The Android operating system is simply superior to anything Apple can produce.
Apple fans consistently claim that any iProduct is valuable because it is easy to operate. That may be true if your brain is hardwired the same as Steve Jobs’ was. Unfortunately, not everyone is wired the same. And, while no software suite will ever be intuitive for everyone, the Android system is closer to realizing that ideal than anything Apple-engineered.
The simple truth is that the Apple operating systems have always been, and always will be, locked.
This goes back to the early days of home computing, when the grizzled veterans of DOS 3.x welcomed mouse support in DOS 4. (Which actually worked in DOS 5.) Apple products had all the graphical bells and whistles that anyone could want, but the user could barely tinker with them. The operating system itself was off-limits.
Yes, DOS-based PC programs had bugs. But, that was the risk of accessibility.
Even then, with Apple products, users were trapped into doing things in one way and one way alone. If the user wanted to change the experience, that was too bad.
The benefit, as touted by Apple HQ, was that users required very little training to become capable in Apple software. In contrast, there was a cottage industry of training specific the PC platform.
While that worked for many people, it did not work for everyone. If a consumer’s brain was not hardwired the same as the Apple-experience-designers, it was not intuitive. It still required some degree of training. That same philosophy rules modern Apple products.
Android, on the other hand, allows for an extensive amount of customization. There is a learning curve for any new feature or product, but that applies to both platforms.
The differentiating factor is that the Android system can be modified to fit the user. This operational flexibility simply does not exist with Apple products. Android, and other relatively open-sourced operating systems, allows the user greater authority to control the interface experience.
Marketing tripe aside, Apple is a “our iWay or the highway” design model through and through. This attitude, and inspired engineering, allowed Apple to obtain a significant market share. It worked because it was relatively new technology for the masses, so everyone was learning together.
Over time, though, it created its own traps. As certain features became common, and implemented differently on other systems, consumers realized the Apple’s way might not be the best way.
Android has the functionality and developer-base to plot long-term success in customizing the user experience. Consumers do not really know what they will want tomorrow, so developers must predict what features to provide and with what options. The problem is that a developer’s initial choices about usability can miss the mark.
A system that is flexible, like Android’s, can allow after-market addons to increase the usability factor. Systems that are static and rely on iterative updates to provide shallow choices will be left behind.