here's the thing though, If google would have released an UI as bad as this (just my oppinion as an iphone user) all the tech press and the hardcore apple fanboys would have trashed it online and offline for months. Who will be the role model from now on for "near perfection", "attention to detail"? Just look at this: http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/hon.jpg?... and tell me how you feel about it :)
>here's the thing though, If google would have released an UI as bad as this (just my oppinion as an iphone user) all the tech press and the hardcore apple fanboys would have trashed it online and offline for months.
Google HAS produced a UI as bad as this. Actually worse. The Android UI, up until 4 was amateur hour. And still is not up there yet.
It's just held in much less scrutiny compared to Apple, because nobody expects much better.
Apple is really defined by superior design. Google is defined generally by superior engineering. A better point to make would be if Google revamped their search engine and it was meaningfully degraded experience for search. They'd be criticized and rightly so as that's what they're supposed to do better than anyone else.
Didn't that happen, back around 2009? I remember many of my searches failing to find things they had the month or two before because Google was treating my parameters more as suggestions (returning results with 1 or 2 of the 4 or 5 words I'd used, ignoring quotes for grouping, etc).
I work on Synonyms at Google. We're constantly tweaking our algorithms. It's possible that at one point one tweak made us more aggressive with replacing "verse" with "vs", but then later another tweak made it less aggressive. :-)
Agreed, I had a hard time getting the behavior described. Googling for "orange verse tangerine" finally did it. Other things that don't make as much sense to be compared, such as "giraffe verse tangerine" only produce a suggestion of "Did you mean..." but still it searched for my original query.
Seems Google does this for things that are likely comparisons (e.g. oranges and tangerines), which seems reasonable.
There is a verbatim search option now which undoes some of the damage of this. But I agree that Google search has actually degraded over the past few years from the point-of-view of the highly sophisticated searcher (it may have improved or stayed the same for the masses).
I'm sorry, not following this, the word is "versus", a verse is typically something like a unit of a song. Or is this American usage, in which case what do you call a "verse"?
Google likes to suggest alternatives to words, he does mean verse as in verse of a song or poem, but (I never saw this particular one) had some searches where google was trying to turn verse into versus or vs. What I saw, and I've either gotten used to it or it's changed, was around 2009 when my searches stopped working one day. I'd use 3-5 keywords and Google's first page would only display pages using 1-2 of them. Invariably it was not the results I wanted. Quoting sections stopped meaning anything to Google searches so searching for phrases became dicy, as the words in the phrase would get split up. So if I was searching for "phrases became dicy" and new that was a line from the page I wanted, Google would return pages with maybe all three words but they'd be scattered about the page.
Seriously where do engineering stops and design starts to make that statement work ?
Looking at Google Map, Google Search. Those "defining" application of Google, in addition of incredible engineering they redefined what a map and search engine should even look like, so design. Similarly, the iPhone, iMac, iPod were as much about engineering and than design.
In reality, Apple is defined by making money on hardware and Google on cloud software. It is a quirk that they got to clash, because they very much complemented each other.
Google get some slack with Android because they do not sell phones and the vast majority of users do not use Android UI anyway.
On the hardware side, Android world provides hundreds of models, there is at least 10 flagship model at any single time. Each get its own amount of nitpicking but eventually all get lost in the noise of other Android news (announcements, prototype, announcement of prototype, benchmark war, "megahertz" war of the day).
>Apple is really defined by superior design. Google is defined generally by superior engineering.
Wait what? When did that happen? When did Google get "superior engineering"? For search, web etc, perhaps. But as far as iOS vs Android is concerned that was never the case.
For starters, Apple design and engineered the iPhone first. Google's Android FIRST came out a whole year later. Early Android prototypes, shown by Google just before the iPhone was announced had half-size screens and physical keyboards, just like the rest of the smartphones of the day.
Since then Apple has consistenly beat Google on hardware features, from the retina display (with much better color rendition to boot) to camera innovations, the motion co-processor, a working fingerprint sensor (for a change), and 64 bit ARM (which means far more than "being able to see more memory which isn't even installed") etc. Consistently better battery life.
Well, maybe it's not a fair comparison, because Google is not a hardware engineering company. They had to buy Motorola, which wasn't the best in the business itself, anyway. But the above are still true for Samsung offerings too.
On the industrial engineering side, Apple's designs, machining, fit and polish is unsurpassed on the Android side. Including materials used.
In the software side it's the same story. The iOS Cocoa API is leaps and bounds ahead of the Android API. It was never plagued with issues with scroll lag and display latency (and also audio latency, which is why 90% of Audio/MIDI apps are for iOS). Doesn't have a nightmarish GC experience to tend to for more involved apps. More fit and polish overall. Heck, Android even gets 80%+ of all the mobile malware around.
The major points for Android devices were not better engineering per se, but stuff like bigger screens, different configurations etc. And extra features that got marginal use, like face unlock and near field communication, stuff that Apple could have if that's how they rolled.
Some good stuff Android had first was because Apple went conservative to implement them when battery life better permitted them (like background apps -- Android just unleashed them and the hell with it, Apple trying to get the juice, and hence experience, right first).
There's one genuine thing Android had going for it, and that's the Intents system in my opinion. The "quick settings change panel" was also another good one. I don't think we can go much further.
Personally, I don't think Apple's getting anywhere enough credit for their in-house processor design at the moment. If that's not engineering talent I don't know what is. Just look at the Anandtech review for proof of that:
> Early Android prototypes, shown by Google just before the iPhone was announced had half-size screens and physical keyboards, just like the rest of the smartphones of the day.
The HTC G1 was also one of the early prototypes shown off. Android definitely came later, but they were already working on a large, capacitive touch phone before the iPhone came out.
> Since then Apple has consistenly beat Google on hardware features, from the retina display
Uh, no, so very much no. Apple was sooo late to the high density party. Android was shipping high density, high resolution phones a year before Apple did. Apple did leapfrog on the density front with retina, but they were definitely, unquestionably playing catch-up on this front, not leading the way.
> camera innovations, the motion co-processor, a working fingerprint sensor (for a change)
All of this was done by other companies first, and in some cases better.
> The iOS Cocoa API is leaps and bounds ahead of the Android API.
This is such a stupid statement. Both APIs have their advantages and disadvantages.
> The major points for Android devices were not better engineering per se, but stuff like bigger screens, different configurations etc.
Which was enabled due to superior engineering in some respects. True density independence, flexible layouts everywhere, architecture-neutral designs, etc...
I had a feeling that a critique on Apple would turn into a Google bash. Can you please stay on topic.
As an IOS user who is posting from his iPhone, I'm tired of Apple fans deflecting genuine criticisms at APPLE. You didn't raise or refute one thing in the article.
You sir/mam are a fanboy of the worst kind.
For the record, I feel IOS 7 lost its way. Jobsy would have shot it to pieces and buried it before it saw the light of day.
> Early Android prototypes, shown by Google just before the iPhone was announced had half-size screens and physical keyboards, just like the rest of the smartphones of the day.
And now it is clear that you don't know a shit abouit what your talking
By the way, Apple also invented the wheel and the sliced bread
I've been an Apple fanboy since around 1984, and I have to agree with you.
I very much prefer the UI of my Jelly Bean Nexus 7 to this thing they call iOS 7.
And before anyone says I don't like change -- the new UI does make iOS<=6 look very dated, but the odd icon proportions, color scheme and unbalanced use of fonts (sometimes the font is just too light, sometimes the mix just feels.. weird) don't appeal to me at all.
What I hate is when Apple apologists say "you just have to get used to" the new look. I'm already used to the new look, but I still don't like it.
>I very much prefer the UI of my Jelly Bean Nexus 7 to this thing they call iOS 7
That's kind of ironic given that the Android blogs and _some_ comments on forums (including hacker news) are all "The UI is Android ripoff" (while the Windows Phone camp is "The UI is a Windows Phone ripoff")
While I understand that some parts could be considered a "ripoff", the bulk of the new UI simply feels like a new skin over the old UI (keep in mind that I upgraded my iPhone 4, which doesn't get all the wizzy features that newer phones get).
And this new skin at times burns my eyes, especially some of the nauseating color choices.
Thank goodness I don't use Game Center. The colours for the bubbles make me want to literally throw up -- I don't know if other people are like that, but certain colours have that effect on me.
The colours might make you unwell, but have you seen game centre in iOS 6? Forcing the user to use some sort of command line interface would be less offensive.
Android since Gingerbread has had superior design for me, but I'm more of a function over form kind of guy and don't want to mess around with things looking pretty when I need to get stuff done.
design is one thing, and you know what, its pretty good, however i can't understand how google - the WW leader in indexing - is letting people use a phone that takes up to 2-4 seconds to load the contact list... that's crazy.
I'm not sure about the "ethics" of non-constructive criticism from a developer perspective, but I think it is completely justified from the customer perspective. I paid (a lot) for this phone, I am allowed to be unhappy with the direction it's going: 1. As a market signal to the creators (which serves as very useful feedback), and 2. Because realistically I have to upgrade or be forced to not get any updates for my apps either (just in case someone wants to chime in that I "could" stay on iOS 6).
That's kind of the interesting thing we're seeing here that doesn't fit your analogy: most of the people complaining this time around are the iOS people about iOS.
It's not bad per se, but it looks like someone designed the cover, and someone else designed the phone, and they never tested them together, or just didn't care.
Again, this is not technically bad, but if you flaunt having a "staggering attention to detail" this is a sort of slap in the face of credibility.
Having them design a larger hole to encompass the "iPhone" logo (even while still half-covering the babble below) would have, instead, sent a very clear "we cared" message to users.
Eh. Apple has always been phoning in their accessories. They were never particularly good. I don’t see this as indicative of anything, it's just Apple being sloppy as they always are with these kinds of things.
Where it counts Apple does not typically exhibit this behaviour, as evidenced by both new iPhones.
I don't agree. Most of Apple's accessories are extremely stylish and complement their hardware: iPad smart cover, keyboards, mouses, chargers, ear buds, and monitors. I think the iPad smart cover alone demonstrates that Apple has the capability to make cases/covers for their mobile devices that are both functional and stylish. What accessories, besides the iPhone case discussed here, do you think Apple has made that are sloppy?
And still they released a phone with antenna issues. People complained just as they are now. Apple did something relatively rare and issued a "mea cuppa" in the form of a free case. Life went on.
My point was that controversies like these design hiccups, the shape of the case, etc. are not new to Apple.
In some ways the design issues are significantly less severe since they can be corrected without new hardware.
You keep implying Apple released a phone with legitimate antenna issues. My understanding is this has been pretty much shown to be false. Apple was responding to a media shitstorm and Jobs said the issue was "overblown." In other words, it was probably an extremely rare, if not completely non-existent, issue but was magnified due to the fact that it happened to a well known blogger.
