I’m very familiar with the iPhone range now as I’ve had an iPhone, an iPhone 3G and my fiancée has an iPhone 3GS.

The HTC Desire and Android are all new to me though.

Having become frustrated with Apples locking-down of the OS and their strict control over background applications and what applications and functionality are and aren’t allowed, I was really looking forward to trying Android, and was thinking that I would actually go and get myself an HTC Desire anyway when the chance to borrow one came up.

First off I should mention the devices. I won’t go into too much detail as this has all been covered many times before.

The iPhone 3G and 3GS are both quite similar in terms of form factor. Both sit comfortably in your hand, both have a single button underneath the fairly substantial screen, both have a slightly sub-standard camera on the back.

The biggest differences with the HTC Desire are that it has a group of physical buttons underneath the screen, including one optical trackpad for scrolling and selecting. Another big difference is that it has a removable battery and slot for SIM and MicroSD card, enabling the storage to be expanded. It also has a much faster processor than the current iPhone range, but it would appear that may no longer be the case after WWDC in June!

So, in terms of the hardware, I would say that the HTC Desire is a lovely piece of kit and is quite superior to the iPhone in many ways. It has a better camera, better screen, expandable memory, replaceable battery and seems slightly smaller to hold despite the great screen.

If it were down to the hardware alone, I would definitely be buying the HTC Desire right now, but sadly the story doesn’t end there.

Apple has long stuck by it’s decision to be really strict about what applications it will allow onto the iPhone, and what functionality those applications can, or rather, can’t, provide. Background tasks are a no-no, as is anything that replaces or, in many cases, echoes the built-in functionality provided by Apple. They also restrict your ability to customise the GUI considerably.

Of course you can, as I have, Jailbreak your iPhone which allows much greater freedom, but there are still some limits even then.

Over on the Android you have many more options. Background tasks are commonplace, customisation is everywhere, and there’s very little that you cannot do.

Strangely enough, the flexibility inherent in Android also seems to be it’s weakness.

On the iPhone, applications all have a similar look and feel in general. It’s quick and easy to figure-out how to do things as most applications work in a similar way.

On Android, the picture is the complete reverse. The lack of a locked-down system and the open platform means that developers have been much more free to do things their own way. The lack of core central functionality also means that different applications can have overlaps and duplications or gaps. A good example is email. The Google email application is separate from the MS Exchange email application. Both look and act differently and work independently of each other. The same is true for other applications too.

The user interface for these applications differs significantly from application to application. Some use the touch-screen for all functions, while others make extensive use of the Menu and Back physical buttons. None seem to be consistent. It appears that the flexibility of having an open platform and multiple physical buttons complicates the user experience because of a lack of standardisation. With the iPhone, simplicity is definitely key.

The next thing to consider is also the end-to-end user experience of getting data,music, video and applications onto the devices.

Again, the iPhone has a fully enclosed and integrated solution – iTunes. While it’s not pretty, and often quite clumsy and cumbersome, it is an all-in-one solution for everything your typical user needs. One app to rule them all, one app to find them. Apple seems to be well and truly in the lead here, despite the seemingly old fashioned software product. With Android, there is no iTunes equivalent that comes as standard – no simple easy way, provided with the device, of getting all your media onto it. The Google Market place is also separate – again this makes the whole experience more complicated and less user-friendly.

So, where does this leave us.

Well, for the average typical consumer, the iPhone, iTunes and App Store are a great combination – they offer most things that any normal user could want in a relatively seamless integrated end-to-end solution.

Android on the other hand seems much more of a bolted-together solution. Technically it may be more advanced than Apples, but technology alone doesn’t count for much when it comes to user acceptance and uptake. For us geeks, Android has a lot to offer in terms of flexibility and expandability, but this does come at a price.

For me, personally, I think I’d rather continue using the iPhone instead of Android as it does do 98% of the things I’d like it to, and Jailbreaking takes that up another 1% at least – the seemingly small advantages of using the more open Android OS are definitely outweighed at present by the uniformity and usability of the iPhone.

Of course, all of this is written at a time when the next version of Android (v2.2, Froyo) is imminent as is, everyone suspects, the iPhone 4G with v4 of the iPhone OS. It will be interesting to see if this levels the playing field, or further extends Apple’s dominance in the usability stakes. One thing is for sure, Apple has a continuing struggle ahead as most, if not all, of the world’s mobile phone manufacturers look to increase their usage and marketing of Android and Windows Phone devices to compete with Apple…

Well, as many people have pointed out (including Microsoft), Google already has another operating system – Android – which is available on the T-Mobile G1 smart-phone and, soon, on 2nd generation “google” phones.

Well, did you know it’s also possible to install Android on a normal PC too?

This article from RedmondPie explains how this can be done.

The list also, interestingly, includes Adobe, so support for Flash is probably a safe bet.

This has been a long-running rumour for several years now, being exacerbated by the release of the Google Chrome browser last year.

From the Google Announcement it appears that the Chrome OS will be a light-weight operating system kernel with the Chrome browser and Google Gears built-in. As such it is obviously targeted at on-line web based applications such as Google’s own Google Docs. With the introduction of Google Gears into more and more applications, enabling offline access and functionality, this becomes even more of a reality, enabling users to continue to work when off-line.

The operating system will probably be aimed at NetBooks initially, but Google are keen to point-out that it will also support desktop solutions as well. Google are planning to have NetBook’s running the OS by the 2nd half of 2010.

The source code for the operating system will be open-source, which can only be good news.

It remains to be seen how, or indeed if Google will seek to monetise this – will it be charged for, ad-supported, or free to use?

This OS is distinctly different from Android and Google is stating that it will offer both to give the consumers choice. Interestingly, Google cite that Android is designed to work on a variety of devices, and it specifically includes NetBook’s in that list.

There will, of course, be instances where the new Google Chrome OS won’t be suited. In particular this will be where local applications need to run that are not web-based, for example, audio/video conversion software and Apple’s iTunes. This could be an area where Google’s Android OS could step-in and fill the gap – subject to the appropriate applications being developed of course.

All in all, an additional choice in the OS market can only be a good thing, and since many NetBook users are primarily web-based, a fast, light-weight and low-cost option for NetBooks could be a winner.

Well, some industrious individuals have gone and hacked the Google Gears installer so that it now works with Firefox 3.5. A word to the wary though – this is not recommended for noobs and the usual caveats around running unauthorised and unsupported code apply.

Check out lifehacker.com for full details.