Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Mobile Web Wars: Android Lot Faster than iPhone

By - Source: Blaze | B 46 comments

Web browsing plays a big factor when you’re all about using your phone for other than making phone calls, wouldn’t you say?

Smart phones really make life more interesting during those downtimes, like waiting for your cup of coffee, killing time on the subway, or just when you don’t want to deal with people that are physically in the same room with you. 

As Android and iPhone are starting to come head-to-head in features, functionality and fun, it is interesting to learn that web browsing on an Android is 52% times faster than on an iPhone.

That is significantly faster considering this study was conducted over 45,000 page load tests with Android’s Chrome loading 84% of the web sites faster than on iPhone’s Safari.  On average Android loading in 2.1 seconds and iPhone in 3.3 seconds.  This can feel like an eternity when your smartphone is the only thing keeping you from complete boredom as you wait for that web site to load.

These results even shocked Blaze Software Inc., a web optimization company who conducted the study. “We assumed that similar hardware specs and the same WebKit foundation would make iPhone and Android's browsers perform equally. We assumed that a faster JavaScript engine equals a faster browser. We assumed that 3G would be way slower than WiFi, even under good conditions."

Will this change your purchasing plans?

[Image courtesy of smartphoneenvy]

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Streaming Video & TVs forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    xambron , March 18, 2011 12:20 AM
    I'm all about my full keyboard and making calls. If the phone has those features and gets decent service then I'm a happy clam.
  • 3 Hide
    LuckyDucky7 , March 18, 2011 12:23 AM
    "Will this change your purchasing plans?"

    Come on now.
    If you want to be cool, no matter the cost, you choose the iPhone.

    If you want something that can do more than the iPhone for less, then you choose Android.

    Turns out that, as usual, the non-Apple device is faster. Reminds me of another famous debate...

    So was it really a big surprise?
  • 0 Hide
    cadder , March 18, 2011 12:42 AM
    iphone browsing is very slow. I wasn't sure if that was ATT's fault or Apple's fault. Now maybe we find out it is Apple's fault.
  • Display all 46 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    dallaswits , March 18, 2011 12:43 AM
    I am loving my android phones and tablets, lol.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2011 1:10 AM
    this test was already outed as being invalid. They didn't test browser speeds. They tested third party app using browser plugins.

    Either test the ACTUAL built in browser or don't even do a test. Shame on Tom's hardware for not vetting a flawed study before printing it. These kinds of stories actually invalidate the integrity of the site.
  • 2 Hide
    joytech22 , March 18, 2011 1:22 AM
    androidisnotonephoneOMG! You mean hardware that was released a year ago is slower than phones that came out this month? Next you'll be telling me water is wet!The #1 sign this test is bullshit is claiming that it's the iPhone vs. "Android". WTF platform qualifies as "Android"? I'm sure I could find a Chinese knockoff suck-phone that can't load web pages worth a damn, but I suspect they used something a bit faster...


    I had to quote your whole thing there, It seems you joined today just to nerdrage about the truth, iPhone 4 may be a year old but most Android devices have equivalent specifications.

    If you we're to pay the same amount you can buy a iPhone 4 for, you could always buy a higher-end equivalent Android device.
  • 2 Hide
    blueer03 , March 18, 2011 1:25 AM
    You aren't on Tom's Hardware, you are on Toms Guide; a news reporting site. The web address usually gives it away...
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2011 3:00 AM
    Switching to Android phones saves you 15 hours of your life after viewing 45,000 webpages. 1.2 secs saved times 45,000 = 54000 secs divided by 3600 seconds in an hour = 15 hours, so android ftw!
  • 0 Hide
    ericburnby , March 18, 2011 3:55 AM
    LuckyDucky7Turns out that, as usual, the non-Apple device is faster. Reminds me of another famous debate...So was it really a big surprise?


    As usual? Guess you missed the ass-whooping the iPad 2 laid down on the Xoom just the other day. A fact fandroids don't seem to want to talk about.
  • -1 Hide
    rrmyguy , March 18, 2011 5:04 AM
    who cares..... buy what you like...... fanboys will always say theirs is better no matter what...... who stresses theirselves out over which PHONE connects to the internet faster??
  • -2 Hide
    watcha , March 18, 2011 5:58 AM
    'iPhone 4 may be a year old but most Android devices have equivalent specifications.

    If you we're to pay the same amount you can buy a iPhone 4 for, you could always buy a higher-end equivalent Android device.'

    Equivalent specifications? Excuse me? Firstly - are you claiming that in the year since the iPhone 4 was released, Android phones have only just matched its specifications? Seems in direct contradiction to what all the other apple-haters claim.

    Secondly, wake up and realise that you can't directly compare phone specifications. It's the combination of the hardware and also the software which determines its performance. So your 'assertions' that you can get a 'higher end' or 'equivalent specification' phone is simply wrong.

    Finally - it's an absolute nonsense to just ignore the fact that the iPhone4 is a year old, regardless of any claims about 'specifications'. To ignore the fact that the iPhone 4 is a year old is to claim that the performance of the iPhone 5 in web tests will not improve web browsing speeds. Which is, of course, ridiculous. This test either had to be carried out a year ago, with comparable device ages - or it has to wait and compare the android devices to the iPhone 5.

    The current market of course has the choice right now of either the iPhone 4 or the newest Android devices - so in that respect it makes sense to compare - but don't confuse the current market with the technology from the companies as a whole. If you time any review of any product such that the competitor hasn't released their latest product yet, you can always reach misleading conclusions.

    Whether the iPhone5 is slower or faster than Android devices of the time, is the real discussion. And I don't really care what the answer is. What I care about is idiots believing that this article is the answer to that.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2011 6:28 AM
    Why are you guys all so hostile towards one another? Get a life... They are just cell phones
  • 1 Hide
    mj4358 , March 18, 2011 6:45 AM
    http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/03/nexus-s-beats-iphone-in-real-world-web-tests-says-firm.ars
    Please pay attention to the update at the bottom.......Sad that Tom would be so blatantly bias.
  • 1 Hide
    watcha , March 18, 2011 7:18 AM
    LOL - that is RIDICULOUS.

    Here is the content of the update:

    Update: It turns out that Blaze didn't actually use Safari in its tests on the iPhone; instead, Blaze used its own iOS app, which Apple points out does not make use of any JavaScript performance increases that came with iOS 4.3. Blaze told CNet in a statement that this is indeed true, so keep this in mind when reading the results.

    Update 2: Apple sent us a full statement on the topic. "Their testing is flawed because they didn't actually test the Safari web browser on the iPhone. Instead they only tested their own proprietary app which uses an embedded web viewer that doesn't take advantage of Safari's web performance optimizations," Apple spokesperson Trudy Muller told Ars. "Despite this fundamental testing flaw, they still only found an average of a second difference in loading web pages."
  • -1 Hide
    kartu , March 18, 2011 8:11 AM
    watchaLOL - that is RIDICULOUS.Here is the content of the update:Update: It turns out that Blaze didn't actually use Safari in its tests on the iPhone; instead, Blaze used its own iOS app, which Apple points out does not make use of any JavaScript performance increases that came with iOS 4.3. Blaze told CNet in a statement that this is indeed true, so keep this in mind when reading the results.Update 2: Apple sent us a full statement on the topic. "Their testing is flawed because they didn't actually test the Safari web browser on the iPhone. Instead they only tested their own proprietary app which uses an embedded web viewer that doesn't take advantage of Safari's web performance optimizations," Apple spokesperson Trudy Muller told Ars. "Despite this fundamental testing flaw, they still only found an average of a second difference in loading web pages."



    You can whine all day long, it will only make it wors, PR wise.
  • -1 Hide
    watcha , March 18, 2011 9:32 AM
    kartuYou can whine all day long, it will only make it wors, PR wise.


    'Blaze told CNet in a statement that this is indeed true, so keep this in mind when reading the results'

    I don't care about PR - I care about reality. The reality is that they didn't use Safari. That is an absolute fail, what a ridiculous test.
  • -1 Hide
    nao1120 , March 18, 2011 12:29 PM
    Who cares if they didn't use safari or not - They should maybe compare firefox or chrome if those are version of browsers both devices can use. Google shouldn't even need to want to even think about using Safari. Its designed to be faster on mac and iOS platforms....

    The bottom line, the devices perform faster in a web test. Done.
  • 0 Hide
    thrasher32 , March 18, 2011 1:55 PM
    Hey wait, you're insulting the iPhone owners who PREFER slowness. No need to be in a big rush to get your data, just relax and it'll get there eventually.
  • -1 Hide
    thrasher32 , March 18, 2011 1:57 PM
    LuckyDucky7"...Come on now.If you want to be cool, no matter the cost, you choose the iPhone....


    Really? Having an iPhone makes you cool? If by "Cool" you mean "Ignorant", then I guess you're right.
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter
  • add to twitter
  • add to facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS