モバイル学会

Original Paper

iPhone and Android: a Comparison of User Satisfaction
Hideo KUDO
School of Management, Tokyo University of Science
Abstract: The research question of this study was: “Do different ecosystem management strategies on the part ofplatform leaders affect the performance of products and services on the platform?” To test this, we researched
product satisfaction with the iPhone and Android smartphones, using 666 people as a target population. On
validating the difference in means of tests for each variable about product satisfaction, almost all variables
demonstrated that the satisfaction of iPhone users was higher than that of Android users. The contributions of ourresearch are as follows. First, we propose a theoretical perspective that could resolve the problem of the two
opposing strategic purposes. Our perspective involves the industry’s life cycle and classifying patterns of productsatisfaction. We tested product satisfaction in each platform on the basis of our perspective. Second, our research
provides variables about smartphone user satisfaction from a correspondence analysis based on 666 smartphoneusers.

Keywords: Platform Management, Ecosystem, Product Satisfaction, iPhone, Android

1. Introduction
At present, it is difficult for a single manufacture to develop
new products and for these products to show a competitive
advantage in the mobile phone or digital home electronics
industry. If a manufacturer hopes to develop high-performanceand customer-oriented products, various companies typicallyprovide some of the requisite technologies or components andthese technologies or components are then successfully
integrated. In this regard, studies in technology management or
strategic management often discuss the concept of a “platform”
or “ecosystem” [1][2].
These studies have the theoretical task of explaining how
platform leader management can lead to a progressive
ecosystem [2]. We can define ecosystem as a corporative
network that consist of investors, suppliers and customers, andthis concept is metaphor as an ecological system in nature [2].
If a platform leader wants to develop an ecosystem, thatleader should tackle a problem as a platform leader and havethird-party developers join the platform and focus ondeveloping attractive products or services [1][2].
From this, a platform leader has two strategic purposes: first,
the platform leader integrally controls products or services thatare provided on the platform, and second, the platform leader
allows third-party companies to develop products to give fullplay to the capabilities of the ecosystem, creating variety andattractive products or services on the platform. These opposing
purposes are one of the most important issues in ecosystemmanagement by a platform leader [3].
Submitted by January, 14, 2014 (Read a paper at March, 13-14,
2014, Symposium “Mobile’14”)

モバイル学会誌, Vol.4 (1/2), pp.15-20 (2014).

Although the study of such ecosystem or platform
management has a certain research body of theoretical works[1], there are only a few examples of empirical research [4]. In
this study, we examined how differences in strategy among
platform leaders managing ecosystems affect productperformance, using the mobile smartphone industry as an
example. Specifically, this work compares iPhone platformproducts, based on iOS, and Android platform products, basedon Android OS.
First, consider the current smartphone market. The expected
total shipment volume of smartphones worldwide was 794
million units in 2013, and one market research company
expects that shipments will exceed one billion units in 2015 [5].
The Japanese smartphone market has similarly grown rapidly.
The Japanese domestic smartphone diffusion rate was 49.5% in2012 [6]. In particular, the Android OS and iOS had a majority
mobile OS share, worldwide and in Japan, in 2012 [6].
The smartphone industry can be considered a layered
structure: hardware, network, applications, and content. In
terms of these layers, Apple and Google are platform leadershaving differing strategies. Apple and iPhone integrate, from a
mobile device to content, vertically. On the other hand, theAndroid platform has an open structure whereby various
manufacturers provide smartphones, except that the Android
OS is provided by Google for all of them, and the market’s
regulation is looser than Apple’s.
In terms of platform management strategy, it seems that
Apple regards integration of the mobile device, applications,and content as important, whereas Google attaches importanceto the variety of these features. Here, we examine how
differences in management affect the performance of theecosystem. To examine that, we compared the satisfaction of
iPhone and Android smartphone users.

15

Hideo KUDO: iPhone and Android: a Comparison of User Satisfaction
Theories regarding marketing and customer behavior haveaccumulated from past studies about digital electronics user
satisfaction and utilization since the 1990s [7] [8] [9]. It is easy
to add new functionality to digital home electronics, including
mobile phones, because text, sound, picture, and video arecontrolled as digital data, recorded as “1”s and “0”s, using
common electronics components. However, until recently,
electronics users have not been able to use these various
devices together [8].

variety [11]. We term the former “management for integrity”

Marketing theory describes the multifunctional features ofdigital devices as “convergent products” (CPs) or “digitalconvergence” [8] [9]. The point at issue in compatibility is thetrade-off between digital device functionality and usability [8].
In this work, we focused on the end user utility of smartphones.

depends on the degree of development of an industry or the

In the next section, we review past studies on platforms andproduct satisfaction with digital devices and reveal thedevelopment sequence in these past studies and their theoreticallimits. In the third section, we derive hypotheses, and examine
statistically the different degrees of product satisfaction
between iPhone and Android devices. In the fourth section, we
provide a discussion and conclusions based on our theoreticalreview and statistical examination.

2. A Review of Previous Studies
2-1. Platform Studies
A platform refers to a technological infrastructure that allows
newinnovation

throughinteractions

betweenmultiplecompanies or users [1] [10]. In the smartphone industry, themobile OSs – iOS and Android OS – and the mobile
application markets – the App Store and Google Market – seemto correspond to platforms, and mobile device manufacturers orapplication suppliers provide products or services on theseplatforms. Platform studies refer to a platform leader as anentity that manages its own platform [1]. An ecosystem meansa cooperative network, consisting of a platform leader,third-party companies that provide devices or content services,
contributors, and end users, and is a metaphor stemming from asituation in the natural world [2].
The ultimate goal for a platform leader is the prosperity of
the whole ecosystem, with a focus on its own platform. Iansiti
and Levien use the word keystone for a leader that prospers intheir ecosystem over the long-term, and they distinguishbetween a keystone and a dominant firm, which merely
exploits affiliated companies [2].
Platform leaders should pursue two conflicting strategies toachieve this ultimate goal. The first is to control products orservices that are created by third-party developers on theand the latter “management for variety,” and we inference“management for integrity” is more efficient strategy in a
growth-stage industry. This is one of the points in our review
and hypothesis.
The question of how a platform leader strikes a balance
between these two conflicting aspects is currently a subject of
research [3] [11]. On this issue, in this study, we perceive that it
ultimate goal of the platform leader as to which strategy isemphasized. In particular, in this study, we focus on platform
management at an early stage of the industry lifecycle [12], andwe present hypotheses to examine that below.

2-2. Product Satisfaction Studies
Product satisfaction research about digital device use has
accumulated since the 1990s [7] [8] [9]. In terms of productsatisfaction, this study should discuss two points. First, when aproduct is digitalized, how functional are the features? Second,
if we want to classify end user satisfaction with digital devices,which factors are to be distinguished?
Regarding the functional features of digital products,
concepts of convergent products (CPs) or digital convergence
pertain. These words indicate that a digital product has featuresthat simplify putting several functions together. Because all
digital data ultimately consists of the same digital signal, astream of 1s and 0s, then, at least in theory, any digital content– audio, video, text, and images – can be stored, processed, anddisplayed using the same digital device(s) [13]. As with otherdigital devices, a typical mobile phone today can include
several functions: camera, mp3 player, and video player, forexample. However, even if a digital device may have many
functions, it will not achieve product satisfaction unless the end
user considers that the newly added functions are useful [9].
Indeed, depending on the situation, overly added functions caneven impoverish the end user experience [8].
Regarding utility to the digital device user, Thompson et al.
showed a conceptual axis: functionality (or capability) andusability [8]. Functionality refers to a function group that a userhopes to have installed on a device. Generally, even if a user
evaluates a new added function as beneficial [7], the number ofadded functions does not always result in proportionally
increased user satisfaction or utility. Usability refers to productoperability or comfort when using a device and constitutes theuser’s subjective satisfaction [8]. Our research follows
Thompson et al.’s conceptual axis: functionality and usability[8] because the axis seems to be universal in a utility to thedigital device user. This is one of the points in this review andour hypothesis.

platform. The second strategy is to trust controlling products orapplications to third-party companies to facilitate service

16

In terms of smartphones to be examined in this study, we
considered that Japanese manufacturers would face problems
vol. 4(1/2); pp. 15- 20 J. Mobile Interactions 2014

モバイル学会
with over-added functions. Our reasoning was that Japanesemanufacturers have developed feature phones that are equippedwith many functions. Some fraction of existing Japanese users
would like to encourage manufacturers to add further functions(e.g., infrared data communication, mobile wallet, and One-Seg
television). However, such additions could negatively affectproduct satisfaction for many users.

companies provide various products or services, functionality islikely to increase. These considerations lead to the following
hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1:
If a platform leader and manufacturer attach importance toproduct integrity over variety, then the product leads tocomprehensive user satisfaction in an introductory or

3. Hypothesis and Testing
3.1 Hypothesis
The smartphone industry has a number of technologicallylayered structures: devices, networks, applications, and content
layers [13] [14]. The device layer consists of the mobile
hardware and OS, the network refers to mobile telephonesignals and communication protocols (e.g., TCP/IP), and an
application is a tool for using content: text, audio, pictures, andvideo [14]. There are supplier companies in each layer in thesmartphone industry. The platform leaders affect the actions ofthird-party developers through managing the mobile OS andapplication markets, the App store and Google market.
In the section above, we described the two conflicting
strategies in platform management [3] [11]. These are thepolicy of strictly controlling third-party companies and thepolicy of leaving part of the control to supplier companies. We
term the former “management for integrity” and the latter“management for variety”. When we compare Apple and
Google in this respect, Apple seems to regard management for
integrity as important whereas Google seems to attach
importance to management for variety.
In 2014, the smartphone industry in developed countries
seems to be approaching a growth period in terms of productdiffusion. Generally, customers become aware of new products
and entry companies are beginning to increase [12]. Practically,
many companies are entering the market in each of the four
smartphone industry layers [5].
However, currently, manufacturers cannot fully identify
what smartphone users want in terms of functions or benefits.
Similarly, entry companies in the smartphone industry do notcomprehend what kind of influence the services can have whendevelopers create devices or applications. In this situation,
integrated platform management should be more effective thanmanagement for variety, because such integrated management
will establish consistency in the four smartphone industry
layers, and this integrity in services would seem to increase
comprehensive end user satisfaction.
Platform management can also affect several aspects ofdevice satisfaction; specifically, utility and functionality [8].
When a platform leader closely coordinates all technologicalfactors – mobile device performance and application software –then usability will be achieved and user satisfaction will be
increased. However, we suggest that if several supplier

モバイル学会誌, Vol.4 (1/2), pp.15-20 (2014).

growth-stage industry.
Hypothesis 2:
In terms of usability, if a platform leader and manufacturer
attach importance to product integrity over variety, theproduct will lead to higher end user satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3:
In terms of functionality, if a platform leader andmanufacturers attach importance to product variety overintegrity, the products will lead to higher end user
satisfaction.

3.2 Methods
In this study, we used a questionnaire targeting iPhone andAndroid users – 333 of each for a total of 666 people – throughthe Internet. The people targeted were male and female users,
over 10 years old, who had purchased a device in or after April
2010, from across the whole country. The survey items were
product satisfaction and comprehensive product satisfaction
questions such as: “Q. What issues are you satisfied with whenusing your smartphone?” and “Q. How satisfied are you inusing your smartphone?” There were 15 questionnaire items
about satisfaction, with multiple answers. It was a nominal
scale. If a respondent answered “Yes” to an item, then the score
was 1. If a respondent answers “No” to an item, then the score
was 0. The question about comprehensive satisfaction used afive-point scale.
We examined whether there was a significant difference
between iPhone users’ and Android users’ satisfaction. First, weanalyzed the 15 satisfaction points through a correspondence
analysis to derive the variables of user satisfaction. This
resulted in six variables from the 15 items. Regarding
satisfaction points, we regarded the total number for eachquestion answered “Yes” as the scale score of the variable. We
then examined differences in the means for each variable. For
comprehensive satisfaction, we used a five-point scale from thequestionnaire. Table 1 shows the details of the questionnaire
items. We used the 'R' software (ver. 3.0.2) [15] for thecorrespondence analysis and the SPSS software (ver. 20) for
the difference of means tests.

17

Hideo KUDO: iPhone and Android: a Comparison of User Satisfaction

Question items

DetailVariables

Question items

display1

The display is fineappli_mobile

PC_data, appli_n, appli_q, WLAN, Bluetooth

display2

The display is huge

mail_webmail, webCameraThe camera is high-performanceusability

operating, response, battery

Mail

The email is high-performanceterminal_size

terminal_w, terminal_t

Operating

It is easy to operate

image_display

display1, display2, camera

Web

Viewing a PC website is possible

PC_data

Data management is possible with a PC

app_n

The number of applications is highapp_qApplications are of good quality

WLAN

Wireless LAN is usable

BluetoothBluetooth is usable

Response

Response is quick

terminal_w

The terminal is lightterminal_t

The terminal is thin

Battery

The durability of the battery is sufficient

Satisfaction

General satisfaction

Table 2.Variables and question items.

3.3.2 Difference of means test

(five-point scale)

Table 3 shows the mean values of the variables. It can be seenthat all variables were higher for the iPhone than the Android
except “terminal_size”. Furthermore, Table 4 indicates theresults of the difference in means tests examining the variables
mentioned above. First, we checked with Levene’s test forhomogeneity of the variance. That test rejected thehomogeneity of variance at a significance level of 1%,
therefore we examine a difference of means test by Welch’s
t-test.

Table 1. The question items of satisfaction points and generalsatisfaction.

3.3 Results
3.3.1

Correspondence analysis

Figure 1 shows the result of the correspondence analysis.
Because there were 15 questionnaire items, we can derive aconceptual axis from the first to the fourteenth axis through theanalysis. We extracted the first and second axes from these, andplotted each questionnaire item. The contribution ratio of thefirst axis was 13.1% and of the second it was 11.7%. We
encircled the coordinate points that were close to the origin of
coordinates. We regarded items that belonged to the same
circles as identical variables.
Table 2 shows the correspondence between variables andquestionnaire items. We can codify the variables as“image_display,” “mail_web,” “usability,” “appli_mobile,” and“terminal_size” from the correspondence analysis. We examine
differences in means tests as a target for these variables and theitem or variables of comprehensive satisfaction in the next
section.

appli_q 2 Bluetooth
PC_data 1 appli_nbattery operating
WLAN
mail
response
web
0
‐3.5

‐2.5

‐1.5

‐0.5

0.5
‐1

terminal_w
terminal_t‐2‐3

Figure 1. Correspondence analysis.

18

1.5

display1
cameradisplay2

satisfaction
appli_mobile
mail_webusability
terminal_size
image_display

iPhoneAndroid

4.10
1.71
0.46
0.74
0.19
1.45

3.62
0.80
0.22
0.38
0.32
0.87

greatest
value
5
5
2
3
2
3

Table3. The result of the mean value of variables
Levene's test

Welch's t-test

degree ofmean of the
F value p value t value freedom p value differences
15.763.000 6.873 653.294
.000
.483

satisfaction
appli_mobile

64.239.000 9.146

588.483

.000

.919

mail_web111.122.000 5.566

576.473

.000

.243

usability

36.871.000 6.156

617.893

.000

.366

terminal_size

31.747.000 -2.823

620.600

.005

-.129

image_display

20.985.000 8.372

648.104

.000

.580

Table 4. The result of Welch’s t-test
The means of the differences are shown in Table 3, indicating
the differences in each variable between iPhone and Android
devices. A positive number indicates the relative degree of an
iPhone user’s satisfaction. Because the value of “satisfaction”
was positive and met the 1% significance level, the resultshows that the comprehensive satisfaction of iPhone users washigher than that of Android users. Thus, hypothesis 1 was
supported.
Because the value of “usability” was positive and met the
1% significance level, these results show that iPhone users’satisfaction, as related to operability, was higher than Android
users’ satisfaction. Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported.

vol. 4(1/2); pp. 15- 20 J. Mobile Interactions 2014

モバイル学会
Functionality seemed to consist of the following variables:“image_display”,“mail_web”,“appli_mobile”,
and“terminal_size”. These variables met the 1% significance level.
However, “terminal_size” was the only negative value. This
indicated that Android users’ satisfaction with “terminal_size”
was higher than that of iPhone users. The iPhone scored higher
for the other variables: ”image_display”, “mail_web”, and“appli_mobile”. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not fully supported.
Further, we can observe highly rated “terminal_size” inJapanese company’s products especially Sharp.

4. Discussion
In this section, we discuss why user satisfaction with theiPhone was superior to that with Android devices, based on the
results of our analysis. In particular, we focus the discussion on
adding features to smartphones, and what the difference was in
the ultimate business objectives for each of the platform leaders.
Regarding the dominant mobile device, we suggest thatJapanese mobile phone users want smartphones equipped withmany functions [16]. Kinjyo et al. examined mobile phoneusers’ behavior, targeting 1000 feature phone and smartphoneusers [17]. According to Kinjyo et al., Android smartphoneusers hoped to continually increase the features, adding infrared
data communication, mobile wallet, One-Seg television andcompact size phone [17].
Japanese mobile phone manufacturers that use the Android
OS comprehensively added these functions to smartphones. For
example, the IS03 launched by Sharp in November 2010 was
typical. Although these functions can be added to a smartphonethat already has multiple functions, it seems to have beendifficult for manufacturers to integrate or coordinate all of the
new and existing functions within a short period ofdevelopment. On the other hand, the iPhone has none of thesefunctions and has sufficient functions as a smartphone. Thus,
we suggest that Apple aimed at perfection in terms of
coordinating the technological components of its smartphone.
Because of factors like this path dependence [16], the degree ofsatisfaction is different between iPhone and Android
smartphone users.
The next issue concerns the different business objectives ofthe platform leaders. Although Apple and Google are theplatform leaders that control and provide the mobile OS, theyboth have different ultimate business objectives [18]. It is
Apple’s aim to gain a business profit through enclosing mobile
users; providing the user with vertically integrated mobile
devices, applications, and content. On the other hand, Google isconcerned with maximization of advertising revenues, fromweb services primarily. Thus, Google seeks mostly to achieve
this aim through providing manufacturers with the mobile OS,
because it increases the number of mobile users who can accessthe Internet. Thus, we might suggest that Google has little
motivation to coordinate products or services on the Android
OS platform [18]. This difference in the business objectives of

モバイル学会誌, Vol.4 (1/2), pp.15-20 (2014).

the platform leaders seems to have informed the difference inproduct satisfaction between users of the two devices.

5. Conclusions
Our research aim was to examine how differences in ecosystemmanagement strategy of platform leaders affected mobile
products or services on these platforms. A platform leader canhave two conflicting strategic objectives: first, controlling the
products or services of the platform leader, and, second,
increasing the variety of products or services available on aplatform. Regarding this issue, we examined differences in end
user product satisfaction.
This study revealed the following: First, when a platform
leader is focused on the coherence of a mobile device,
applications, and content, the mobile user may experiencehigher comprehensive product satisfaction in a growth-stage
industry. Second, a mobile user can enjoy higher satisfaction ofutility in a platform where a platform leader emphasizes
product integrity. Third, when a platform leader attaches
importance to product or service variety, user satisfaction infunctionality increases in a partial manner.
Our theoretical contribution is as follows. First, this study
focused on the conflicting strategic purposes of platform
leaders and examined user satisfaction with productperformance based on these strategic purposes. Second,
because the smartphone market is a relatively recent
phenomenon, product satisfaction studies have not revealed thevariables of satisfaction regarding smartphones. In this study,
we derived satisfaction variables through research into 666
smartphone users, by means of a correspondence analysis.
The implications of this study are mainly for Japanesemanufacturers. Today, some existing mobile users wantfunctions added to their phone [17] and Japanese manufacturers
have responded to this. However, it is possible to add too many
functions, which can negatively affect comprehensive productsatisfaction. Indeed, Japanese companies should focus on
usability in particular.
This study has some limitations. First, although we tried to
examine the effects of the two conflicting platform
management strategies, this work only applies to an industry ina growth stage. We should continue to examine the two
strategies’ effects as the smartphone industry reaches a moremature stage. Second, in terms of setting variables of productsatisfaction, our analysis has some problems. In particular,
because the conceptual axis derived by correspondence analysis
had a low cumulative contribution rate, this work might notmeasure user product satisfaction comprehensively. In a future
study, we should repeat the data collection and analysis througha rigid questionnaire design. However, in terms of generalsatisfaction, we seem to be able to consider iPhone is superior.

19

Hideo KUDO: iPhone and Android: a Comparison of User Satisfaction

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the General Incorporated
Association Mobile Contents Forum. We thank them for this
support. This work was also supported by a Grant-in-Aid for
Exploratory Research (Heisei 23-25, Grant Number 23653102).

References[1]

A. Gawer and M. A. Cusumano,: Platform Leadership:
How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry
Innovation: Annabelle, Harvard Business School Press,(2002)[2] M. Iansiti and R. Levien,: The Keystone Advantage,
Harvard Business School Press, (2004)[3] D. Tilson, K. Llytinen and C. Sørensen, Digital
Infrastructures: The Missing. IS Research Agenda,
Information System Research, Vol.21 No.4, pp.748-759.
(2010)[4] T. Inoue, K. Maki and S. Nagayama,: Niches’ Behaviors
and Hub-Firms’ Strategies in Business Ecosystem:
Multi-Perspective Analysis for the Japanese Video
Game Industry [Japanese], Organizational Science,
Vol.44 No.4, pp.67-82 (2011)[5] Yano Research Institute,: 2011-2012 Mobile Phone
Worldwide Market Trends Research [Japanese], Yano
Research Institute Ltd. (2011).
[6] MIC,: 2013 WHITE PAPER Information andCommunications in Japan [Japanese], Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications (2013).
[7] I. Simonson, Z. Carmon and S. O' Curry, Experimental
Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features andSales Promotions on Brand Choice, Marketing Science,
Vol.13 (Winter), pp.23-40. (1994)[8] D. V. Thompson, R. W. Hamilton,: R. T. Rust, Feature
Fatigue: When Product Capabilities. Become Too Muchof a Good Thing, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.42,(November), pp.431-442, (2005)[9] T. Gill,: Convergent Products: What Functionalities Add
More Value to the Base, Journal of Marketing, Vol.72(March), pp.46-62., (2008)[10] T. Eisenmann,: G. Parker, and M. W. Van Alstyne,
Strategies for Two-Sided Markets, Harvard Business
Review, vol.84, No.10, pp.92-110. (2006)[11] O. Henfridsson,: Mobile Ecosystem, H. Higashikuni,
Mobile Business and Platform Strategy in Smart-Phone
era, pp.216-244, Souseisya (2013)[12] C.W. Hofer,: Toward a Contingency Theory of Business
Strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, No.
4, pp. 784-810, (1975)[13] Y. Yoo,: Seven Shifts in Digitalized World, H.
Higashikuni, Mobile Business and Platform Strategy in
Smart-Phone era, pp.177-215, Souseisya (2013)[14] J. Farrell and P. J. Weiser,: Modularity Vertical
Integration and Open Access Policies: Towards aconvergence of Antitrust and Regulation in the Internet
20

Age, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 17, No.
1 Fall, pp.86-134 (2003)[15] R Core Team,: R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. R Foundation for StatisticalComputing,
Vienna,Austria.
URL
http://www.R-project.org/. (2013)[16] W.B. Arthur,: Competing Technologies, Increasing
Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events,The
Economic Journal, Vol. 99, No. 394., pp.
116-131(1989).
[17] K. Kinjyo, H. Higashikuni and H. Kudo,: Changes on
Users Needs for Hardware and Software –Analysis of
the Survey on Feature phone, iPhone and Android Users,
Journal of Mobile Interactions [Japanese], Vol.2, No.2,
pp.55-60 (2012)[18] T. Natsuno,: iPhone vs Android [Japanese],
Ascii-shinsyo, (2011)

Hideo Kudo (Member)
School of Management, Tokyo
University of Tokyo. Junior
Associate Professor
Completed Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, Kobe
University, Ph.D. in Business
Administration.

vol. 4(1/2); pp. 15- 20 J. Mobile Interactions 2014