This article may be the signal people have been waiting for to indicate a bigger iPhone is coming...

[mulasien]

Just name off the number of things an iPhone can do out of the box and then compare it to a Nexus 5...and consider the price to feature ratio of the iPhone compared to the top Android phones, and then tell me it it's not limited?

If an iPhone is efficient and lag free to you, then great. It is, however, not the best phone out there regardless of how much the horse has been beaten. It runs the best on benchmarks, fine, have your benchmarks..guess what, optimized software runs better on the hardware it is optimized for.

However, I have a S4 and to me it's just far more intuitive in terms of multitasking and more powerful in terms of the things I can do on it. The framework to me is more elaborate and it has far better Google Apps available to it than on iOS. I can sideload apps on it if I need to do something I want on it that I couldn't do before. I don't see an imitation that would put me off the platform as long as I can keep using it.

It has far more plentiful third party app integration in the OS and just in the app development apis alone. It is just architected like a desktop computer, I don't get that sense on an iPhone.

Then I have to ask, what are you doing in this thread other than beating the "Android is more open and has more features" drum, since this phone clearly does not meet your needs?

 

[Speedygi]

Then I have to ask, what are you doing in this thread other than beating the "Android is more open and has more features" drum, since this phone clearly does not meet your needs?

First of all, iOS has more things against it than just being less open and having less features, it just isn't designed to do the same mobile computing things people could probably get done faster on Android or BB10 than on iOS. I get that the apps are better on iOS for most experiences, and it just has good fluidity, and that not everyone has to have a mobile computer in their pocket.

I could do probably everything I want on an IPhone barring a few things, but if I can do it all Smoothly and Fast on an excellent phone like a Nexus 5 or my S4 anyways, what has a 64 bit processor got to offer me on intensive multi app processes or just in general?

I mean I don't even want to say an Android phone can meet everyone's needs. But for the things that do matter, I might argue that an Android phone does more than an iPhone on a pure price for feature ratio.

The OP was talking about if an IPhone gets a bigger screen I would be happy. I'm just saying that I won't, no matter how opposed anyone else here would be to the opinion.

 

[mulasien]

I mean I don't even want to say an Android phone can meet everyone's needs. But for the things that do matter, I might argue that an Android phone does more than an iPhone on a pure price for feature ratio.

Fair enough, let's expound on this point. And by the way, I don't even care about 'winning' this discussion anymore, I just enjoy the discussion at the moment .

You and I actually think alike, sizing up pros and cons of a given platform and looking at the value proposition of each.

I think where you and I differ is that we place a different value on different features. There's nothing wrong with that, and fortunately we have enough different products out there to meet everyone's needs.

For a starting baseline, I'm going to assume for the moment that we're talking about an equally priced iPhone and top end Android handset, probably each $200 with a contract so price is not a differentiating factor.

Off the top of my head, and with personal experience in both camps, here's the features I think of with each camp:

Android:
- ability to add widgets to the home screen for quick looks at information
- ability to sideload apps not on the official app market
- much more customization potential
- many different configurations of phones across a spectrum of manufacturers
- access to the file system to store downloaded files
- ability to set default apps for various functions
- tight integration with Google's ecosystem of services
- there's probably some I'm forgetting at the moment, but I'm sure we've all read them on various similar threads on the interwebz

iOS:
- much more overall stable and efficient OS
- better developer support, most apps usually make their way to iOS first
- (depending on what handset you get), better quality hardware
- seamless integration with other Apple products, especially if other friends and family also have iOS devices
- better update schedule - Apple releases an update, and qualified devices get it that day. Can't get that on non-Nexus Android devices
- there's others, I've sure we've all heard them

All that being said, which set of features is more important to you? I was in the Android camp, and I to this date would love to have the ability to set Fantastical 2 as my default calendar app, and download non-picture files from email to open in another app (although this is already supported in a limited fashion).

However, that feature set from the Android set (at least for me) came with the cons of not getting updates until much later (if at all), missing out on lots of quality apps, and a generally laggier and crash prone experience on my Android phone and tablet.

If the feature set of Android is more important to you, and outweighs the cons of being in that system, then that's the OS for you. If the feature set of iOS is more important to you and outweighs the drawbacks, then iOS is for you.

I was in the Android camp for about 2 years, then slowly got more and more fed up with the lack of updates (outside of rooting and ROM'ing), an OS that got laggier over time (my ASUS tablet had this bad, I think it was the same issue that affected the original N7's), and decided to go with the more 'limited' iOS ecosystem, but gained a much better user experience, first access to new apps, and actally getting updates.

For me, the Apple products gave me a better price feature ratio, as its features were more beneficial to me despite its drawbacks. Obviously, you place Android's features as having higher importance (despite its drawbacks), and that's fine with me.

It all comes down to what features you place more importance on.

----By the way, I'm travelling over the next couple days and might not be available to respond for a while.

 

[Speedygi]

So you are saying Android isn't as stable... That's like saying Ferrari is bad given that your car just broke down on you.

I have answered the OP's questions. I have stated my reasons and my thoughts on the topic, pure and simple, and if you keep insisting to point out that Android isn't stable (which I feel it is on my S4...), you apparently want to win the argument.

At which case, I would say that's fine by me.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Speedygi]

Plus you are saying that iPhones are priced similarly to top end Android phones, which is clearly a lie.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[mulasien]

Plus you are saying that iPhones are priced similarly to top end Android phones, which is clearly a lie.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I can get a top end 16GB android phone at the same price as a 16GB iPhone with a contract upgrade, which is what most Americans do. If you're talking off contract or international, then you may be right. Two different scenarios. In that case, then we just don't have a common point of comparison, and there's not much point continuing this conversation.

 

[jmr1015]

Plus you are saying that iPhones are priced similarly to top end Android phones, which is clearly a lie.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

How is it a lie? A "top end" Android device, like the Galaxy S4, HTC One, Note 3, Xperia Z, all share a very similar manufacturer's suggested retail price to the iPhone when purchased off-contract. While you can find top tier Android handsets deeply discounted on Amazon, that doesn't change the fact the manufacturer was asking more, and retailers cut prices to try and bolster weak sales.

I can only assume you're referring to the Nexus 5. Which is being sold by Google, who doesn't make the majority of their profits off of hardware sales. Samsung, HTC, Sony, Nokia, Apple... These are predominantly hardware companies. Google is a data mining company... Who gives away a free OS to get more people on their ecosystem to mine data. They can afford the slim profit margins on the device and undercut hardware companies on price.

 

[dc9super80]

So you are saying Android isn't as stable... That's like saying Ferrari is bad given that your car just broke down on you.

I have answered the OP's questions. I have stated my reasons and my thoughts on the topic, pure and simple, and if you keep insisting to point out that Android isn't stable (which I feel it is on my S4...), you apparently want to win the argument.

At which case, I would say that's fine by me.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Android isn't as stable and I have a Nexus, you Dont get more Android than that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Speedygi]

How is it a lie? A "top end" Android device, like the Galaxy S4, HTC One, Note 3, Xperia Z, all share a very similar manufacturer's suggested retail price to the iPhone when purchased off-contract. While you can find top tier Android handsets deeply discounted on Amazon, that doesn't change the fact the manufacturer was asking more, and retailers cut prices to try and bolster weak sales.

I can only assume you're referring to the Nexus 5. Which is being sold by Google, who doesn't make the majority of their profits off of hardware sales. Samsung, HTC, Sony, Nokia, Apple... These are predominantly hardware companies. Google is a data mining company... Who gives away a free OS to get more people on their ecosystem to mine data. They can afford the slim profit margins on the device and undercut hardware companies on price.

Very similar? I can safely say an IPhone 5s' msrp clearly stands higher than all msrps, barring limited edition phones.

Plus if I can get by with a Nexus 5 off contract and pay as I go... Wouldn't there be a decent argument that with a much lower cost I can get pretty much do everything an iPhone can do out of the box and arguably more?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Speedygi]

I can get a top end 16GB android phone at the same price as a 16GB iPhone with a contract upgrade, which is what most Americans do. If you're talking off contract or international, then you may be right. Two different scenarios. In that case, then we just don't have a common point of comparison, and there's not much point continuing this conversation.

If I'm not wrong, on a similarly priced contract, you have to pay a higher upfront fee for an iPhone as well?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[anon(4698833)]

Very similar? I can safely say an IPhone 5s' msrp clearly stands higher than all msrps, barring limited edition phones.

Plus if I can get by with a Nexus 5 off contract and pay as I go... Wouldn't there be a decent argument that with a much lower cost I can get pretty much do everything an iPhone can do out of the box and arguably more?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

You can't argue pay as you go accounts...they have no consistent basis, and different carriers that offer such offer different things to entice people to sign up. The iPhone isn't specifically offered on those accounts, so it's irrelevant to the argument.

As far as pricing goes, I'm going to say that the difference between the iPhone's cost on or off contract (new) and that of other top tier smart phones is negligible at best. Truly, the real expense typically comes from the private market, where iPhone's just happen to keep high value in comparison...this can't be blamed on the device itself as a negative, it's just a supply and demand thing...basic business.

And to go a little deeper, arguing subsidized pricing is also kind of a moot point, because different carriers offer different deals (again, to entice sign up)...when Sprint was offering a free iPhone (or whatever the cost was), Verizon and AT&T were still at normal subsidized pricing. You couldn't argue that the iPhone was the best value at FREE because it wasn't like that across the board (nor is it for any type of device).

Arguing expense on top tier smart phones is just a pointless endeavor because unless you're part of the smaller niche that always buys full price, unsubsidized devices year in and year out, the discussion isn't even relevant...and even within that group, the pricing is almost identical across the top of the board.

 

[Speedygi]

Well, given that we are already in this topic, I must say I really hope Apple comes out with more affordable iPhones so I can contemplate whether to give them a shot or not. I truly feel I would need a contract renewal for these things and the fact I can often get things like HTC One or Galaxy S4 fairly cheap in private channels puts me off even wanting an iPhone, along with my already mentioned reasons.

Of course I won't argue the appeal of more prepaid targeted phones here, but if I can get a fairly good frequency of devices in without breaking the bank, and get quality that is comparable or better, I don't care where the argument goes as long as I can still buy these phones. I know many people are in that same boat, and while there is a good chance you would say a few hundred dollars is nothing to feel tight about when you are coming in and buying these phones, but if there is a cheaper option I don't see why people won't consider that.

To that point, there's only one reason or explanation, 'brand name.'

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[anon(4698833)]

But again, you are comparing private market sales...and you're holding the fact that Apple products (regardless of kind) hold value extremely well...better than almost any other product in the same market. If you want to get into that, these higher costs should actually ATTRACT a potential consumer because it shows the demand for the devices, which is reflective of the quality and experience you get.

I'll just say my piece and be done with the discussion about pricing (because it's been discussed so many times before and there really is no "right" answer to it)...I personally feel the iPhone's are priced perfectly (if not a little low) compared to what else is on the market. Subsidized pricing is a non-issue...if you don't mind being stuck with a carrier, the pricing points are ridiculously low for what you are getting. Unsubsidized pricing, to me, is perfectly in line with the rest of Apple's product line/pricing, and perfectly competitive with the other devices on the market (in regards to the cost to buy one new). What I get out of these devices for the cost they ask seems like a steal to me.

Creating a "cheaper" iPhone, to me, degrades the brand. This was my argument when the big hoopla about the 5c was first started...how it was the "budget" iPhone, and for the longest time, I felt that this was a terrible move by Apple. Thankfully Apple had no intention of the 5c being a "budget" iPhone, and the cost reflected such (as well as the build quality). I don't ever want to see an Apple product on a Pay Per Use stand because, to me, it cheapens the experience, and takes some of the luster away.

 

[Speedygi]

But again, you are comparing private market sales...and you're holding the fact that Apple products (regardless of kind) hold value extremely well...better than almost any other product in the same market. If you want to get into that, these higher costs should actually ATTRACT a potential consumer because it shows the demand for the devices, which is reflective of the quality and experience you get.

I'll just say my piece and be done with the discussion about pricing (because it's been discussed so many times before and there really is no "right" answer to it)...I personally feel the iPhone's are priced perfectly (if not a little low) compared to what else is on the market. Subsidized pricing is a non-issue...if you don't mind being stuck with a carrier, the pricing points are ridiculously low for what you are getting. Unsubsidized pricing, to me, is perfectly in line with the rest of Apple's product line/pricing, and perfectly competitive with the other devices on the market (in regards to the cost to buy one new). What I get out of these devices for the cost they ask seems like a steal to me.

Creating a "cheaper" iPhone, to me, degrades the brand. This was my argument when the big hoopla about the 5c was first started...how it was the "budget" iPhone, and for the longest time, I felt that this was a terrible move by Apple. Thankfully Apple had no intention of the 5c being a "budget" iPhone, and the cost reflected such (as well as the build quality). I don't ever want to see an Apple product on a Pay Per Use stand because, to me, it cheapens the experience, and takes some of the luster away.

Well, I always see myself as a user who looks into the functions, rather than luster, so I must say I'm in the other school of thought, which I say is fine by me...

 

[shanghaichica]

How is it a lie? A "top end" Android device, like the Galaxy S4, HTC One, Note 3, Xperia Z, all share a very similar manufacturer's suggested retail price to the iPhone when purchased off-contract. While you can find top tier Android handsets deeply discounted on Amazon, that doesn't change the fact the manufacturer was asking more, and retailers cut prices to try and bolster weak sales.

I can only assume you're referring to the Nexus 5. Which is being sold by Google, who doesn't make the majority of their profits off of hardware sales. Samsung, HTC, Sony, Nokia, Apple... These are predominantly hardware companies. Google is a data mining company... Who gives away a free OS to get more people on their ecosystem to mine data. They can afford the slim profit margins on the device and undercut hardware companies on price.

Most of the android devices are heavily subsidised by the carriers, at least in the UK. I upgraded to the 5S this week. I had to pay $215 dollars for the handset upfront. I could have got any of the top android phones on the same or cheaper price plans for free.

 

[anon(4698833)]

Well, I always see myself as a user who looks into the functions, rather than luster, so I must say I'm in the other school of thought, which I say is fine by me...

I don't think my comments represented me as someone who focused solely (or even partially) on luster at all...that was one small little detail. If that is all you saw out of all my comments, I don't know what to say, lol.

 

[Speedygi]

On the contrary I think you definitely knew what you were saying when you talk about these things, so for sure I wasn't saying that you care about luster itself.

However, your post was focused specifically on luster so I felt inclined to comment on that, without prejudice.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[anon(4698833)]

On the contrary I think you definitely knew what you were saying when you talk about these things, so for sure I wasn't saying that you care about luster itself.

However, your post was focused specifically on luster so I felt inclined to comment on that, without prejudice.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

One part of the post was focused on degrading the brand...I used the term luster as a representation of the device in the upper tier of devices on the market. A representation of Apple's "luxury brand" persona. The post itself wasn't focused on that, just the last little piece. Your response, however, identified the two of us as specific kinds of consumers...and to me, that was a bit unfair, because you felt you were in "another school of thought", when the exact opposite is actually true...I tend sway towards functionality over form with these things, it just so happens that my functional preference is also one of the most luxurious offerings as well (for lack of better term).