No, I'd argue that BMW and Mercedes have engineered a technically superior product to Ford. ;)

As has Apple.

^^

Some would argue the iPhone is the Toyota Camry of smartphones, not a BMW or Mercedes.

A Camry, as compared to the normal Tata Android phones?

The average build quality for iPhone's is far ahead of the average build quality of Android phones, both in hardware and software.

Summary of the last few posts: neener-neener

It has? When are they releasing it? :p

Okay, okay...I realize it's a religious discussion. I'm actually not that big of an Android evangelist. I'm just locked into Sprint so that's what I had to roll with for the first few years of iPhones. If the iPhone 5 is outperforming the Samsung and HTC available at the time by enough to justify a price premium, I'll actually consider it. I think the timing might work right for my next upgrade...

The Apple product where I give their engineers the greatest props for being ahead of their competitors for a few years: MacBook Air.

Build quality is not high on my list of priorities on a device I'm only going to keep for 2 years. Build quality on the high end Android phones that compete with the iPhone price-wise are quite good BTW.

iPhone apps = revenue potential

iPhone developers = huge market for competition, lower development costs

iPhone users = demographics match target demographic of company

OK, think like a business for a moment. You have a finite amount of money to create revenue paths for potential customers. There is one path with a known collection of users who typically spend more money and have a taste for quality products (a known fact about Apple users, and can be seen by the recent revelation that Orbitz presents pricier hotel options to Mac users than Windows users). There is another group that does not tend to spend more, is unwilling to spend even small amounts for simple apps and is less likely to provide the profits you are looking for.

With these two target groups, and with limited funds to produce an app, which would you target? (remove all opinions about which device manufacturer, whether you think a particular group is stupid for spending more money, etc...) just a simple question. Path A leads to more revenue and higher profits (or you think it will) and Path B leads to less revenue and less profits, and requires more money to make the app available to a large user base.

Path A, or Path B. A very simple choice.

I will spell out my feelings.

Apple products, their MP3 players, phones, and tablets do little of what I need them to do, and all kinds of things I don't need. In fact, my Nokia, Samsung, and Acer products do all the things I need quite well. I don't need to pay more for a product that meets less of my needs.

Your opinions are not going to change Apple's company policy, and their products will still fail to match my needs. Android is the most popular operating system and, even if the spend per user is less, it still adds up to a lot of revenue.

Some of us technology users came here for a discussion. Not to WIN the discussion, just to participate in it. If you simply need to win the argument, then OMNI is the correct place to take that behaviour.

I also think that many here who live in America forget the different dynamics in the rest of the world. Your country has a high per person spend, but with only 6% of the worlds population, I think people sometimes forget the big picture. It's a global village and we all like different flavour of ice cream (and phones).

Don't get me wrong. If the company doesn't want to pay for an Andriod App, fine. It's their choice. But don't expect me to pay for it for them. I will choose their competition who have decided to provide Android users with the service.

Example. Kayak has a free android App. Some of their competition may not. Why would I pay for the app, when Kayak obviously wants my business enough to provide me with the tools that make it easy for me to choose them.

Sensitive much?

Please point out where I am trying to "win" the discussion. I simply pointed out very basic business facts about why a company would not be willing to spend sparse resources on an expense app with limited return potential. Explain your "feelings" all you want, how about "discussing" the actual post? Then you can rightly claim to be one of those "technology users" who is actually here for a discussion.

I use both an iPhone and an Android phone, both daily. I have experience with both, with the software and the app stores. All of which is much more than many here can say, many who have only touched either device in a casual way, but not as a daily user. I believe that gives me the perspective to discuss either device. I have a preference for one over the other, but that doesn't cloud my opinion of basic business sense.

You wouldn't, and you shouldn't, at least not as a savvy consumer. But that doesn't change the business model of many companies that decide to explore the Apple app business first. Many, if not most, will eventually get around to building an Android app. Eventually most companies will stop looking at apps as experiments and start building them for both platforms at the same time. We are not there yet, but we will be soon. None of that changes the current business model I described above.

I think Apple pretty much got the design right in the very beginning, while Google was more concerned about functionality over the look until 2.3 came out, and it shows. That’s why Apple is having to play catchup.

I think this is already on the upswing for Android and in the start of decline for iOS. As Steve's "Reality Distortion Field" wears off I think we are already seeing less hoopla about Apple. It is only a matter of time before Apple settles for being #2 in the tablet market just like they have been relegated to for computers and now phones. But hey - they'll still be #1 in standalone MP3 players, right? I'm sure that market isn't going to shrink....