Nobody likes reading bad things about companies that they choose to support.
No, maybe Apple has marketed cool stuff. Or made sum stuff look better. But everything Apple makes, was there before them.
And really? Do you think Android and the devices that support it are really that revolutionary? I think not. Both Android and Apple devices are built on existing technology nothing magically new about either devices. Android uses "superior" hardware and OS and Apple relies on "superior" design.
Neither are in fact absolutely superior since there is no real way to directly compare them and both systems have their trade offs. Both use UNIX based OSes, Android is open source, iOS is closed source. Android allows for a lot of out of the box customization, but Apple prefers a closed system. Apple prefers that apps are developed in Objective-C to allow apps to perform at their optimal best with the reduced specs as opposed to Android which prefers you to use their variation of Java which allows for better cross platform compatibility thanks to wide plethora of Android enabled devices that are available on the market versus the limited variety of iOS devices. Both devices need to be Jailbroken/routed to gain access to the full potential of the devices without their respective manufacturer limitations.
Apple devices come with a "one size fits all" ideology so that you have one base model with small differences in hardware without compromising on the design and makes manufacturing cheaper and more efficient. Android devices come in almost every shape and size to cater to your needs but they have the advantage of having multiple manufacturers. Apple devices vary very little in terms of hardware specs because their only competition is other android devices. Android devices on the other hand faces internal competition due to the fact that there are multiple device manufacturers that use Android and they need to either undercut in terms of price or excel in terms of performance or design and added hardware features.
Apple uses slightly lower spec tech because their OS is tailored to their specific devices and can therefore use less processing power but unlike Android, iOS doesn't enjoy cross platform compatibility (above and beyond the fact that it is a closed system and no one wants to modify an operating system with pure assembly as this is wasteful and pointless). Android on the other hand thrives on both high performance and low performance devices, but prefer higher specs since apps are built on a Java-esque platform that is run through a VM which means that code is not compiled beforehand but is instead interpreted allowing for better cross platform compatibility. But the performance of the apps is also influenced by the skill and design ethos of the developer so both platforms can have equally s*** performing apps. And the article even highlights the fact that Apple chooses to have a tightly knit ecosystem versus Google who prefers the free for all approach
Android gives power users a lot of space to play with, but iOS was designed with simplicity in mind. It's about the ease of use and simplicity of the OS not how much it can do out of the box. Both OSes potential is also defined by what applications are available.
BOTH companies are guilty of collecting and using user data. Anyone remember Google's little taboo manouvre where they collected user wi-fi data? Both devices transmitted location data to assist in building databases which can have useful applications. The collection of this data can have some rather handy uses if collected and used responsibly >.> Apple however has been struck twice with lawsuits due to this issue and have resorted to rejecting apps that make use of the UDID, but this was not directly Apple's fault since the companies that owned the apps that collected this data sold the data, although Apple is responsible for governing apps I doubt they were aware of it before it was too late. Apple creates a platform that does allow access to some personal data, but how developers choose to use or abuse that data is not determined by Apple although admittedly they could just force apps to request permission to transmit the data. But again, developers ethically shouldn't take part in practices of taking data without the permission of the user even if they can do so very easily and then abuse it.
In the end both companies harvest data about you, not to sell per se, but to actually provide better services that are tailored to your needs. Google uses information to target specific ads towards you.
But back to the point I never made. This is just an example of the rivalry between Apple and Google. The choice for Apple to implement their own version of a mapping system is as a result of the fact that over the past few years neither companies could have Google Maps implemented the way they wanted to have it implemented and this led to a stale mate although Apple has now chosen to take this path to be able to maintain it's tight knit environment.
But in the end we all know that Apple is fighting a losing battle and will eventually be phased out of our memories and lie grasping at the last few embers of it's glory days. The same will happen to Google eventually although it will take longer thanks to their "let's get our finger stuck in every pie" approach which helps a lot for the growth of the company. The number of available Android devices versus Apple devices has a large gap thanks to the large variety of Android devices available at a wide variety of prices versus Apple's limited number of devices at a reasonably small range of available prices. In the end, quantity trumps quality. But Apple is one company whilst Android is backed by multiple large companies like HTC and Samsung
