models. That’s because Adobe, the makers of Flash, have ceased development of Flash for Android. While older Android devices can use Flash, Adobe has said it will no longer support Flash on Android 4.1 and higher, and that it will no longer be available for download through Google Play after August 2012. So, Android users who want Flash will have to decide: do they want to stay on an older operating system or have Flash?
After reports that the experience of running Flash on Android was never very good–many reviewers have pointed out that Flash doesn’t work terrifically well on Android tablets and that it drains batteries quickly–Adobe’s decision seems to validate Apple’s original point: Flash is bad for batteries and device stability.
While its lack of Flash prevents the iPhone from viewing some web content, many sites have alternate versions that work with the iPhone. So, iPhone users do miss some of the web, but less and less all the time. And, they may miss the parts of the web, but with HTML 5 set to displace Flash and Flash’s own maker admitting it can’t make a version that works well on Android, you’d have to conclude Apple wins this one.
Because of the greater variety of hardware used in Android phones, Android’s battery life is more varied and, on average, less than the iPhone’s. While early iPhone models had batteries that required a charge nearly every day, that’s no longer true. With recent models, it’s easy to go days at a time without needing a charge (though that will be tested with the iPhone 5).
The story is much more complex with Android, thanks to the large variety of models that run it. Some Android models now have 4-inch screen or 4G LTE networking, both of which burn through much more battery life. To get a sense of what that means, some 4G LTE Android phones are being touted as successes because they can work 8 hours straight without a charge. That means they don’t last an entire day, just a work day. I’m sure the faster networking is great, but that’s too much of a trade-off for me.
Add that to the battery-intensive apps Android phones run (including some in the background that the user doesn’t necessarily know are there), a charge every day (or less) isn’t unheard of.
If you’re looking for the biggest screens available on smartphones, Android is your clear choice. It’s not uncommon to find Android phones with 4.3-inch screens, and the HTC One X offers a 4.7-inch screen, while the Samsung Galaxy Note stretches the ruler at 5.3 inches. So, for sheer size, Android it is.
The question, of course, is whether a screen that big on a phone is actually a good idea. After all, phones go in our pockets or purses, they’re held in our hands and to our faces, where huge devices may not necessarily be a benefit. And as we’ve seen already, large screens consume more battery power.
While Apple long held to the 3.5-inch screen size, the iPhone 5 brings a 4-inch screen. However, instead of making the entire device proportionally bigger, and therefore a less comfortable fit in the hand, Apple made the screen taller, but not wider. This allows the phone to still be easily used with one hand. Besides that, the Retina Display technology makes the iPhone’s screen much higher-resolution than Android screens. Still, if it’s raw size you’re after, Android’s the choice, but not by much.