
I switched to Android after 7 years of iOS - joeyespo
https://joreteg.com/blog/why-i-switched-to-android
======
kev009
I did the opposite and can't believe how much better my life had gotten
because my iPhone is just a simple tool that I use for communications and
don't think about it as a project. With Android, I always wanted to tweak
silly things and run Cyanogenmod because the handset firmware was always so
bad and vulnerable. On several occasions I'd bricked my phone requiring hours
of recovery, or had transient failures of cell service and communications
issues. I guess if you have the right level of discipline, apathy, or use a
Nexus device that may be more Apples to Apples (harhar).

~~~
taesu
These things that you mentioned, you didn't really have to do. Buy a nexus,
and it's as clean as it gets.

What you're saying is that you left the freedom of your device to jail
yourself into simple interface...?

I do agree though, that those samsung/lg/etc phone have lots crapwares +
carrier crapwares.

~~~
babuskov
Don't buy a Nexus. I have and it's a huge disappointment.

I had a perfect Nexus 10 device running KitKat. And then it keeps nagging to
upgrade to Lollipop, so I did. Ever since that, it runs every application slow
as hell. If you allow the battery to run out, prepare for pain. Once you fill
up the battery and it restarts it will start "optimizing" all installed
applications. I have about 80 applications and this takes an hour. Every time
it reboots!

Also, whether the sound will work after reboot, is a lottery. If you leave it
plugged into the power, it surely won't work.

It's been how long since Android L came out and they still haven't fixed these
issues for their own flagship device. Nexus is a mess and we're not even beta
testers. Just a big fu from Google.

~~~
BuckRogers
Nexus devices have pretty much proven out to be that way. I was going to move
to a Nexus before abandoning Android (after about 7 years of using various
phones) but they cut off updates way too early. My friend has one and overall
I was just not pleased with it. Build quality as well. I ran Cyanogenmod on my
phones usually and helped a lot but I'm still happier with my iPhone.

I ended up moving to an iPhone 5S and I love it. Right size (for me) to hold
with 1 hand while holding the rail on the train or bus, and runs really well
with no problems. I maintain my work computer and home machines, that's
enough. I really didn't appreciate what Android offers and it really is a
shame that even the Nexus isn't the answer. I'm not a hater, I use what works
for me.

There is no real iPhone equivalent in the Android market. The real kicker for
me was that my wife has been using an iPhone 4S to this day, since 2011. I
went through 3 or 4 Android phones in that time. Not low end phones either,
Motorola Droid, GS3, GS4, HTC Thunderbolt... absolutely absurd.

Today we buy apps once and both use them, enjoy the iPhone tracking services
that are built in, and the fact she just got iOS 9.3 is flat out fantastic.

Apple has literally earned our business and will continue to get it.

~~~
jan_g
Well, I have nexus 4 since 2012 and have been using to this day. I just might
use it for another year (unless the new Nexus phones this autumn really
impress me). Some of my relatives still use Samsung Galaxy S3. It is possible
to use an Android phone for more than a year. I have no clue why you went
through them so fast. 4 phones in 5 years? So you upgraded nearly every year.
Why?

~~~
YZF
It's disappointing though it didn't get the latest OS upgrade. One of the
reasons I bought the Nexus 4 is the promise that it would get updates...

~~~
Grazester
Yeah and it got the promised updates(up to 2 years)

~~~
YZF
Only getting what's promised is a disappointment. My expectation from Google
is that they over-deliver on their promises. Being pressured to buy a new
(much more expensive) device is sure to turn me off from buying one.

------
sjenson
Nearly all of the comments here are missing the point of this blog post. The
author likes Progressive Web apps, they are important to him. He's moving to
Android because it supports the web better.

That's it.

This isn't iOS vs Android and it certainly isn't web vs native. Yes, the
article is critical of native apps (and the app store) so I can see how you'd
go there but it's a distraction. I see this article as an"I want to use the
best mobile web platform possible" argument.

~~~
cbeach
I guess if the original poster had chosen a better title for his HN
submission, like "Android's good for progressive web apps" he wouldn't have
started a flame war.

"I ditched iPhone for Android" is always going to rekindle the iPhone vs
Android flame war. The original poster is to blame.

It's a pity Android fans always feel the need to compare everything they do to
Apple's software and devices. I guess it's the imposter syndrome that comes
with being 2nd to the marketplace?

~~~
sjenson
I didn't read it that way at all. He's calling out that Apple isn't doing a
great job supporting the web and this fact is so important to him that he's
willing to switch platforms.

And 'blaming the poster' is classic victim shaming. Not reading a post and
then flaming based on the title is exactly what the web tends to do far too
easily (and what we need much less of)

~~~
cbeach
It's completely subjective that you and the poster think "Apple isn't doing a
great job on the web" \- for one, I think they're doing brilliantly. Safari is
extremely fast and well-optimised on iOS, certainly a better experience
whenever I've compared iPhones and Androids of similar vintage side-by-side.

And I'm relieved that web gizmos like bluetooth support aren't built into iOS
Safari. I can't think of a more inviting attack vector.

~~~
sjenson
You clearly don't do web development do you... I'm very supportive of Apple
and happy that they are starting to finally update Safari more quickly but the
reason OP published this article is that there is a long list of modern web
features (going through the W3C) that Apple is severely behind on. I totally
agree with you that Safari is a'good, fast browser' so from the your consumer
point of view, it's quite nice. But it is lagging behind standards that are
being implemented on nearly every browser BUT Safari. Again, this is hopefully
changing, but it's this slowness that motivated the OP.

------
kalleboo
My main exposure to Chrome web apps is Hangouts on Chrome for Mac and half the
time I shut it down and choose to use the native app on my phone instead due
to the poor, non-native UI and the battery life impact of Chrome.

edit: the other shiny Google Web App example, Google Docs, doesn't work
either. In Safari it likes to drops keys, and the last time I used it in
Chrome (last autumn), it would either crash the whole tab, or freeze it up
long enough for it to tell me it gave up and that I should just copy the
content and paste into a new document

It seems we're re-living the nightmare of Java "cross-platform compatibility"
but with an even worse programming language.

> In fact, I think Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) actually have a huge leg-up on
> native apps because you can start using them immediately

> There’s just so much less friction for users to start using them

Every web app I've used has required a painful sign-up process, which is
usually where I bail out of the process. Way more friction than an app store
install.

~~~
treehau5
> Every web app I've used has required a painful sign-up process, which is
> usually where I bail out of the process. Way more friction than an app store
> install.

That signup process can be made better. Nothing fixes the pains of having to
download a large app over a potentially slow/spotty network, sacrifice an
unknown amount of privacy, then having to twiddle a variable amount of options
to get the thing to stop sending you notifications about every single action
or event, then after a week of use, having to re-download the large app again
because of updates.

~~~
kalleboo
> Nothing fixes the pains of having to download a large app over a potentially
> slow/spotty network

You mean like the 12 MB it takes to load a Google Sheet? At least with a
native app, once it's downloaded you know it's there and it won't go into an
indeterminate state if you happen to try to use a feature that hasn't been
loaded yet.

> sacrifice an unknown amount of privacy, then having to twiddle a variable
> amount of options to get the thing to stop sending you notifications about
> every single action or event

These are not issues when you have iOS's permissions model

~~~
treehau5
> These are not issues when you have iOS's permissions model

Which is 13.9% market share currently.

Unless Apple wants to make budget devices (they don't), this world does not
exist, and it won't any time soon.

> You mean like the 12 MB it takes to load a Google Sheet?

Although I realize we are speaking in hypotheticals, and generalizing the type
of apps people use (I realize there are smaller ~2 meg apps), the average size
of an iOS app is 20mb, and the average android app is 7mb. You pointed out an
exceptional use case, not the most common.

------
BuckRogers
I did the opposite. 7 years of Android to iOS. I'll never go back unless Apple
somehow swaps the experience to be more like Android phones, and less like iOS
is. But I don't really care about that. I just want my phone to work, to make
calls and not fail or slowdown. Not be another computer I have to maintain.
iOS in my experience is a great choice if that's the goal.

He hit the nail on the head at the end. Native React and similar tools are
going to simply help the app stores. I have no qualm with app stores as I'm
not a webapp diehard.

Just use what makes sense. I never think that is Javascript and take the exact
opposite view of the author. I use JS only when I absolutely have to. I prefer
to build native platform experiences, which if you're doing more than a CRUD
app many times you have to do anyway. I'd work with C#, Swift, Rust, Python
and their associated ecosystems before trying to JS All The Things. I find
that concept very anti-democratic and regressive.

The Javascript diehard mentality will come to it's final death throes once
wasm hits V2 and allows every language the chance to work in the browser. Then
the web will truly progress as the author states. Developers will be freed to
use whatever they want. Swift on the server, iOS and browser. Let programming
platforms and tooling duel it out, not hand the crown to a PL that was created
in 1 week. I choose Python, but everyone should be able to use whatever they
want as well.

For me, that's the real "progressive web app".

~~~
yepthatsreality
Couldn't agree more. I've been looking at Xaramin for a real hybrid
development. React Natvie is interesting, but once again, JS...

------
mrcwinn
The argument seems to be that app developers aren't doing very well on the app
store, and you're looking to the free and open web as the place where vast
sums of money will be made? For the vast majority of these apps, I beg to
differ. The web plays by the same rules as the app ecosystem: it's very
expensive to monetize, unless of course you are creating value for someone who
has money and minimal friction when paying.

"Unfortunately, the web platform itself wasn’t quite ready for the spotlight
yet. It was sort of possible to build web apps that looked and performed like
native apps..."

Are you talking about 2007 or 2016? Native apps will always outperform non-
native apps - and not because of any emotional or "political" reason - but for
perfectly obvious technical reasons. Web apps have an extra layer between
themselves and the hardware. Native apps do not (or, at least, the layer is
much thinner). Even if web apps increase in speed another 100x, native apps
will be right there too.

Look, at the end of the day, use Android or iOS. I don't care. I've used both.
But don't switch for _this_ reason.

~~~
hrktb
This point is addressed in the article, the point is not to have web app
perform as fast or better than native app. As long as they are fast enough
it's ok.

I'll support this point: for so many services I'd be ok to trade off native
performance for a smoother install process and independance from arbitrary
rules. For instance amazon kindle app is severly limited by the app store
rules while it has arguably no features that need to be native and does have
almost no performance need (I wouldn't care if it took 250ms instead of 100ms
to turn pages)

Same goes with apps like google keep or to do list apps. Whole categories of
app would be better off as locally installed web apps, if only the OS had
better support for them.

~~~
Narishma
> This point is addressed in the article, the point is not to have web app
> perform as fast or better than native app. As long as they are fast enough
> it's ok.

That may be true if you only care about performance, but what about battery
usage? That's something important on a phone.

~~~
hrktb
Would the battery usage be much worse ?

I get that taking more CPU time and doing less efficient operations will be
worse, but this peaks would generally happen when the user is actively
interacting, which in the running time of an app is not a lot.

I would think the large majority of what this could be used for has less
interactions and moving parts than the usual app. Of course someone would
implement Quake in JS, but otherwise your note taking app or other utility
(even a chat app) won't be actively sucking battery constantly.

------
itp
Wow. I'm a long time Android user and probably pay more attention than most,
and I had no idea web apps had gotten quite this nice. Currently the only web
app / web shortcut I have installed is the HackerWeb app[0], which is nice but
clearly not taking advantage of all of the functionality it could.

I "installed" Flipkart Lite and the Voice Memos demo app to see the state of
the world. Clearly it's possible to build some really nice web apps these
days! I hope to see more of it moving forward.

[0] [https://hackerwebapp.com/](https://hackerwebapp.com/)

~~~
jseliger
Actually, let me piggyback on your comment and ask a usability question: Has
anyone written an OS X app to make OS X play nicely with Android phones by
syncing contacts, emails, calendars, and audio? I ask because Apple did
something supremely annoying with an iTunes, OS X, or iOS update a while ago:
Contacts and calendars no longer sync directly from OS X to iPhones and vice
versa.

This is monumentally annoying. iPhones are now pretty expensive and don't have
this one feature that I used to find incredibly useful. I know there are ways
to accomplish this via iCloud, but I neither like nor trust iCloud and don't
need it.

~~~
e40
You can connect your gmail account on a Mac and it sync's contacts. I do this
so my VoIP apps have access to my gmail contacts, which are shared with my
Android phone.

~~~
rcarmo
This. It just works (mostly), although be prepared to put up with some
weirdness if you have custom fields and pixelated avatars.

------
mostafaberg
>I don’t know about you, but the idea of having a fully capable web browser in
my pocket was a huge part of the appeal.

A: Both iOS and android have fully capable web browsers, I'm not sure what's
missing here ?

>I’m talking about stuff that QA should have caught, stuff that if anybody at
Apple was actually building ? apps this way would have noticed before they
released.

A: They do pass QA, that's why features are removed

>One quick example that bit me was how they broke the ability to link out to
an external website from within an app running in “standalone” mode.
target=_blank no longer worked.

A: Thank god apple no longer allows that, how do you expect a tiny screen to
have popups and switch web browser views when you click links ? this is a very
bad UX.

>We were running a chat product at the time, so anytime someone pasted a URL
into chat it was essentially a trap.

A: I'm not here to judge your decisions or why you did it that way, but IMHO a
chat product doesn't really belong in a "web browser"

>The message from Apple seemed clear: web apps are second-class citizens on
iOS

A: Exactly, and it is that way for many good reasons.

I see you've mostly switched to android just so you can continue developing
webapps, that's okay for you, but it's not a really good reason at all. Don't
be like the people who where bashing apple when it decided to remove support
for flash player, because that's one of the reasons the web has become the way
it is today, i'm not an apple fanboy, i also did the switch from iOS to
Android after around 7 years too.

~~~
danjoc
>A: Both iOS and android have fully capable web browsers, I'm not sure what's
missing here ?

Specifically he mentions his WebRTC video streaming app "just works" on
Android Chrome and Firefox.

[http://caniuse.com/stream](http://caniuse.com/stream)

According to that, it does not work on iOS Safari. Not any version. Ever.
Apple only allows Safari on iOS. Therefore, any application that would like to
do streaming will have to be native on iOS. Will have to pay Apple a 30% tax.
Will have to live with Apple's approval and release schedules.

Apple has allowed Safari to stagnate in significant areas that would permit
web apps to compete with native apps. This isn't another iOS vs Android flame
war. It's more an indictment of Apple's development priorities on the mobile
browser.

~~~
bobbles
> Apple only allows Safari on iOS

Blatantly false?

[https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/chrome-web-browser-by-
google...](https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/chrome-web-browser-by-
google/id535886823?mt=8)

~~~
thekingshorses
Not at all.

There is only one rendering engine on iOS. Apple TOS prohibits all other
rendering engines. Chrome uses Safari/webkit rendering engine to render the
page.

------
S_A_P
Im not sure what it is about articles like these that bother me so much. Is
this guy some hacker hero that I should know? I dont care what the platform
is, and this is nothing to do with iOS vs Android. I really cannot stand this
"why I quit x" type of blog post. Is there a reason this guys opinion matters
more than anyone elses? I know I could just ignore articles like this, but it
does happen to be staring me in the face at the top of the list. At the risk
of irony, I would much rather see a case made for improving something than a
"I chose this because its better, and I know better than you" article.

~~~
apocalyptic0n3
I don't think there's anything wrong with the article; it's a personal blog
and switching mobile platforms is a pretty significant change for most people.
I'd be more surprised if someone with a personal blog _didn't_ write about it.

That said, I don't see why it hit the frontpage of HN. It doesn't seem to add
anything of benefit discussion-wise or show anything new in my opionion

~~~
SquareWheel
>That said, I don't see why it hit the frontpage of HN. It doesn't seem to add
anything of benefit discussion-wise or show anything new in my opionion

I upvoted it because it showed me how exciting progressive webapps can be. I
was somewhat aware of them before, but hadn't realized how close they were to
native apps.

It's unfortunate about the title, because the comments devolved into arguing
platform wars instead of discussing the ramifications of this new technology.

------
untog
I agree with pretty much everything in this article - I firmly believe that
we're due a "post-app" world where progressively enhanced web sites provide
95% of the functionality we require. But we're not there yet - I'd love to see
better WebView integration into native UI components (UINavigationController
and the like), to provide things like swipe-to-go-back, which is monumentally
hard to do on the web.

But hey. Maybe, just maybe, we'll end up back in a world were cross-platform
development is viable. If Apple lets us.

~~~
aembleton
I just tried the [https://www.pokedex.org/](https://www.pokedex.org/) site on
Chrome for Android, and I could add it to my home screen, but that doesn't add
it to my app drawer.

That is annoying, I don't want it on my home screen but it seems to be the
only way to turn it into a 'native app'.

I don't think Progressive Web Apps are ready for the mainstream, but I'm
hopeful that in the next few years we can get there.

~~~
nolanl
(I'm the author of Pokedex.org.)

Unfortunately it's a limitation of the Android platform; you can't add
arbitrary launch activities at runtime. So the Chrome team is unable to fix
this AFAIK.

However, you could imagine a future release of Android that sports a custom
homescreen app that just includes Chrome progressive webapps in the main app
drawer. Or someone might be able to write a third-party homescreen app already
that does that. (Not sure if Chrome exports that data though TBH.)

Also, FWIW, the "add to homescreen" is really just icing on the cake - even
without it, PWAs save data locally and are launchable offline. If you remove
Pokedex.org from your homescreen, you'll notice you can still navigate to
[https://pokedex.org](https://pokedex.org) while in airplane mode, and Chrome
still reports some 6MB of Pokémon data as being stored on your device. (It
remains to be seen whether this is a bug or a feature... but we'll see how
many PWAs abuse it.)

~~~
lern_too_spel
The Chrome team should tell the Google Now Home activity team to show these
apps in the drawer until they get the Android team to implement runtime
(instead of install time) addition of launcher activities. It sounds like an
instance of UX failure through non-communication.

------
criddell
And then somebody in management asks why the new app is missing so many
features on his brand new iPhone. In fact, all the C-level folks and board
members are primarily iPhone and iPad users and none of them are happy that so
many goodies are missing.

If you aren't worried about provided a first class experience to your iOS
customers, then build for Chrome + Android. Although, that sounds a little
like "build for IE6 + Windows" 15 years ago.

~~~
untog
> If you aren't worried about provided a first class experience to your iOS
> customers, then build for Chrome + Android. Although, that sounds a little
> like "build for IE6 + Windows" 15 years ago.

Except that Android is the open one that is implementing agreed upon
standards, and Apple is the laggard left behind.

~~~
TomBombadildoze
> Apple is the laggard left behind

citation needed

~~~
untog
The article itself cites things like the lack of support for WebRTC and
Service Workers.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I can't find a single iOS app I use that needs either of these.

~~~
untog
I'm not sure if you're trolling or sincere here. Of course iOS apps don't need
them, they are native. We are talking about the capabilities of the iOS Safari
browser.

~~~
toomuchtodo
That's my point. I'm rarely, if ever, in my browser on either of my iOS
devices (iPhone 6 or iPad).

If you're not writing a native app, don't bother. Facebook learned this
lesson, I'm sure everyone else does eventually as well.

~~~
untog
Yeah, because the browser doesn't offer the capabilities needed to render
native apps redundant. I'm not sure why we're talking in a giant circle here.

Clearly, the "build for IE6 + Windows" of 2016 is "build for native iOS",
which was the original point I was making.

------
hackuser
A bit OT: I'd like a mobile platform that provides confidentiality (from both
government draget and commercial spying) and end-user control. These seem like
fundementals of any platform, at least as user options, but I haven't found
it:

* iOS seems to have some confidentiality, though are users really protected from commercial spying? Of course end-user control is very limited.

* Android provides some end-user control if you root your phone, but it's complicated to utilize. Confidentiality is awful; there are a never-ending number of holes and leak, AFAICT, many built into the OS. No fork (i.e., ROM) of Android seems to focus on confidentiality, though I'm curious whether Blackberry's Priv locks down the OS in addition to the hardware.

* Basebands are neither confidential nor provide end-user control, in any phones outside of FOSS projects, AFAIK.

* Mobile service providers also are an omnipresent risk.

\---

I suspect a decent solution to the baseband and mobile service problem is the
following, but I haven't tried it and I know it has some weaknesses:

* a hosted VPN service that provides a firewall (the firewall is needed to filter outbound connections from your phone)

* a cellular router that's pre-paid, tethered to the phone to isolate the baseband from the rest of your handheld computer

* VOIP service for voice and SMS/MMS

~~~
Silhouette
_I 'm curious whether Blackberry's Priv locks down the OS in addition to the
hardware._

So am I, but when I read their site about it around the time it launched,
there were so many loopholes and weasel words in the information about
security features that I ran away.

FWIW, the most obvious warning sign was that they were very hot on telling you
about potentially insecure things being done on your device, but I couldn't
find a single definitive statement that their software actually let you do
anything to _prevent_ those things from happening, nor any reference to tools
or controls that seemed like they might do so, on their entire site. It also
appeared to be based on an older version of Android that didn't have some of
the more recent advances in per-app per-function privilege controls,
suggesting that they might actually be worse in this respect than recent
devices from other providers would be just with the latest off-the-shelf
Android release.

------
mastazi
Just yesterday, I switched back to Android after 4 years of iOS and I am
really really pleased. I especially like the interoperability between apps and
the "draw over other apps" capability. In relation to the linked post:

1- I'm not 100% convinced that web-based apps are always the way to go on
mobile platforms, there are many pros and cons.

2- While Chrome for Android supports a wider array of web standards[1], that
difference doesn't (yet) seem very significant looking at various sources such
as caniuse.com.

I just wish Apple was working more actively on Safari develpment, both on
desktop and mobile: they started from a very good position (e.g. the
circa-2010 Safari for iOS was vastly better than the circa-2010 Android
browser) and they are now rapidly losing ground.

[1]
[http://caniuse.com/#compare=ios_saf+9.0-9.2,and_chr+49](http://caniuse.com/#compare=ios_saf+9.0-9.2,and_chr+49)

------
jamisteven
I for one could never go back to Android. iOS is just such a better user
experience, much more fluid. Android feels like Cisco Voice's product lineup,
all pieced together. fragmented applications and processes that dont work
side-by-side with eachother. The other reason, which is huge to me, is the
hardware. I am huge on how things feel in the hand and in my opinion apple's
hardware is just far superior to anything offered for Android. Best thing I
have seen hardware-wise was the Samsung Galaxy Alpha, and the Oneplus2. I miss
the old Nokia days, e61/e62, that build quality was top notch, although
running symbian made it a bit of a snail. I tried switching out of iOS and
over to a nexus5 when it was released, I had pre-ordered it and was super
excited for it to come in, but the hardware felt like total shit to me, and
after a month I swapped back to iOS. Im still rocking an original iphone5
thats jailbroken, works better than that N5 any day of the week. Much like
cars, it isnt about the size of the engine, or the tech it comes with, its
about the whole package and how it all works together, as a unit.

~~~
odbol_
> fragmented applications and processes that dont work side-by-side with
> eachother

Are you joking? I just tried to email some screenshots to myself from my
iPhone. Couldn't do it. It only let me send one image at a time. There was
literally no way to make multiple attachments, and if you are trying to attach
something that's not in Camera roll, good luck! (I only went the email route
because its 2016 and I still can't just send a file from my iPhone to my
computer via Bluetooth).

On Android, its a simple matter of selecting all the photos (in pretty much
ANY gallery app, doesn't have to be the OS included one), and hitting share: I
could send to my computer via Bluetooth, or attach to an email, in like 2
clicks.

Android's interoperability and system for how apps can share data and work
with each other is unparalleled. iOS has a long way to go on that front...

~~~
megablast
You can select about 5 images and email them all at once.

You can also connect your device to your computer and download the images
directly.

You can also share images over airdrop via bluetooth.

~~~
odbol_
Discounting the fact that Airdrop only works on Macs (sending to a Windows
machine or an Android phone doesn't work, even though those devices both
support Bluetooth file transfers), I've never even been able to get Airdrop to
work on my Mac.

As for emailing files: that's all fine if your images are in the Camera roll.
But try emailing and image and a PDF together, or an image from a different
app.

------
jarjoura
I think apps are in a lull right now because most were abandoned and left
users feeling jittery about pouring their lives into them. Also few apps spent
the effort to take advantage of working offline. If I'm in the subway, I'm
basically unable to use anything except games. Although the last couple of
games I couldn't play because they were trying to connect to an Ad server that
would fail and so the game wouldn't progress.

~~~
Jtsummers
Not just to ad servers. Some games that have no need for online-only modes are
starting to function that way as well. I suspect it was thoughtlessness on the
part of the developers ("When would someone ever be without the internet?"
"When they're on a cross-country flight!"). This reminds me, I should find a
comment box on their site and suggest they fix this, it was incredibly
frustrating being barred from a game I _bought_ to play in single player mode
just because I was 30k feet in the air.

~~~
rifung
I assume it requires the internet so that people can't pirate it or make sure
you're on the latest update?

I can understand the frustration you're facing but also sympathize for people
who are trying to make a living from selling apps.

~~~
Jtsummers
It's antagonistic behavior towards users and unnecessary for most apps to be
always-online. This is the difference between "I'd recommend this to friends"
and "screw these guys". The _primary_ reason I buy board and card game apps is
to play offline when traveling, usually with other people, versus carting
around 100lbs of games. If a simple hot seat version of your game requires an
internet connection, you're doing it wrong.

~~~
rifung
I agree that it's annoying because I like to play games on the bus where I
also don't have internet. I'm just saying that in a way, this was caused by
people pirating too much software.

I wish I had a solution which didn't require the apps to go online but I
don't.

~~~
Jtsummers
To forget about piracy. I mean no offense to these developers, but if your app
can't sell then it can't sell. People will steal software regardless of what
you do. Measures like this almost certainly don't encourage _more_ sales,
instead they result in negative reviews and fewer sales.

Related question: This was on iOS. How bad is software piracy for this
platform?

~~~
rifung
From what I understand iOS doesn't have much of a problem with piracy since
you have to jailbreak to pirate apps (I think). If it's iOS then I'm not
really sure why they had to use the internet to be honest..

I just know that Android has a pretty big issue with piracy and some
developers choose to release their apps for free on Android for that reason.

I don't disagree with what you are saying and again, I don't know if requiring
internet access to combat piracy is the right thing to do but I feel like it's
a bit sad to place the blame solely on the creators of the app and not on
people who pirate their apps

------
ryao
> WebBluetooth (yup, talking to bluetooth devices from JS on a webpage)

This sounds like a great new attack vector for the black hats of tommorrow.

There are just some things that a web browser should not do. Exposing things
that previously required escape from sandbox attacks is one of them.

~~~
untog
> There are just some things that a web browser should not do. Exposing things
> that previously required escape from sandbox attacks is one of them.

Why is it any different from an app doing it, though? There will be the same
permission prompts etc.

~~~
ryao
A malicious app must be installed before it can run and is likely vetted by
the maintainers of a package manager or App Store. A webpage running
JavaScript simply runs with no inspection from anyone.

Also, a malicious party usually cannot inject code into an installed app.
Injecting it into a webpage you visit is far easier. Ad/tracking networks have
been used for that. There is the possibility of a MITM attack if all parts of
the page are not protected by HTTPS. There is also the potential for cross
site scripting.

The web is not a place where I would want access to everything an installed
application can access to be possible by design.

~~~
takno
The Javascript has to request permission for each type of device access on
first use, which is a lot better than the ask-for-everything-on-install model
that older versions of Android use. Service Workers also only load over HTTPs.
Generally xss attacks are prevented by the permission being granted to the
domain of the script which is trying to use the service.

If you are uncomfortable that any given site will be properly secured you can
always deny them the permissions just as you would decline to install their
app, except that the website can offer you a degraded experience, where the
uninstalled app will offer you nothing.

~~~
ryao
> The Javascript has to request permission for each type of device access on
> first use, which is a lot better than the ask-for-everything-on-install
> model that older versions of Android use. Service Workers also only load
> over HTTPs. Generally xss attacks are prevented by the permission being
> granted to the domain of the script which is trying to use the service.

If you are going through an app store, the app has been vetted. If that misses
something and it is later found, it gets pulled. There is the possibility that
you will never encounter the bad app by virtue of being one of the ones who
would have installed it using it after it was pulled. On iOS, there is the
possibility of signature revocation providing protection to disable it after
it is downloaded. With a website, there is no such protection.

Plus, web servers are rarely patched and often exploited. Anyone who allows a
website to use WebBluetooth effectively opens themselves to the poor security
practices of the other end. Even without that risk, there is also the risk
that an ad/tracking network is not used in a cross site scripting attack to
gain access.

> If you are uncomfortable that any given site will be properly secured you
> can always deny them the permissions just as you would decline to install
> their app, except that the website can offer you a degraded experience,
> where the uninstalled app will offer you nothing.

If all users thought the way I did, WebBluetooth would never have been
proposed. The reason being that WebBluetooth could be used to exploit other
things even if the web browser's implementation has no exploitable bugs. If
WebBluetooth becomes widely used, Black hats will have a field day with the
users who do not know.

They need not even compromise a web server of a site that has a legitimate
application for it. They might just ask users of some other site that they
trust to enable it as few users ever say no to such prompts (or prompts in
general).

------
vjeux
I want to clarify some points on React Native. Unlike what is commonly said,
my goal with the project is to make the web better.

A fundamental problem with the web as it exists right now is that as a "user",
you cannot go one level deeper when you want/have to in order to provide a
good experience. There's a big list of things like customizing image
decoding/caching or extending layout part of css that is encoded in the
browser and cannot be changed in userland.

The way to solve your problem is to convince a browser vendor to implement a
solution, then all the other browsers to support it and wait for years such
that your userbase can use it. This loop is extremely long and involves a lot
of conflicting interests and having to support it forever.

The idea of React Native is to provide a subset of the web platform and hooks
to drop down lower whenever you want to. For example, as a user you can use
<Image> which behaves like a web <img> and be done with your day. But, if you
want to use another image format, or manage your image cache differently then
you can implement it and provide a <MyImage> component to the end user.

The advantage is that each app can start building and experimenting with its
own low-level infrastructure and replace pieces that the default platform
doesn't do adequately for the use case they are trying to solve.

Now, why is it good for the web? Since React Native primitives have been
designed to work on the web with a small polyfill (
[https://github.com/necolas/react-native-
web](https://github.com/necolas/react-native-web) ), there's now a concrete
way to improve the web platform without being a browser vendor. You can
prototype with your ideas on React Native and when you figure that one is
actually good, now start the process to ship it to the entire web platform.
Kind of the same way you can prototype your js transforms with babel and then
push them to tc39 to make them official.

If React Native is as successful as I want it to be, the web platform is going
to supports all the use cases that only React Native can provide today and we
can just rm -rf the entire project and use the web.

------
rcarmo
I tried to do this a few years back and it was completely impossible to order
anything from the Google store and have it delivered to Portugal.

Although I routinely rebuilt Android to reflash my Nook Color and even rebuilt
Android x86 for the "Magalhães" school laptops on a lark, I could not beg,
borrow or steal an Android device with "proper", vanilla Android for myself
without resorting to shady imports and zero warranty.

So after a year of using an HTC One[1] and, later, a moderately vanilla LG 4,
I quietly went back to the iPhone, got a Nexus 7 (2013) to scratch my
occasional Android development itch, and haven't looked back. The ecosystem is
_so_ much better, Safari on it (and my iPad) still knocks Chrome on Android
out of the park from a user perspective, and I can tinker all I want on stuff
like the Remix PC and the ODROID without having to put up with a lousy phone
user experience.

Would I use Android? Yes, for sure - but I wouldn't _like_ it.

Would I develop for it? Sure, no problem. Did that for digital signage,
even[2].

Would I develop for it _first_? Doubtful. The only serious money in it is in
vertical (B2B) apps and suchlike.

Would I develop web apps for it _first_? Like... are you serious? With the
market being what it is?

So although I "get" the article, I think it's not that realistic.

[1]:
[http://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2013/10/20/2230](http://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2013/10/20/2230)
[2]: [https://github.com/rcarmo/android-signage-
client](https://github.com/rcarmo/android-signage-client)

------
ar0
TLDR: Chrome on Android supports Service Workers and WebRTC while Safari on
iOS does not. This means Android these days is better suited for fully-fledged
web applications that do not require a native app (or at least a native app
wrapper).

~~~
wvenable
I think the flaw in the argument is that web applications that only run well
on a single platform (Android) aren't really web applications. In that case
you might as well build a native app.

------
frobware
Sadly, the web is an accessibility nightmare. If that changes, then sure, I
could move too. But there's a lot that modern versions of iOS get right
regarding accessibility, stuff that I wish google/android would do too.

~~~
ryao
I am not a professional web developer, but I used LAMP to make a decent size
website using standards conformant XHTML/CSS without table hacks with PHP and
MySQL for forms when I was in high school. I wrote the markup by hand, so I
made certain to place content first so that 56k modems would load it quickly
and web browsers for the the blind would not read navigation bars before the
actual content. At the time, I assumed that JavaScript was not always
available because people eithet either turned it off to eliminate the
Javascript engine as an an exploit vector or were using browsers that did not
support it because they were blind.

Consequently, I considered requiring JavaScript for a webpage to load properly
to be bad practice. Even if I assume JavaScript is everywhere, I have yet to
hear of how one would make things dependent on it accessible to the blind. I
know that people will make webpages that require it regardless of whether the
blind can view them or not, but I still feel that is bad practice.

~~~
tuxracer
Modern screen reader software looks at the output of the DOM. It isn't
manually parsing raw HTML straight from the server (it's possible 10 or 15
years ago this was the case). So however the browser got that particular text
on the screen (directly from a server, or rendered on the client via XHR
requests) this is an abstraction most screen reading software doesn't involve
itself in.

------
lucian1900
I like native apps. I'm still annoyed there's no native desktop Hangouts app
and how many things Atom gets wrong.

~~~
ngrilly
> how many things Atom gets wrong

Like what? I'm starting using it and I'd like to know.

~~~
lucian1900
The biggest issue is the performance difference. It takes an entire second to
syntax highlight a new file and large files are unusable. Almost all
interactions have a noticeable delay, including typing. Scrolling is painfully
slow.

At least on OS X, it's by far the app with the largest energy impact. It's the
only other thing that competes with Chrome.

Besides that, it doesn't use native UI elements where it could. Plugins don't
add top menu items, the folder view on the left isn't a native treeview, it
renders its own (slow) scrollbars, it doesn't respect native text rendering
settings like line height or font hinting, pop-ups overlap in surprising ways
(sometimes scroll bars are above them) and can't easily leave the main window,
various elements move around unexpectedly when scrolling to an edge.

~~~
ngrilly
Those are good points. What would you use instead?

~~~
kasabali
Sublime Text, Textmate, vim, Emacs...

~~~
ngrilly
The usual suspects :-)

(Except TextMate that I see less and less cited in discussions.)

------
nostromo
Putting your development preferences ahead of your customer's preferences is a
recipe for failure.

------
t3ra
I am always surprised when people say things like CHROME is bringing X API.
Take a look at these HTML5 Web APIs : [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API)

They have been here since sometime now! and Mozilla built a whole operating
system around them which is has "Progressive Web Apps" in its core!

~~~
takno
Primarily because Firefox on Android doesn't yet support any of the technology
being discussed in the article, or indeed most of the technologies on the page
you linked to.

~~~
zanny
It has great webrtc support, at least. It also supports Firefox Market Apps
being installed with native app launchers and views.

------
64bitbrain
If I ever get a Android phone, it will be Nexus series. I had an HTC and I
waited ages for Android 4 update because AT&T didn't had there "customized"
version, with bunch of useless apps on it. On the other hand, my friend was
able to upgrade to latest version of Android, because he was using Nexus. I
switched to an iPhone and I loved it. Better battery life, and clean
installation.

------
milge
I also went from iOS to Android (iPhone 4s -> Nexus 5x). I had my 4s for 5
years and loved it. I'd still have it if it weren't for iOS 9 being too big to
install and verizon overcharging. I've developed apps on both.

Some apps have to be apps to use sensors and devices built into the phones. A
lot of apps could probably get away with being mobile sites. Doubly so with
some of the new html technologies being introduced by the W3C.

Because Android and iPhone are owned by companies, they can move fast. The web
has to accommodate for many more devices. So web standards move slower. In the
time apps have become huge, a lot has been added to web standards. But I'm
guessing most people haven't noticed. My guess is people are used to using
frameworks and have abstracted themselves away from the basics.

As a challenge to the reader, see what you can build in only JS/HTML/CSS with
no server side. You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you can accomplish.

------
greatlakes
I think the differentiating factor here is Chrome's push to support and
utilize the Service Worker API ([https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API/Service_Wor...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Web/API/Service_Worker_API)). The opportunity for web apps to have an
offline experience and utilize push notifications is not only exciting but
game changing for the web platform as a whole.

------
Exuma
I hate any title that begins with why. Seriously, no one cares. People have
opinions. Even seeing 'why' makes certain I will not read your article.

Let me guess the following without even reading...

* several paragraphs of whining about things that are just personal preference.

* making broad/generalized wide sweeping statements and stating them as fact

* tons of rhetorical questions followed by over simplified answers in support of the other product

* dripping with misguided enthusiasm, using lots of words in CAPS and BOLD.

~~~
xigency
Except you didn't read the article so you don't know that it is specifically
related to web application development and not "things that are just personal
preference."

The article makes a list of web features that Apple has dropped from the
iPhone or from Safari or has neglected to implement continuously over time,
and provides real enthusiasm to developers.

------
dimillian
Show me on good mobile web app that is \- Useful \- Work offline \- Fast \-
Don't have weird glitches

~~~
owencm
[http://www.flipkart.com/](http://www.flipkart.com/)

------
Synaesthesia
Apple have actually been always pretty excellent with Safari performance and
features on iOS. They were impressive from the start and they have kept pace
with Google with regard to JavaScript performance overall performance has
usually been class-leading, rendering too. Ok they're missing WebRTC right now
and workers, but I'm pretty sure WebRTC will come soon and workers too at some
point.

------
viseztrance
Meanwhile, on the desktop google music doesn't work without flash installed,
and there's no desktop client in sight. Great times.

~~~
criddell
Google Play Music is why I installed Chrome. If I play music from Firefox,
after 6 hours, my machine gets choppy and slow. Looking at Task Manager (in
Windows 10) it will show me that Firefox is using around 1.4 GB.

So, I use Chrome for music.

Edit: And printing. When I need to print I always use Chrome because Firefox's
printing is pretty broken.

~~~
JBReefer
Yeah but at least they're FINALLY getting rid of add-ons in Firefox.

Priorities, you know.

------
hackergary
Sounds like someone trying to force web apps to do native apps' jobs. When
something like React Native bridges web languages and full native
benefits/performance.

~~~
bryanlarsen
You're right, that's exactly what he wants to do. Why shouldn't he be able to?
It works great on Android.

~~~
roosterjm2k2
Because, when you try to use the wrong tool for the job, you don't get to
blame the tool...

------
krzrak
Sidenote: I checked the Google's Project Fi - damn, it's expensive. For
$20/month you get unlimited calls and texts, but you have to pay extra $10 for
every 1GB of data.

Here in Poland for $10 I get the same unlimited calls and texts plus 4GB of
LTE included (and then you're limited to 1 Mbps - but you can take the $13
plan and get unlimited GBs too).

~~~
ruraljuror
If you think Project Fi is expensive, you will be shocked by the rates of
other carriers. Fi is trying to disrupt phone carriers through cheap pricing
and transparent billing.

I have been experimenting with Fi and I think it is good but has some
significant drawbacks. I am about ready to cancel my Verizon service to go all
in with Fi, but a major factor is the fact that I'm going back to school and
will be counting pennies. Verizon's 3GB plan is attractively priced, but that
significantly better service is still double what I pay on Fi in a typical
month.

The Fi service is fine in metro Boston, but on a recent trip to parts of rural
AZ I was without service for long stretches. Another downside with Fi is that
I don't seem to be able to talk on the phone and get data service at the same
time.

~~~
yompers888
Non-simultaneous data and voice is, I believe, a symptom of a Sprint
connection. TMobile should be able to handle both simultaneously.

~~~
ruraljuror
Thanks, I had a suspicion that might be the case. Obviously if you're on wifi
it works as well.

------
Kjeldahl
Good post. There's one other challenge though and that is access to native GUI
widgets. Just having an app icon and appearing in the task switcher simply
isn't enough. It's one of the problems React Native tries to solve, although I
have to admit I'm not impressed with it so far. With the momentum Javascript
is having I wouldn't be surprised if most vendors will release "native"
javascript bindings to their platforms anyway, which hopefully will remove the
last missing piece for "native experiences" using Javascript on iOS and
Android (and for that sake, Windows 10 and OSX).

~~~
WorldMaker
For what it is worth, Windows has had "native" JS bindings since Windows
8/Windows Phone 8.1. The Windows 10 store added support for server-hosted JS
apps, which was the last puzzle piece in the support system as a lot of web
developers still love their existing/preferred server host/backend
language/deployment pattern.

------
Splendor
If you want to argue that I shouldn't expect my user to have the newest iPhone
you shouldn't also list WebBluetooth as a pro. My user probably doesn't have a
device that supports it either.

------
__m
After 7 years of people switching from android to iOS or vice versa, i stopped
reading blog posts about it

------
ignoramous
I am not entirely sure if Android is the best mobile platform out there. Apple
continues to innovate at an incredible pace on its hardware and software. It
is untouchable as far as HCI is concerned, they just seem to get most of the
UX right. Its amazing to see them make computers that work and behave like a
charm.

Pricing is unreasonable, TBH. And that's where Android eco-system has held an
upper edge for too long now. Android as a platform, superior enough
technology-wise, is terrible 'fragmentation' wise. Apple's laser sharp focus
on UX around their entire line-up is commendable. To an extent, they think
about their end-users at a level unparalleled at other tech companies-- not
supporting flash, pushing aggressively ahead with ad-blocker support, adding a
voice-enabled assistant, iCloud etc Apple's radical re-think of a smart-phone
is a miracle. Almost everyone before them got it wrong. They are operating on
some other level altogether.

Google, I think except for Google Now and their notifications scheme on
Android have mostly been playing a catch-up with iOS.

I think Google faces the same issue with their Cloud offerings too. All the
talk of the most advance platform/tech in the world and they still languish
behind AWS and Azure.

~~~
jeffbax
"It is untouchable as far as HCI is concerned" (among the "it just work's"
argument, or the privacy advantages, generally superior ecosystem, etc) and
yet "Pricing is unreasonable".

The dissonance… is strong with nerds who think the only thing that contributes
to a product's price is it's raw spec sheet (where again, Apple is generally
quite a bit ahead). Clearly, things are not equal and Apple's sales mean
millions are giving them a thumbs up in regard to their pricing being
reasonable.

------
zanny
I'm actually going to be on topic off topic, but I seriously hope that somehow
we have celestial alignment and QML can somehow take off as the defacto
networked app standard. HTML/CSS/JS is a document format, styling for said
documents, and a language cooked up in a week to bake into a browser in the
90s. And the 90s language is the best part!

QML is ground up meant to write interfaces in, and provide all kinds of
critical functionality you would want on everything from mobile to televisions
to toasters to your desktop:

* Hardware acceleration everywhere.

* DPI scaling.

* Ability to write controls in native C++ or as composite elements in QML itself.

* Signals and slots throughout all aspects of the framework, instead of callback hell.

* Intuitive and first class animations support.

* Native look and feel on almost all platforms through the Controls API, with the ability to restyle them however you want.

* All aspects of the framework support network transparency. You can associate resources remotely or locally, and all the necessary properties to track loading and downloading are available, and the API handles component loading from web services much more intuitively than HTML script / css loading.

I love QML a lot, and there is even a project called qmlweb to run it in the
browser, but I really want to see
[http://test.org/app.qml](http://test.org/app.qml) be a thing. Having written
my share of web applications and QML ones, I have no idea why anyone thinks
spreading the design disaster of the traditional web to encompass all user
software is the best we can achieve.

------
jonlunsford
I also just made the exact same switch, after years of wanting more control
over my hardware without jailbreaking, I just want to install f.lux for crying
out loud! As a web dev, i'm very excited to loose the chains of iOS :)

~~~
aikinai
How did Android help you with f.lux? Apple just came out with a f.lux copy
built into iOS, while none of the alternatives on Android work without
rooting.

~~~
collyw
I installed another program that does the same thing, without any need to root
my Android.

~~~
aikinai
There aren't any programs that do the same thing without rooting. Android
doesn't have any APIs that allow you to change the color temperature, so all
of the non-root apps just add a transparent red overlay on top of the screen.

I know this area well since it's one thing I was really looking forward to
when I got an Android phone and I was very disappointed.

------
eranation
I'm a Java guy, open source advocate, I love to have "power user" features and
I was an android guy since android came out. I recently made a move to iOS
(iPhone 6), and I'm not looking back.

It has much less features, it's a walled garden and all, I have to learn a new
language (or two) to be able to develop apps for it (And pay $100), but the
reason I like it so much is that it simply works.

Not just the software side, my android devices always had more issues, my
Galaxy S III spent 3 times being fixed at Samsung for different reasons, so
far with the iPhone I had no software or hardware issues.

And when my wife had battery issues with her iPhone 5c, instead of taking it
for fixing they just gave her a new one on the spot and apologized for the
inconvenience.

Simple, do-one-thing and do it right devices, that simply work.

This is a classic "do more with less", less features, nothing too exciting,
but the little they have simply works.

~~~
mercutio2
For many years it wasn't possible to install self signed apps on iOS. But on
recent iOS versions, you no longer have to pay $100 to install apps on your
own personal iOS device, you just need a matching iCloud account to self-sign
from Xcode.

------
nilkn
This was a pretty interesting article, and from the title alone I had
absolutely no idea this was actually a discussion about the relative merits of
web apps and native apps on phones, with the main claim being that we've
nearly reached the point where web apps are viable and that Android happens to
support this better at the moment. I suspect many others were caught off guard
too (and perhaps did not even read it), given how many comments here are just
addressing the generic issue of iOS vs. Android and all the drama that comes
along with someone emphatically announcing that they've at last switched to
the other side.

This is why I think that rhetoric phrased in terms of one camp vs. another is
often greatly counter-productive.

------
kdamken
My only issue with iOS is that Safari doesn't play WebM. You have to download
and open them with the VLC app. I wish they would just accept that it's a
solid format and adapt it, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

~~~
mmel
I have an iPad and am generally happy with it, but the lack of webm support is
the main thing keeping me from considering an iPhone as my next phone.

------
minionslave
I just realized that half of the applications I have on my phone can't be used
without a data connection.

What happens when I lose signal. The cloud is nice, but I need some offline in
my life too.

~~~
collyw
I have an Ubutu phone, and most of the apps are web based. Its quite a good
user experience (way better than Andorid or ios in my opinion, apart from the
lack of apps). However, when I went abroad and turned off the data connection
it became pretty useless. No offline maps, as the web based apps won't even
startup without a data connection.

------
incepted
> Of course I don’t know the full backstory, but it sure seemed like the
> original plan for 3rd party developers on iOS was to have us all just build
> apps using the web.

Correct, there was no SDK on the first generation iPhone. It was a closed
device, like all Apple devices. And that's how Jobs wanted it, he just thought
that the idea of third party applications running on this device was pure
absurdity.

Then Android came out and Jobs had to adapt.

> Apple made what turned out to be a really smart business decision: they
> released an iOS SDK and an App Store and the rest is history.

Kind of. Apple made a really smart business decision: they realized that if
they didn't match Android and provide an SDK as well, they would lose. So they
followed suit.

> The end result, for those of us still trying to build installable web apps
> for iOS was that with nearly every new iOS release some key feature that we
> were depending on broke.

This makes it sound as if these features got accidentally broken. No, they
were intentionally removed or crippled because they either threatened Apple's
dominance or cut into their profits. You could call that another set of
"really smart business decisions"

------
agentgt
For me "Continuity" [1] (ie phone call on computer if I can't find my iphone)
is the killer feature for why I stick with Apple.

I know there are is something sort of like it for Android but someone showed
it to me and it didn't really work.

[1]: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204681](https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT204681)

~~~
glitch003
if you're a project fi user (android only) this happens automatically through
gmail. was a bit weird the first time my gmail rang :)

~~~
import
its not same with Apple's handoff. Apple not requires internet connections and
"continues everything".

------
alexkavon
I have to say that I'm all for web apps and web based apps using things like
Cordova or what not, but recently my company's app has been hitting some
walls. There are a lot of great things those systems can do and they're great
for starting out. However in the long run you might as well consider
developing native or developing using something Xaramin (which will probably
be even more free soon). Native development just provides a less kludgy of
developing. My company will be making the switch soon in this light.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that the reason it's tough to develop for the web
is languages like Javascript, sure it's getting better very slowly, but it
also doesn't really allow for other languages to run in the browser and
probably won't in the future. Sure you can compile, but why compile to JS and
use a web view and work around conflicts while developing an app, when you can
use a typed language and access APIs that work?

------
Negative1
Great writeup, thank you!

I actually did the opposite. Owned a Nokia "smartphone" when I got my first
gen iPhone. Stayed on for 2 more generations then switched to a Samsung Galaxy
(reason: wanted to see what this whole Android thing was about).

In every way it was a painful experience but I stuck with it for a few years.
When I finally switched back to an iPhone I was like, wow, it just works.
Forgot how that felt.

I'm still a fan of Android and believe it does some things so much better.
Google Now is actually incredibly cool (too useful to be creepy). Music
library management was much better (I miss you so so much N7 player). eBook
reading was also better (Moon+ is amazing).

On the other hand, even as a power user (I program Android and iOS apps for a
living) it frustrated me to no end. Android is here to stay (which is great)
but from a usability (i.e. user friendliness) perspective it still has so much
further to go.

------
Polarity
i switched to linux (elemntary) last year after years of osx. feels good and
fast.

~~~
headShrinker
I might switch if my job was only coding, but I handle a lot of graphics as
well, and that just doesn't fly on linux. On a side note, it's frustrating
that everything I want to do on linux requires me to download 5 packages and
recompile a binary... I guess that's just me...

------
nevir
Another iOS -> Android switcher here. I owned every iPhone up to and including
an iPhone 6, and then switched to a Nexus 6.

From my perspective, the two platforms (and when I talk about Android, I mean
Android-on-a-Nexus) are pretty much homogenous. They look and feel very
similar, behave similarly, etc, etc.

------
brotoss
I want to switch back to Android soooooooo so badly. But iMessage is too damn
convenient.

~~~
pawelkomarnicki
You know what's even more convenient? Google Hangouts ;-)

------
mayoff
I can see this reasoning being right on the money, _if_ you can be happy
building web apps.

Personally, I find that developing with web technologies is a miserable
experience, and developing with iOS native technologies is a joy. YMMV.

------
stcredzero
_I don’t know whether or not this type of app was actually intended to be the
primary mechanism for 3rd party dev to build apps for iOS but regardless…_

This was basically said by Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall during a WWDC
keynote.

~~~
cromulent
I think this is the one:

[http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iPhone-to-
Support-...](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iPhone-to-Support-
Third-Party-Web-2-0-Applications.html)

------
mladenkovacevic
Been with Android since forever, but the battle for security that Apple has
recently been fighting on behalf of their customers is enough to make me want
to start considering iOS devices in the future.

~~~
bognition
I'm in the same camp. I've had a dozen or so android phones starting with the
moto droid. I suspect my next phone will be an iPhone, although its hard to
justify the price difference between a Nexus 5X and the latest iPhone

------
abpavel
"I want the ability to create app-like experiences on the OS with web
technology. Very little seems to be happening in that regard as far as I can
tell"

I'm not sure why this doesn't sound like a compelling reason for a switch. I
find the maintenance aspect much more persuasive. Usually people are paid to
do sysops, administering, maintaining and tinkering with OS. It's a job. And
handsomely paid at that. Doing the sysops job and having to pay for it, just
to maintain your own phone, seems like a bad economical proposition.

------
pawelkomarnicki
For me these two platforms are more-or-less the same from a user perspective.
There're some cosmetic changes, like notifications are handled better on
Android by bundling them, instead of pinging for every single one of them.
Apps are usually on both platforms, same with games. iOS users at my work seem
interested and impressed by the Nexus 6P, some consider the possibility to
switch someday. But it really doesn't matter as long as the device get the
stuff done, does it? :P

------
komali2
My only fear is that ultimateGuitarTabs will use these developments to make
visiting their site on mobile even more of a hellish experience.

------
alexchantavy
It'd be more accurate to title the article "Why Apple needs to treat
Progressive Web Apps as first-class citizens".

It's less about iOS-vs-Android than it is about eliminating friction between
the web and mobile apps. I enjoyed this analysis very much but if the article
wasn't so highly upvoted already I might have skipped over it due to the
title.

------
RogueIMP
My first smart phone was an iPhone 4. After switching to the Galaxy S3, I was
sold!

Apple is good for users who was a device that is simple, set in it's was and
easy to use. It makes it hard to break. Android makes a phone that has
unlimited potential, but at your own risk. As an IT, I'm a tinkerer... so I
prefer the later. :) All about preferences.

------
userium
We just today published a UX checklist for iOS and Android apps
([https://stayintech.com/info/mobile_ux_checklist](https://stayintech.com/info/mobile_ux_checklist)).
There are some good ideas on this thread that I can later add on that list!
Hopefully useful for some of you.

------
merpnderp
The point about the full web app experience is a good one. And while Android's
Nexus One left me high and dry on promises of continual updates and pushed me
into my iPhone 4s from which I've never come back. If iOS doesn't get full
support for service workers soon, I'll have to look again at Android.

------
r0m4n0
Interesting opinion. I am struggling to think of a single standalone webapp I
would benefit from... I use a few native apps that work flawlessly and the
clean out of the box functionality for phone calls and web browsing. I guess
I'll stick with IOS (shrug)

------
ianai
Speaking solely as a user, I don't want to run that sort of application.

------
asai
The web is a patchwork of different frameworks, languages and standards
without any clear direction as to where its heading. Why anyone would want to
work with js is also beyond me.

~~~
thekingshorses
Website is just HTML, CSS, JS. Web is open, so other people developed
different frameworks for their needs. It seems that goal of the web is to
reach as many users as possible without relying on any 1 technology/company.

------
yegle
The author forgot a key point: webapp allows you to reuse cookies in browser
so users don't need to login again from your app.

------
SiVal
Apple is just taking a page from Microsoft's old playbook, sabotaging the Web
platform in order to prop up the competitiveness of its native platform. When
MS owned the dominant platform, they made sure that the Web browser they
shipped pre-installed on every Windows machine was always just good enough to
claim to be a usable Web browser (or it might have driven people away from
Windows), yet always bad enough to make the Web itself look bad compared to
Windows. With the biggest benefit of the Web being its reach, anything that
could limit the reach of new powers could hold back its spread, and MS _did_
hold back its spread for years.

At the same time Apple, having no leverage from their own native OS of the
present, touted their hardware/OS/browser stack as the best way to use the
platform of the future--the Web--to make themselves more relevant in a MS-
dominated world and sell more hardware. They did a lot of good for the Web
platform in the past.

Fast forward to today: the iPhone ignited the explosion of mobile computing
and made Windows' dominance of the desktop into being merely the biggest frog
in a smaller and smaller pond. MS no longer had a monopoly to defend, repented
for its sins, and began to build first-rate, evergreen browsers to stay
relevant in the new world. (Competition is a wonderful thing.)

And Apple took their place, not as the monopoly OS in the new, big pond, but
as an OS that was a large enough part of it that it could make things "not
work on the Web" by making them not work on iOS. They manage to frequently be
behind in getting new things to work in Safari (cf: caniuse.com), while being
careful not to be so far behind that it affects their reputation with the
general public and weakens them in competition with Android, and they prohibit
any superior browser from interfering with this delicate "hurt the Web without
hurting yourself" strategy by banning all others from iOS.

The result is that anything iOS Safari can't do, Web developers can't use: iOS
Safari's shortcomings appear to be the Web's shortcomings, which can be
overcome by committing to Apple-proprietary alternatives.

They can't afford to fall too far behind, though, or conventional wisdom will
gradually emerge that iOS isn't as good as Android at "Web stuff". And as "Web
stuff" improves on other platforms, the Web matters more and more as does your
reputation for supporting it.

If developers, blogs, pundits would talk and post about it every time iOS
Safari fails, yet again, to support some new Web technology, and even release
some features that work nicely on Android/Chrome but require a native app on
iOS, "because, you know, the iPhone's Web support is not very good, as
everyone knows...", it will increase the pressure on Apple to shift the
balance of "good but not too good" farther forward.

------
cdevs
He basically list all the reasons I've stayed away from android. As a tech toy
it's fun to play with but as a everyday phone it scares the hell out of me
security wise when every minute they are opening up the attack surface.

So I've been with iPhone every since, it opens emails, reads text and webpages
I barely open the App Store anymore. But I can see your side as I love writing
code and tearing things apart to mod - I just decide my phone wouldn't be one.

------
Touche
I'm amazed when I go to webdev conferences and see 90% iPhones, including many
of the most prominent "javascript celebrities". Then I tell myself that just
because you work on something doesn't mean you are passionate about it. I'm
passionate about the web and couldn't imagine using an OS where all major
features get delivered 4 or 5 years after creation (like IndexedDB was).

~~~
acdha
It depends on what you value – some features take awhile to show up on iOS but
others are implemented relatively quickly, so there's both a question of which
specific features actually benefit you and how much it's worth to have a much
faster experience in general. The Android phones tend to perform _much_ worse
because the vendors chose to add multiple slow cores while Apple adds fewer
faster cores — and since JavaScript is single-threaded, that adds up to a
rather substantial difference:

[https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-
andr...](https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-
in-2015-is-poor/33889) got a lot of attention last fall and the situation is
generally still true — the Samsung S7 was even slower than its predecessor
when it launched
([https://twitter.com/RonAmadeo/status/709448306771025920](https://twitter.com/RonAmadeo/status/709448306771025920))
depending on which version you happen to buy. A lot of people just don't want
to have to deal with that when they can pay roughly the same amount of money
and get a good, consistent experience. Yes, he dismisses that as “not all of
your users have an iPhone 6s” but that ignores the fact that even the flagship
Android phones were struggling to match the performance of iPhones which were
multiple generations older, greatly extending the usable life of the phone,
and that performance issues are quite notoriously user-visible. Yes, it's
possible that with optimization heroics you might be able to get close to
60fps even on an old Android phone but it's expensive and most sites don't
bother.

The other thing to remember is that people who care about this also tend to
care a lot about security (or work at places which do). The Android experience
is less dismal but it still requires a lot of of micromanagement and questions
about whether e.g. enabling encryption will slow your phone down noticeably
(i.e. parity with the iPhone 3GS from 2009) or whether the fingerprint
authentication has been implemented competently (it's complicated – see e.g.
[https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-15/materials/us-15-Zhang-
Fi...](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-15/materials/us-15-Zhang-Fingerprints-
On-Mobile-Devices-Abusing-And-Leaking-wp.pdf)).

Again, if you aren't primarily working on this exact problem you might quite
reasonably choose not to have to add “phone security analyst and sysadmin” to
your workload.

~~~
criddell
> It depends on what you value

I'm not sure why so many people don't understand that there's no one-size-
fits-all solution out there.

I have a Nexus 5x that I'm pretty happy with. However, when asked I've only
ever recommended Apple phones (and tablets and computers) to friends and
relatives. Having a place where you can take your device to get support is
pretty valuable.

------
Zigurd
TL;DR (applicable to all articles in both directions): Apple software quality
has gone to crap. Android is an inconsistent mess and I hate $OEM or $CARRIER
bloatware.

In fact, both iOS and Android are usable. If you had one or the other issued
to you by an employers, it would be fine. The only shocking thing is that
there isn't a third and fourth choice with a vibrant device and app ecosystem.

------
jshelly
These statements and arguments are so pointless these days. Use whatever you
prefer and be happy.

------
agumonkey
All this makes me wonder if we should change the whole idea of device, users,
business.

------
rachkovsky
How about in-app purchases? Wouldn't it be harder to implement low friction
flow?

------
exabrial
Galaxy S7 is far superior to any of the iPhones. Take it outside in the rain

~~~
zanny
Samsung is even learning from Apple with the locked bootloaders and no root.
Why have users own the devices you sell them when you can just keep owning
them while people pay for them?

------
listingboat
But Android users never update there OS and there is a lot of old Android OS
versions to support, correct? Additionally, the device manufacturers control
the OS distribution and what's included.

------
daxfohl
Web apps are okay but really there just needs to be a better way of 'using'
native apps. A 'yes I want to use you now but no I don't want to install you'
button.

------
killerbat00
cached:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rRv0tB...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rRv0tBaqYygJ:https://joreteg.com/blog/why-
i-switched-to-android+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
brodo
Yay for intellectual diversity!

------
RunawayGalaxy
Didn't need a whole blog post. The necessity of moving files would have been
sufficient.

------
Jonasen
Late bloomer, you say? :)

------
wnevets
The fact apple has to take so many features from android speaks for itself.

------
rimantas
It would be nice if guy stuck to coherent argument. Meanwhile he talks about
"monarch enforcing a 30% tax.", about iOS developers barely making any money.
Ok, so where are the numbers, how much money did he make with his "installable
web apps" on Android?

------
Jerry2
>So, instead of opening my text editor I placed an order for a Nexus 6P

Nexus 6P is _notorious_ for atrocious build quality. It bends easier than a
bar of chocolate. [0] Google should do a recall on these things. It bends a
lot easier than an old iPhone 6 plus.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3cWVdLqXCg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3cWVdLqXCg)

Edit: I see Google fanboys decided to downvote this comment instead of
engaging in a debate. This is not in the spirit of Hacker News. I know HN has
a lot of Google employees who are extremely touchy but come on.. be objective
once is a while

~~~
itp
Anecdote: I have owned a Nexus 6p for ~6 months now. When I'm not using it,
it's either on my nightstand (sleeping) or it's in my pocket. It has not bent.

I have carried several chocolate bars in my pockets before (mostly when I was
younger). They bend very easily. (They also melt and even when they don't
escape the packaging, there is melted chocolate all over the wrapper, and it's
nearly impossible to eat without making a mess. And if you let it cool again,
those tiny chocolate traces end up falling all over!)

Anyway, I'm not sure I got the point of this (only incredibly tangentially
related to the post) piece of FUD.

~~~
Jerry2
>FUD

So this video is wrong? He made TWO videos showing how easily Nexus 6P bends
because people accused him of faking it the first time.

Video 1:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIaUH6PIvo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIaUH6PIvo)

Fact is that Nexus 6P is incredibly poorly engineered due to the placement of
various button cutouts and battery position.

Can you take your phone and do what he did and prove him wrong? Go ahead.
Until then, this is not FUD and your post is nothing more than a
rationalization.

~~~
itp
I don't know. Oddly enough, picking up my phone, placing my thumbs in a
particular location along the body of the phone so as to minimize the
structural rigidity of the device, and applying force just isn't part of my
use case for a phone. I use my 6p like every other phone I have used, and it
hasn't bent. Good enough for me!

Seriously. I'm a big dude, and my everyday life is filled with objects that I
could bend with a similar amount of force, including objects that I carry on
my person and/or interact with a lot. I don't pick them up and try to bend
them, and they don't bend.

