Right, sure. Wrong world, adorno. What hardware features are those you claim the Android OEMs, by which you apparently imply is all of them, are ahead of Apple? Let's look at HARDWARE,adorno. . . it's not even close:
And the above Geekbench benchmarks are not even using the Neural Engine built into every iPhone 8, 8 plus, and X that can perform 600 BILLION calculations per second. Nor does any Android device have any built in SECURITY that is anywhere near what is built into every Apple device. . . nor do they have end-to-end hardware encryption to 256 bit AES encryption. No, adorno, they rely on third-party APPs to provide that and, as such, by definition, it cannot be end-to-end encryption, so also by definition, it is less secure, if used at all.
Let's discuss the facial recognition unlocking system that Android devices had prior to Apple's 3D FaceID. Apple's is secure to a one in one million and cannot be unlocked by any use of photographs, masks, 3D imaging, sculptures, etc. Android's could be easily fooled and unlocked with a mere photograph. It was finally admitted to be a mere unlocking "convenience" and not a secure means of protecting a user's data, only to be used in conjunction with some other security system. How is comparing a flakey non-secure system that merely preceded an actual truly secure FaceID unlocking system as being leading Apple? Apple doesn't release something until it is working.
Similarly, Apple's TouchID, so-called fingerprint sensor unlocking did follow Android's actual fingerprint unlocking which, again, was flakey and could be fooled with photos of fingerprints, failed frequently to unlock with the real fingers of users, or could be unlocked with non-authorized fingers. Apple's did not actually use fingerprints but instead sensed the underlying ridges and valleys of the living fat pads underneath the real user's fingertips, sensing something that could not be lifted from a mere fingerprint image and WORKED. . . and could not be mistaken for some stranger's finger pads. It had a one in 50,000 security rating and is STILL far better than the one's being used on Android phones today due to patented technology.
So, let's look at the screen on the iPhone X.
DisplayMate, the organization that rates cellular and tablet screens just rated the iPhone X's screen as the BEST screen they have ever rated. . . bar none.
"The Best Smartphone DisplayThe iPhone X delivers uniformly consistent all around Top Tier display performance and receives All Green (Very Good to Excellent) Ratings in all of the DisplayMate Lab test and measurement Categories (except for a single Yellow in Brightness Variation with Average Picture Level that applies to all OLED displays). See the Display Shoot-Out Comparison Table below for all of the measurements and details, and the Highlights and Performance Results section above for expanded discussions and explanations, and the Display Assessments section for the evaluation details.
Based on our extensive lab tests and measurements the iPhone X becomes the Best Performing Smartphone Display that we have ever tested, earning DisplayMate’s highest ever A+ grade. The iPhone X is an impressive display with close to Text Book Perfect Calibration and Performance!!
So, Jane, adorno is just blowing smoke in your face and lying through his teeth about Google and Android phone OEMs being years ahead of Apple in hardware AND software features. In fact, they are making iPhone wanna-be phones that people who want to settle for second and third or less best are willing to accept because they can't afford the best.
They've convinced themselves they can see improvements in Android screen quality that physicists and opticians tell us the human eye is biologically and physically incapable of discerning because their Android marketing departments tell them more pixels than they can ever see are somehow better, even though that many pixels actually slow down their phone's performance and drain their batteries faster. . . and then insist the greater number of pixels is a huge improvement. They breathlessly announce that Android phone X has a Blood Oximeter Sensor mounted on the back. . . a flakey, useless and uncertified sensor that no one can find a use for, but it's there, along with more battery draining gadgets, piled on without thought as to usefulness or workability, and claim hardware improvement and superiority.
Who cares that you have an Electron Microscope or a Radio Telescope feature built into your Android Phone? WHO NEEDS IT? WILL it be used?
Utility of the overall device is what counts. Just because a function might be useful to TEN or a HUNDRED users is no reason to include it in a device that TEN MILLION or a HUNDRED MILLION users will buy. They do not need to pay for the convenience of the ten or one hundred. . . or to expect them to put up with the resource degradation and battery drain to support that excess hardware for features they will never use.
Steve Jobs once said that "Perfection is found not in what you add, but in what you remove."
Android programers and OEMs have never learned that lesson.