Key Differences between iPhone vs Android Users

Understanding how iPhone vs Android users are different is about more than tech trivia – it’s something worth knowing to CEOs, CTOs, and product strategists. These two mobile platform behemoths each have enormous user bases around the world, with around 4.8 billion smartphones in use worldwide (roughly 3.4 billion Android platform and 1.4 billion iPhone iOS platform devices). Such magnitude makes every strategic decision (from app building to ad spending) more rewarding, with insight into how user demographics, spending, and technical milieus differ between iOS and Android.

In this article, we’re having an informal but fact-driven discussion of the difference between Android and iOS. This includes major differences in market share, monetization trends, ecosystem nitty-gritty, design schools of thought, and development problems.

Android and iOS Platform Markets

Android and iOS enjoy a duopoly in the smartphone universe, but their shares and user bases are very divergent. Android boasts a dominant position in worldwide market share – accounting for about 70–72% of the world’s smartphones versus ~28–30% for iOS​. As of early 2025, Android dominates about 71.7% of the global mobile OS market, and iOS enjoys about 27.8%​. This inequality is driven largely by Android’s broad availability across a wide array of manufacturers and price points. Regionally, the balance shifts:

• In the US, for example, Apple’s iPhone actually leads with roughly 58–60% market share compared to Android’s ~40%​.
• Other developed markets show similar trends – Japan sees iOS at around 59% share​, and Oceania (i.e. Australia) also leans towards iPhone dominance​.
• Meanwhile, in the rest of Europe, Android has ~67% vs iOS ~32%.
• In developing countries, Android is overwhelmingly popular – e.g., in Africa ~85–86% of smartphones are on Android vs only ~13% on iOS​.

In short, iOS does better than its global average in high-income regions. Android’s affordability and variety of choices make it the default in most countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Demographic trends follow geographic ones. Studies indicate iPhone users earn more and are also slightly younger on average. One 2024 survey found iPhone users reporting a mean annual income 43.7% higher than Android users​. Premium buyers are attracted to iPhones – indeed, Apple controls over 57% of the global premium ($400+) smartphone market and an even more dominant 78% of the ultra-premium ($1000+) market​.

Similarly, in most markets, Gen Z and Millennial consumers are more likely to be iPhone users, whilst Android’s user base is broader across the income spectrum and includes more older users on average​. For example, a Statista survey identified iPhones as most popular among the 18–29 age group (44% iPhone vs 30% Android), with older age groups having higher Android adoption.

Despite their differences, both groups of users are very loyal to their respective platforms – recent research shows Android has about a 91% user retention rate versus ~86% for iOS​, with the vast majority sticking with their OS when they change phones. This loyalty speaks to just how many users invest in the apps, services, and culture of each ecosystem.

In terms of usage behavior, neither group can be said to categorically “use their phones more” – smartphone engagement is ubiquitous across both. However, iOS users do tend to spend more money within apps (as we’ll explore next), and they often cite the integrated Apple ecosystem (iMessage, FaceTime, iCloud, Apple Watch, etc.) as a reason for their loyalty​. Android users, on the other hand, have greater choice and customization, which can translate to different usage behavior (e.g., Android users are more likely to opt-in to app notifications and interact with them – at an opt-in rate of ~81% vs 51% for iOS, and a ~4.6% response rate to push notifications vs 3.4% for iOS​.

Monetization

As for the monetization of mobile platforms – be it through the sale of apps, in-app purchases, or advertising – Android users vs iOS users exhibit extremely disparate spending habits. Here, we look at three areas of monetization difference, each within its own section.

App Revenue Performance

It is surprising, given Android’s larger base of users, yet Apple’s iOS generates significantly more app revenue compared to Android. Apple’s App Store generated around $85 billion for app developers in 2023, compared to around $48 billion on Google Play​. That is, iOS accounted for around 67–68% of all consumer app spending worldwide, with Android claiming the remaining ~32%​.

This has been an ongoing trend for years now: iPhone users spend more on apps and digital purchases. An iOS user, on average, spends nearly $12.77 for each app they download (including app purchase price or in-app spends), whereas an Android user will spend nearly $6.19 for each app​ – roughly half as much. Highest-grossing apps consistently bring in more revenue from iOS users. For example, in the first half of 2022, global consumer spending on the Apple App Store reached $43.7 billion versus $21.3 billion on Google Play (roughly double)​. This “revenue gap” is driven by several factors:

• Higher disposable income and spending habits of the average iPhone user
• Apple’s promotion of paid apps and subscriptions
• iOS is more dominant in markets (like the U.S. and Japan) where consumers are more likely to spend money on digital products

The implication for business is clear: if your business model relies on paid apps or in-app purchases, iOS might bring in more revenue per user.

In-App Purchase Behavior

One of the cornerstones of mobile monetization today is the in-app purchase (IAP) – buying extra lives in a game, unlocking premium features, subscribing to services, etc. Here is one of the most notable differences between iPhone and Android users.

iPhone owners will spend more money on apps due to higher earnings, a culture of paying for quality apps, the simplicity of Apple’s frictionless payment system, etc. Conversely, Android’s user base includes more price-conscious consumers and markets where credit card or digital payment usage is less prevalent. This means smaller transaction sizes and more reliance on free-to-play or ad-supported models. Not only are transactions on Android individually smaller, but the likelihood of a purchase at all is lower.

The larger Android install base implies that if you’re able to monetize indirectly (e.g., through ads or by monetizing even a small percentage of a huge user base), it has huge potential. Furthermore, certain content types see more parity or even Android leadership in purchase behavior. For instance, mobile fintech or education app purchases are in strong demand on Android in certain emerging markets. Google has been trying to develop carrier billing and other payment methods further to boost Android purchase conversion.

However, as a rule, iPhone users are the bigger spenders in-app, so plan your monetization strategy accordingly. If your app business model is IAP-intensive (i.e., mobile game or premium productivity app with subscription), prioritize an excellent iOS user experience – those users are statistically more likely to pay. Meanwhile, investigate localized pricing and additional payment options on Android to persuade its broader, more price-sensitive user base to make a purchase​.

Advertising Effectiveness

Advertising is another critical component of the monetization puzzle – in-app advertising is a central revenue source for most apps, and advertisers invest in mobile advertising to gain users or to push sales. Comparing Android vs iOS users in this case, we find disparities in both ad reach and performance due to platform policies and user behavior.

Firstly, from an app publisher’s viewpoint, ad revenues can vary by platform. In the past, iOS users were so highly sought after that ad networks saw higher eCPMs (effective cost per mille) on iOS. Advertisers were willing to pay more to access the typically more affluent, spend-happy iPhone crowd​. To this day, “iOS generally commands higher eCPMs than Android”​ for several ad formats (i.e., an ad impression on an iPhone might earn a developer more revenue than the same ad on Android). As an example, banner ads might make $0.50–$2.50 CPM on iOS vs $0.25–$1.50 on Android, with the same spreads in effect for interstitial and rewarded video ads in favor of iOS.

Apple’s new privacy actions have changed this equation, though. Apple introduced App Tracking Transparency (ATT) in 2021, which forced apps to ask for user consent to track. The majority of iPhone users chose to opt out of tracking, and therefore, very targeted iOS advertising became challenging. Some advertisers reassigned budgets to Android where user tracking (via Google’s Advertising ID) remained easier.

One industry report found that as of Q1 2024, iOS’s share of in-app ad revenue had dropped. iOS accounted for only ~41% of ad revenue, down from 63% in 2019, and Android now represents ~59%. That is, the pendulum swung in a manner where Android’s larger user base and easier ad targeting began generating more total ad dollars than iOS. Nevertheless, the story is still developing. Platform adaptations and user behavior are diminishing some of ATT’s impact. Opt-in rates for tracking on iOS have been slowly growing (now roughly 50% of users globally will allow some tracking prompts) as users and advertisers acclimate to the new normal.

By 2023–2024, advertisers were actually spending more on iOS again, having adapted to new methods: overall ad spending on iOS increased 28% from Q1 2023 to Q1 2024, compared to only 5% on Android​. This shows that many marketers still find iOS users valuable and are willing to navigate around the privacy restrictions to reach them.

In brief, iOS vs Android ads is a trade-off. Android gives you reach and volume, and thanks to less stringent tracking restrictions (up to now) it might give you more data-driven targeting. Android users click on notifications/ads a bit more. iOS offers a more valuable audience on a per-impression basis, but privacy policies create friction and limit targeting, calling for more creative or contextual ad solutions.

Ecosystem and Technical Specifics of the Platforms

Other than user numbers and spending, the difference between Android and iPhone implies technology and ecosystem – factors that affect developers, users, and product strategy. Here are some examples.

Hardware Fragmentation

Android’s greatest asset and liability is the diversity of hardware. The Android operating system is utilized by several hundred vendors (Samsung, Xiaomi, Google, Oppo, Motorola – just to name a few) in thousands of models of devices around the world. This has produced incredible reach and choice but also to so-called “Android fragmentation”. Shoppers can buy an Android phone in nearly any price range or form factor. There are a mind-boggling variety of individual device configurations in the Android ecosystem with different:

• Screen sizes and resolutions
• Chipsets
• Amounts of RAM
• Camera capabilities
• Sensor combinations, etc.

For perspective, back in 2015, there were already more than 24,000 unique Android device models on the market (made by 1,300+ manufacturers). This has only increased. From affordable $50 phones to premium foldables, Android is on more kinds of hardware than any other platform.

Apple, in contrast, makes both the hardware and software for iOS, with a much more limited device portfolio. Essentially, Apple releases a couple of new iPhone models annually (typically 2–4 models in differing sizes), and holds on to a few older models (usually 5–6 years’ worth of equipment). That means at any given time, iOS developers need to cater to comparatively few screen sizes and hardware configurations – essentially the differences between a couple of iPhone generations and possibly iPads if tablet support is necessary.

There is virtually no fragmentation on iOS: Apple ensures consistency by using a few chip designs and by requiring homogeneous guidelines (e.g., all new iPhones have high-resolution “Retina” screens with consistent aspect ratios, all have Face ID or Touch ID for authentication, etc.). For the user, this creates a more uniform experience. An advertised app or feature on iPhone will act essentially the same way on all supported devices, but on Android, the experience can vary on a budget phone versus a high-end phone.

The fragmentation is not just in hardware configurations, however. Android fragmentation includes OS versions and custom software overlays as well, and this is a direct equivalent to hardware diversity. Different manufacturers not only produce hardware, but they often customize the Android OS on their devices (e.g. Samsung’s One UI, Xiaomi’s MIUI, etc.), and they update their devices to new Android versions on varying schedules (or sometimes not at all for older/cheaper models). As a result, at any given time, an Android app may need to support 4–5 different Android OS versions and numerous manufacturer-specific variants simultaneously​.

For product leaders, hardware fragmentation is less about device compatibility and more about testing on Android. You may need to have a larger device testing plan (using labs or services for many different screen sizes and OS flavors) to ensure that your app works everywhere.

System Integration and Updates

iOS by Apple is a closed-system platform tightly integrated with Apple’s hardware and services. What are the advantages of such vertical integration? Apple can extensively tailor the OS for its chips (leading to strong performance with relatively modest specs) and deliver features that just work great within its range of devices.

As an example, continuity features like Handoff (Mac to iPhone), AirDrop, iMessage, FaceTime, and iCloud syncing. All of this is possible because Apple has the whole widget in its control, and hence, an extent of cross-device integration that is typical of the Apple world. Users of iPhones typically point this out as a plus: their phone, laptop, tablet, watch, etc., all “talk” to one another so seamlessly because they are on the same Apple platform. The downside is decreased flexibility – iOS devices are pretty much locked into running within Apple’s ecosystem, and customization or third-party deep system hooks are not possible (Apple values security and simplicity over openness).

Android, being open-source at its core, has a different integration story. Google makes the base Android OS and provides apps like Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, and the Play Store that glue it all together, but Android phones are made by many different companies that each might include their own services or mods. For instance, Samsung creates its Galaxy phones with SmartThings and its computers, while Google creates Pixel phones with Chromebooks and Google Assistant, and so on. The result is that system integration can vary – the Android user of a Samsung phone might have great continuity with his Samsung tablet or Windows via “Link to Windows,” but not with his friend’s OnePlus phone.

Overall, Android’s integration into the broader tech environment is improving (for example, Microsoft and Google have been working on making Android phones integrate with Windows desktops), but it is less integrated than Apple’s. The trade-off is that Android is more flexible – it can fit into different ecosystems (you can mix an Android phone with a Windows PC, a Mac, smart devices of various brands, etc., using cross-platform apps and cloud services).

OS updates reveal a significant difference: Apple has the ability to push iOS updates to almost all its users simultaneously, whereas Android updates are split by manufacturer and carrier delays. When Apple releases a new version of iOS, users of supported iPhone models all over the world typically get it on the same day. This leads to incredibly fast adoption of new OS versions – e.g. in ~5 months after release, over 75% of all iPhones were running iOS 18 as of January 21, 2025.

Apple brags every now and then that the majority of its users are running the latest software, which is a dream come true for developers (less work to support previous versions) and users (everybody has new features and security fixes). Apple also secures devices with iOS updates for 5+ years, much more than most Android OEMs.

Android’s approach is different. Google releases a fresh version of Android every year, but it’s up to every device maker (and, in most cases, the wireless companies) to sign off and get it out to consumers. It may take years or months — or maybe never.

Many low-end Android phones never receive substantial OS updates, only security patches (and those typically lag behind). Consequently, at any point in time, the Android user base is spread across several OS versions. For example, in May 2025, Android 14 (released late 2023) was on only approximately 33% of devices, with the majority of users remaining on Android 13, 12, or earlier versions.

Google has tried to improve updates with initiatives like Project Treble and updating through Google Play Services, but the reality is that Android OS adoption is slower and more divided. From a features and security point of view, Android developers usually have to support older APIs longer, and on some devices, users do not receive new OS features (or optimizations) for many months.

Store Policies and Guidelines

Both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store serve the same purpose of being the primary portals by which users download and install apps, but they have varying policies and review processes.

Apple’s App Store is notoriously strict: Apple has tight control over what apps will be permitted to enter its store, imposing strict guidelines on content, security, and UI. All apps (and app updates) on iOS are vetted by Apple’s staff to make sure they meet their standards (no malware, no banned content like pornography or hate speech, no use of private APIs, etc., privacy rules met, etc.). This produces a general high-quality and secure list, but in the process puts developers in the role of gatekeepers. It’s not uncommon for iOS app submissions to be rejected or held up on the basis of guideline violations, which have to be addressed and re-submitted. Even approval itself happens after a delay – typically 24–48 hours for Apple review, sometimes longer for new apps.

Google’s Play Store is more open and developer-friendly in submission. Google does have rules and does scan/review apps for malware or policy issues, but the process is highly automated and much quicker. New app launches on Google Play can be live in a matter of hours to a day, and Google is less strict on content (with some exceptions) than Apple. Rules are less strict, so it is simpler (and faster) for developers to launch apps or updates on Android​. If something goes wrong, Google will accept fixes rather than reject app, whereas Apple will reject apps for UI non-compliance or minor rule-breaking.

The other big difference: Android has support for alternate app stores and app installation by sideloading. While the Google Play Store is the default and by far the largest distribution point, users (especially in China or on a device like Amazon’s Kindle Fire) can also download apps via third-party markets or APK downloads. Developers thus have more than one path to sell to Android users – they are not required to come through Google Play (though it provides them with trust and reach).

Design, UX/UI and User Experience

When building apps (or the overall user experience) for iPhone versus Android, one should take into account the different design philosophies and user expectations that come along with each platform. Apple and Google both provide extensive Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) and Material Design guidelines, respectively, that shape how apps look and feel on their platforms. Let’s break down some of the most significant differences in design and UX between iOS and Android.

Design Guidelines

Apple’s iOS design philosophy is perhaps summarized by simplicity, clarity, and consistency. Apple’s official Human Interface Guidelines emphasize a clean and minimalist aesthetic where typography is clean and content is prioritized. There is a great focus on intuitive and consistent navigation. Apps should follow standard patterns (like standard tab bars, normal icons, and gestures) to make an iPhone app familiar across the system. Visual design on iOS generally uses liberal whitespace, flat (or subtle depth) design, and high polish on animations and transitions.

Apple also encourages respect for platform conventions – e.g., utilizing the SF system font, iOS system icons, and adhering to safe area layouts (to accommodate notches, etc.). Getting too far from the iOS look and feel can even result in your app being rejected in the worst scenarios, and at least will feel “off” to users. The plus is that iPhone apps have a very consistent, high-quality user interface. The minus is that designers have a fairly narrow range of creativity if they want approval and user acceptance.

Android design philosophy (Material Design) by Google is a bit more flexible and innovative in visual style. Google’s Material Design guidelines embrace bold color, motivated motion, and a flat 2D grid with purposeful shadows employed for layering. Material Design is also adaptive in nature – it provides a system of components that can be configured to different screen sizes and brand looks.

Compared to iOS, Android’s design system has greater variation: manufacturers tend to theme fundamental UI components (so an app on a Samsung phone would inherit some of Samsung’s styling, etc.), and Google itself refreshes Material Design from time to time (Material You, which arrived with Android 12, even enables the user’s wallpaper colors to dynamically influence app theming). A central tenet is responsive and modular design – interfaces that can reflow on the millions of screens Android supports.

Practically speaking, good product design is adhering to each platform’s norms. For example, an iOS app will typically use the San Francisco font, flat tab icons, and perhaps utilize blur effects and large title bars introduced in later iOS versions. An Android app will use Roboto or Google’s Product Sans font, floating action buttons, or bottom navigation as per Material guidelines, and perhaps a navigation drawer (hamburger menu) if the app has many sections.

Navigation Patterns

One of the most noticeable UX differences is how users navigate within apps and the OS. The difference between Android and iPhone users historically was different navigation paradigms:

• System Back Button vs In-App Navigation. Android has long featured a universal Back button (either a physical or on-screen button, and now a gesture) that lets users go back one step from anywhere. This means Android users expect that hitting “back” will go to the previous screen or even exit the app if at the top level. In contrast, iOS has no global Back button – navigation is handled within apps, usually via a back button in the top-left of the UI or a swipe gesture from the left edge. This difference seems small but has design implications: Android apps often use the Back button as part of flow (you might not need an on-screen back control for simple hierarchies), whereas iOS apps must provide a visible back affordance (like a “< Back” button in the nav bar).
• Gestures. Both platforms have embraced gesture navigation (swipes for back, home, multitask) in their latest versions (iPhone’s notch phones removed the Home button in favor of gestures; Android offers gesture nav as default now too). That has made some aspects more similar. Yet, certain gestures remain distinct. For example, swipe-from-left-edge in iOS typically triggers “Back” within the app. In contrast, on Android, the analogous gesture might conflict with their global back gesture (Android solved this by allowing either side for back). Pull-to-refresh started as an iOS pattern and is now common on both. Long-press context menus are prevalent on Android (since early days), and now iOS has introduced similar via “long press/force touch” leading to secondary menus.
• Physical buttons. Historically, Android phones had 3 system buttons (Back, Home, Multitasking), while iPhones had the Home button (until iPhone X). Now, both mostly rely on gestures and maybe a home indicator. But a lingering difference is the presence of a universal Back (Android) vs not (iOS), as discussed. Also, Android devices have a dedicated notification/status bar icons always visible for back, Wi-Fi, etc. In contrast, iOS’s status bar is more minimal and doesn’t show as many persistent icons.
  

For product teams, ensuring the app adheres to these navigational norms is important. For iOS, that means using UITabBarController, UINavigationController patterns appropriately (tabs at bottom, push views with back buttons, perhaps modal views for certain flows) and following the safe areas (notch, home indicator spacing). For Android, it means supporting the Back button properly (handling back-stack in activities/fragments so that Back doesn’t accidentally exit, etc.), and implementing Material Components for navigation – be it a BottomNavigationView or NavigationDrawer as suits the app. Missteps in navigation (e.g. an Android app where Back doesn’t work, or an iOS app with an awkward custom menu) will quickly frustrate users because it violates their platform instinct.

Customization and Personalization

When it comes to how much users can customize their experience, Android users vs iPhone users are famously different. Android is far more customizable, giving users and developers the ability to personalize the interface, whereas iOS has traditionally been more locked-down (though it has opened up a bit in recent versions).

On Android, users can change:

• Wallpapers
• Launchers (home screen layouts)
• Icon packs
• Default apps for web/email/maps
• Widgets on the home screen
• Even deeper modifications for the tech-savvy (like installing custom ROMs or tweaking settings via developer options)

This means an Android user’s phone can look and behave very uniquely. Many Android enthusiasts value this freedom – they might install a third-party launcher app to completely overhaul the UI, or use automation apps to adjust settings based on location/time, etc. Android manufacturers also add features for customization: e.g. Samsung has themes, Xiaomi offers extensive UI tuning, etc. As a result, Android users prioritize customization and control over their device’s appearance and behavior. They’re used to settings galore and tweaking options.

On iOS, Apple historically kept a tight grip on the look and feel. Until a couple of years ago, you couldn’t even put widgets on the home screen (only in a separate Today view), and you couldn’t change default email or browser apps. That has changed somewhat: modern iOS lets users add home screen widgets, use Focus modes to change layouts, and even choose alternative default apps for email or browser. There’s also an emerging trend of custom iOS icons (using Shortcuts, users create custom home icons to theme their phone, which became popular on social media). However, these are still workarounds – iOS doesn’t natively support true third-party themes or launchers. The majority of iPhone users stick with the grid-of-icons layout that Apple provides, maybe just organizing into folders. Personalization is more limited – perhaps a dark mode or light mode, a dynamic wallpaper, etc., but not the level of overhaul Android allows. Apple tends to make design decisions for the user in the name of consistency and simplicity.

Features of Development and Testing

Android vs iPhone users also see a big difference here. Here, we will examine the programming languages & frameworks, the use of emulators/simulators vs real devices in different types of QA testing, and the app release cycle, including the approval process.

Programming Languages and Frameworks

iOS development is typically done in Swift or Objective-C using Apple’s Xcode IDE on macOS. Apple provides frameworks like UIKit (for UI), SwiftUI (the newer reactive UI framework), Foundation, Core Data, etc., which are all accessed via Swift/Obj-C. Xcode, the official Apple development environment, includes Interface Builder for designing storyboards/xibs, instruments for profiling, and the iOS Simulator for testing. One key thing to note: iOS development requires a Mac environment – Xcode only runs on macOS, so your dev team needs Mac hardware or cloud Macs.

Android development is typically done in Kotlin or Java using Android Studio (which is cross-platform and can run on Windows, Linux, or Mac). Google’s Jetpack libraries and the newer Jetpack Compose UI toolkit are Kotlin-first, leveraging that language’s capabilities. Android Studio (built on IntelliJ IDEA) is a robust IDE with features like a visual layout editor, APK analyzer, and Android Debug Bridge (ADB) integration for deploying to devices.

It’s worth noting that cross-platform development is a popular approach to target iOS and Android together. Tools like Flutter (Dart language), React Native (JavaScript/JSX), or Xamarin (C#) allow writing one codebase that deploys to both iOS and Android (and beyond). This can save time if you want to develop simultaneously and share code, at the cost of sometimes not fully tapping into native UI/UX. Many startups use cross-platform to maximize reach with limited resources. However, even with these, some platform-specific code or tweaking is usually needed for best results.

Emulator vs Device Testing

For iOS, Apple provides the iOS Simulator as part of Xcode. The Simulator is fast and easy to use for quick testing – it launches a virtual iPhone or iPad on your Mac. Notably, the iOS Simulator is actually running x86_64 code (or ARM M1 code on newer Macs) rather than the actual ARM iPhone binary, which means it’s very performant and convenient. However, it’s technically a “simulator” not a full “emulator” – it simulates an iPhone’s software environment using your Mac’s hardware, but doesn’t perfectly emulate all hardware features. For example, things like the camera, sensors, or testing push notifications might require a real device.

Overall though, developers can do a lot on the Simulator: quickly debug layouts, test logic, etc., without needing a physical iPhone. When it comes to testing on devices, Apple’s limited number of models actually makes it feasible to test on a handful of devices and cover most scenarios (e.g. one recent large iPhone, one older smaller iPhone, maybe an iPad if relevant). Apple also has TestFlight which allows easy beta distribution to internal and external testers on real devices.

On Android, the primary tool is the Android Emulator that comes with Android Studio. The Android emulator has to replicate the entire Android OS (since you could be running it on a Windows PC, etc.), so it functions as a full hardware emulator (including a virtual ARM or x86 Android build). In the past, Android emulators were infamous for being slow. Nowadays, with hardware acceleration (HAXM or Hypervisor Framework on Mac) and with the option to use x86 system images, the Android emulator is much faster and more usable. You can create many virtual device profiles (different screen sizes, OS versions, even emulate foldable devices or wear OS). Still, the Android emulator can be heavy on the CPU/RAM, and some developers prefer to test on real devices sooner, especially for complex apps. Fragmentation makes device testing important: you might use an emulator for a generic Pixel phone, but you should also test on a real Samsung device with its different OEM skin, for instance.

Real device testing is arguably more critical for Android because of the variability. It’s common to maintain a small “device lab” or use cloud testing services to ensure the app works on popular models (Samsung Galaxy, Xiaomi Redmi, etc. running different Android versions). On iOS, if it works on the latest iPhone and latest iOS, it often works on older ones (with some exceptions for performance on very old devices). On Android, an app might behave differently on Android 11 vs Android 13, or on a low-memory device vs a flagship, so broader device coverage in testing is needed.

Another aspect is DevOps. As mentioned, iOS Simulator only runs on Mac, so CI/CD pipelines for iOS require Mac hardware (many use Mac CI services). Android emulators can run on Linux VMs, making automation a bit easier cross-platform. When running unit tests or integration tests, both platforms have frameworks (XCTest for iOS, Espresso/UIAutomator for Android) that can run on emulators or devices.

From a QA perspective, testers will find more UI inconsistencies to verify on Android simply due to the many form factors. Ensuring the layout is responsive on a small 5” 720p screen as well as a 6.7” 1440p screen, handling both portrait and landscape, etc., is more complex on Android. iOS devices have fewer resolutions and aspect ratios (and Apple tends to letterbox apps if not perfectly optimized, which helps). Also, things like localization testing might reveal issues on Android if text doesn’t fit in a certain OEM theme, whereas Apple’s relatively fixed fonts and layouts are easier to predict.

Release Cycle and Approval Process

Deploying updates and new versions works differently for iPhone users vs Android users, largely due to the aforementioned App Store vs Play Store differences. Release cycle considerations include how quickly you can iterate, how updates are delivered, and how users adopt updates.

On Android/Google Play, developers have a lot of control. You can release an update to the Play Store and have it available to users within a few hours, typically. Google’s review for apps is fast and often automated, so the “time-to-live” for an update is very short. This encourages a more continuous deployment mindset – some Android apps push updates very frequently (even weekly or more) since there’s less overhead.

Also, Google Play allows staged rollouts: you can release an update to a small percentage of users, monitor crash reports, then increase the rollout if all is well. This is great for mitigating risk. If something goes wrong, you can halt the rollout or even publish a quick patch within the same day. Users on Android also tend to have auto-updates enabled via the Play Store, so within a day or two of an update being live, a large portion of active users will have it (unless they turned off auto-update). And if an urgent fix is needed, you can even push a hotfix update very quickly.

On iOS/App Store, the process is more gated. Every update (even a small bug fix) must go through Apple’s review. While Apple has sped up reviews (often under 24 hours now for routine updates), you still have to plan for about a day or more of lead time. And if Apple finds an issue (even something minor like using a non-public API by mistake), they can reject the update, which introduces a delay as you fix and resubmit. This means iOS teams often batch more changes into each release to avoid frequent submissions, and they are very careful about quality to not fail review.

The App Store does allow phased release (spreading an update over 7 days to users), but developers can’t directly push to a % like on Google Play – Apple manages the phasing. Importantly, if you find a critical bug after release, you cannot instantly patch it – you must go through review again. Apple does have an “expedited review” request for critical fixes, which might speed it up, but there’s no guarantee. All this leads to a bit more caution and longer cycle for iOS releases. Many companies do iOS releases on a bi-weekly or monthly cadence, and use feature flags to turn things on/off remotely if needed to avoid emergency app submissions.

What about beta testing? Both platforms offer beta distribution (TestFlight for iOS, and Google Play’s internal/closed testing tracks for Android). Google’s is a bit more flexible (you can have open betas anyone can join via a link). TestFlight requires collecting user emails or sharing a public link with a cap on external testers (10,000). These processes should be leveraged for vetting releases before full release, especially on iOS, where a post-release issue is harder to fix quickly.

Finally, deployment strategies. Android allows background updates and even partial component updates via the Play Store’s Dynamic Delivery (for modular apps). Apple now allows in-app updates notifications (the app can tell user a new version is out, but the update still goes through App Store). These differences aren’t huge, but it plays into how you communicate with users about new features or prompt them to upgrade.

What platform should you develop an application for?

Criteria	iOS (iPhone Users)	Android Users
Market Share	Strong in North America, Western Europe, Japan	Dominant globally, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
User Income	Higher average income, more premium spenders	Wider income range, strong presence in cost-sensitive markets
App Monetization (IAP/Subscriptions)	Higher ARPU, better conversion for paid models	Lower ARPU, requires higher volume or ad-based models
Development Speed	More predictable environment (limited devices & OS versions)	More device/OS fragmentation, longer QA process
Time-to-Market (App Review)	Slower (manual App Store review)	Faster (automated Google Play process)
Customization Needs	Limited system-level flexibility	Highly customizable UI and UX
Target Audience	Ideal for premium services, finance, luxury, and enterprise apps	Ideal for mass-market, education, and ad-driven apps
Platform Loyalty	High loyalty, especially among younger users	High loyalty, broader age range

In most cases, the answer to “which platform first” is both – because users on both sides will demand to be included. A staged approach is usually taken: build for one, launch, learn, then launch on the other after a short delay with some early feedback built in.

This phased release can de-risk a full dual-platform launch. That being said, the last recommendation is to aim for both iOS and Android as soon as possible. The mobile market is just too big on both sides to ignore one. Cross-platform mobile development technologies can get you there. Reaching the widest audience while delivering a tailored experience to each platform generally leads to the most success.

What do we recommend to our clients when they ask, “Android users vs iPhone: what should we choose?” We say, “Choose the platform that is the best fit for your initial target segment, but plan for a presence that maximizes both reach and growth”. And with development tools available today, a top-notch cross-platform application is more achievable than ever.

Finally, consider the cost perspective: two codebases are costly to maintain. That’s why startups do cross-platform or stick to one until they reach product-market fit. With limited budget and time, you might do a minimal MVP on one platform to test the market.

In most cases, the optimal approach is to develop on both platforms, either through a cross-platform approach or sequential native development to balance quality, reach, and cost.

Create Your Own Mobile Application Now!

Ready to turn these observations into a mobile success? Want to tap the high-end iPhone market, leverage Android’s global market leadership, or (genius!) both? We’re here to help make it happen!

Our team of experienced mobile developers and UX designers has extensive experience in both iOS and Android development – from native Swift/Kotlin implementations to successful cross-platform solutions. We’re familiar with the nuances of every platform and the way to deliver a seamless native experience for iPhone users and Android users alike. Most importantly, we know how to leverage the strengths of both ecosystems to present your business vision.

Don’t let the complexities of multi-platform development hold you back. Contact us for a consultation on designing and developing your unique mobile application absolutely free. We’ll assist you in deciding the best approach – iOS first, Android first, or a simultaneous cross-platform launch – based on your audience and budget.

Let’s give them something amazing!