There are many advantages to going with a single ecosystem for your desktop PC, laptop PC, mobile phone, and tablet. (Even game system and television, in some cases.) Devices within that ecosystem are designed to work well with each other. They sync easily so that preferences and media can be effortlessly copied or shared with multiple devices. Applications may be universal, meaning they require a single purchase to work on multiple devices at the same time. And the user interfaces are usually similar or identical across devices.
Though many users cross ecosystems and choose iOS, Android, and Windows devices based on need and not interoperability, we’re going to focus on what happens when a user decides to stay within a single ecosystem: what are the advantages and disadvantages, and what are the weak links are in that ecosystem?
Apple
Apple probably has the most tightly integrated ecosystem of any of the three. ITunes is just a better application on Apple products than on Microsoft’s products. And Apple has a television device, the AppleTV, that fits right into the ecosystem as well.
Benefits of the Apple ecosystem
In the Apple ecosystem, Apple devices back up to the same iCloud system that other Apple devices and PCs can use. You can stream music and video to other devices (like the Apple TV) using free AirPlay functionality. You can even mirror the device’s screen on another device. It makes a lot of sense to have multiple Apple devices in a home.
Operating system updates on iPhones and iPads are always free, updating an iPod Touch is usually free, and updating a Mac to the latest OS will run you $20. Note that there’s never a charge for incremental updates.
Once you purchase an app on any Apple device, you can sync it to any other Apple device free, or re-download it without restrictions. This is also the same for media purchased in iTunes.
Drawbacks of the Apple ecosystem
Old operating systems swiftly become unsupported by hardware and software, forcing you on an upgrade path that you may not necessarily wish to take. The flipside is also bad: newer Apple OSes can often not run legacy apps. Don’t even try to run an old PowerPC Mac app on a newer Intel Mac. It won’t work.
Apple even stops offering support for older versions of its operating systems after only a year or two, a far narrower window than, say, Windows. Also, app developers often discontinue support for earlier versions of iOS, or earlier device generations, forcing you to upgrade to continue using the app. For example, many new high-profile apps don’t work on the first iPad at all.
The other big weakness is that Apple’s ecosystem will run you much more money than any of the others. You’re paying for the brand, and also an expectation of quality
Mobile phone
Millions of people consider the iPhone the best smartphone ever, and with good reason: it pioneered the touchscreen and spawned dozens of imitators. The newest iPhone 5 offers 4G connectivity and a larger screen, and the newest iPod Touch also offers a larger screen and a thin form factor.
Tablet
The newest iPads are more expensive than competing Android tablets. They offer a similar experience as the iPhone and iPod Touch, but on a larger scale and with many tablet-specific applications. Apple also introduced the iPad mini this year for those who want an iPad that’s closer in size to an iPhone.
Computer
The Mac itself is somewhat of the weakest link in the Apple ecosystem. Someone used to the touchscreen iOS interface of the iPhone and iPad is going to be confused that Apple doesn’t even offer a touchscreen option for the Mac. And though several of the icons look the same, Apple’s OS X is very different than iOS. That said, iTunes works very well on the Mac, and it’s much less of a headache to sync an iPhone or iPad with a Mac than a PC. If you can justify the expense, adding a Mac to complete the Apple ecosystem makes a lot of sense. Plus, when you get a look at the slim, 5-millimeter-thick iMacs, it’s going to be hard to say no.
Other devices
Like a gaming system, AppleTV is a device that connects to your TV via HDMI. But it’s not a gaming system; instead, it streams movies and TV shows to your TV from your iTunes library in the cloud. You can also stream media from an Apple device using AirPlay. This little $99 device fits right in to the Apple family and is really useful.
But what about Google…?
I don’t think any “electronic ecosystem” is ready for primetime, as you say, but I would argue MSFT is further along then the others. The only real deficit they have is the broken link between phone and tablet apps. All of this cross integration is hard to pull off, with Apple owning tablet, MSFT owning desktop, and Google leading the fight for phone.
The real question is, will a winner emerge any time soon, and how long will it take? Meanwhile, the ecosystem you choose now won’t really matter, because by the time that winner is chosen, any of your software will be long obsoleted by something completely different.
I couldn’t disagree more. Name one Windows Phone speaker dock? There are more Apple compatible cars than Microsoft has as well.
Unfortunately, I would say Apple, then Android and MS for the ecosystem race.
Microsoft all the way!! love the surface windows 8 and the windows phone!!!
congrats, SH, on an intelligent effort to address the REAL story of the post-PC era – the “ecosystems.” of course your post will get nitpicked a lot, but great first try.
now to nitpick:
- you mention the Amazon Fire as if it is a functional part of the Google ecosystem, but of course it is not at all. Google apps are not included. it’s really a rival “forked” ecosystem.
- you badly undervalue to Apple desktop/laptop. you mention AirPlay, but not how convenient it is on a home LAN (and also OS X’s other LAN sharing/backup tools). maybe you don’t use them (i do) … and you don’t mention the easy integration of all the OS X iLife apps with their iOS counterparts. maybe you don’t use them either (i do). i know you can do all the same things on a PC by mixing and matching software and cloud services, but you have to be more technically adept. so using a PC with Apple iOS products is do-able, but really, the result is very second rate and so that is a bad half-baked recommendation.
- Google’s communication ecosystem is definitely the best, with Google Voice and many other conveniences. if that is the main user activity, Google’s Android is the way to go.
Hi Alfie,
Commenting on one part of your excellent post … The Amazon Fire uses apps from a curated selection called the Amazon App Store, which are most definitely Android apps. Though no Google apps are included (a shame, since undoubtedly Gmail would be a better app than the Kindle’s built-in one), I wouldn’t say Amazon and Google are rivals. They work together very closely.
I’m sorry but the “Facebook integration works poorly” is the statement made by somebody who hasn’t used it. It appears to be the most reliable form of mobile Facebook as the integrated version updates and is more reliable then multiple Android devices that I have used/been around and most recently the iPhone 5 Facebook App
The big drawback with the Windows Phone app is that it doesn’t allow you to administrate Facebook Pages. If all you have is a personal profile, it’s probably fine.
Umm. Windows Phone does have a Facebook app and has for quite some time. It was actually just updated and the performance has improved dramatically.
Hi Defiler,
The difference is that Windows Phone’s Facebook app is not the official Facebook App that Android and iOS have, so it has quite a few limitations compared to the real thing.
Ahhh. Understood.
Which of course is completely wrong. It IS official. Its developed by MS, but its officially sanctioned by Facebook, by one of its investors…. Microsoft :)
Note the word “official” here:
http://blogs.windows.com/windows_phone/b/windowsphone/archive/2012/12/17/whatsapp-for-windows-phone-8-arrives-facebook-updated.aspx
Not to concerned about FACEBOOK anyway
The only thing I don’t like about the article is that it completely ignores Linux (well… not really as Android and Chromebook are built on it). Ubuntu is working on developing an ecosystem of its own, though I think everyone is ignoring them for the moment. If Google could work Android into a PC operating system, leaving Chrome as a thin client OS, I think they could win the ecosystem battle hands down. But that’ll take working on a PC version of Android, and I don’t know if they even have that in mind.
For now, I think the best of the three would be the most expensive of the three. I think this race is Apple’s to loose at this point, with Google on its heels. However, give Micro$oft a year or so, and they’ll have their act together.
I have a 12 year old Pentium 1 file server running Fedora 2… still holding strong.. Ive thrown in new hard drives over the years, but thats it… Need to put her down (still runs old pATA drives) but damn she is the definition of duability (Dell FTW)
top 5 platforms of all time? Android. Android. Android. Android. Android….cuz they spit hot fire