Abstract

With the rapid development of wireless networks and the spread of broadband access around the world, the number of active mobile user devices continues to grow. Each year more and more terminals are released on the market, with the smartphone being the most popular among them. They include low-end, mid-range, and of course high-end devices, with top hardware specifications. They do vary in build quality, utilized type of material, screen size and screen technology, but the biggest differentiator relates with the CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphical Processing Unit), RAM (Random-Access Memory), as well as integrated wireless connectivity modules. Another issue is the type of installed software, particularly the OS (Operating System). Nowadays, two operating systems share approx. 90% of the mobile market, that is iOS from Apple and Android from Google. The first one is a closed environment, dedicated only to devices coming from one man ufacturer. The fragmentation and distribution of different OSs is very low. The price range of different smartphone versions is quite high for a typical user. The second one is an open environment, available on numerous devices coming from various manufacturers. Additionally, this OS may be changed or modified by any interested third-party, which would like to implement, e.g., their own GUI (Graphical User Interface), etc. The fragmentation and distribution of different OSs is very large. The price range of smartphones available on the market is vast. The question remains which option proofs better in terms of quality for the end user. One may assume that if a given solution is intended as a dedicated one, meaning that it is designed to operate on a limited number of, i.e., hardware configurations, it should prove to be more effective. The battery lifetime, stability and efficiency is expected to be high. If some solution is universal, meaning that it could operate on barely any hardware configuration, it would eventually prove to be less effective, less stable, and with a lower expected battery lifetime. This aspect would surely be an interesting hypothesis to investigate.

Authors (2)