Pick a phone platform
In today’s modern, developed, world, choosing to live without a smart phone is possible. It is however a radical choice. Consequently, for the vast majority who are not willing to choose a lifestyle at the edge, a (practical) choice need to be made between two systems.
A recent conversation about transcendentalism got me thinking about what, if any, support transcendentalism offers in making that choice? Which system strengthens self-reliance more? Which is the simplest system? Which (if any) would empowers people to learn? How to weight these attributes to come to a final choice?
This is an attempt to frame a practical question in a transcendentalist way. Rather than asking, “Which phone is better?” you’re asking, “Which choice best expresses transcendentalist values in a world where opting out of smart phones is no longer realistic?” That shifts the discussion from consumer preference to a philosophic consideration.
A transcendentalist analysis, looking at the writings of Emerson, Thoreau and Fuller, might look something like this.
Self-Reliance
Emerson: Which cultivates self-reliance?
Emerson’s central idea in Self-Reliance is not simply “be independent.” It is to trust one’s own judgment rather than submit to external authority or fashion.
From that perspective, Android appears to align more naturally with Emerson’s ideal. It offers more freedom to customize, change default applications, install alternative software, and even choose among different manufacturers. The user has greater responsibility—and greater freedom.
Yet Emerson would immediately caution against turning this into a new conformity. Choosing Android merely because “philosophers would choose Android” would itself violate self-reliance. His question would be:
Which choice genuinely reflects your own considered judgment rather than habit, marketing, or social pressure?
For Emerson, the reason for the choice matters as much as the choice itself.
| iPhone | Android | Transcendent |
|---|---|---|
| Highly polished but relatively closed. Users rely on Apple's decisions about software, repairs, and customization. | More open and customizable. Greater ability to choose hardware, software, defaults, and even replace the operating system on some devices. | Favors Android because it gives the individual more agency. |
Simplicity
Thoreau: Which is simpler?
This is less obvious.
One might assume Android’s openness appeals to Thoreau, but openness often comes with complexity. Thoreau admired simplicity, but not because simplicity is aesthetically pleasing. He valued it because it leaves more room for living deliberately.
An iPhone’s controlled design arguably minimizes the amount of attention one spends maintaining the device. If the goal is to forget about technology and spend time walking in the woods, reading, or observing nature, then a simpler, more predictable system has genuine merit.
On the other hand, Thoreau distrusted unnecessary dependence. Apple’s ecosystem can create dependence on one company’s products and services, something he might find troubling.
His conclusion might be: Choose whichever phone demands the least of your life.
That answer could differ from person to person.
| iPhone | Android | Transcendent |
|---|---|---|
| Consistent interface, fewer decisions, tightly integrated ecosystem. | More complexity and variation across manufacturers. | Favors iPhone because it reduces technological friction. |
Empowerment
Fuller: Which empowers people?
Fuller was the most socially engaged of the three. She valued communication, education, journalism, and expanding opportunities, especially for those excluded from them.
She might ask questions such as:
Which platform is more accessible across different income levels? Which gives more people access to knowledge? Which allows greater freedom to publish, organize, and participate?
Android’s openness and wide range of affordable devices could appeal to Fuller because they lower barriers to participation. Yet she would also appreciate Apple’s accessibility features and long software support.
She would probably judge platforms by their social consequences rather than their elegance.
Learning and intellectual growth
| iPhone | Android | Transcendent |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent access to educational resources, but within Apple's curated environment. | Equally capable educationally, with greater opportunity to understand and modify the underlying system. | Slight edge to Android, since exploration and experimentation are easier. |
Independence from conformity
| iPhone | Android | Transcendent |
|---|---|---|
| Strong social prestige and cultural identity in many places. | More diverse ecosystem with fewer social expectations tied to a single brand. | Slight edge to Android. |
Freedom from distraction
| iPhone | Android | Transcendent |
|---|---|---|
| Both are designed to capture attention through notifications, apps, and social media. | Essentially equal. | Neither has an inherent advantage. Discipline matters more than platform. |
As of 2026, iOS holds a majority market share in North America and Oceania, while Android dominates in Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa.
Weighting these values
How should these values be weighted? This is where transcendentalism differs from utilitarian decision-making.
A utilitarian might assign numerical weights:
- Self-reliance: 40%
- Simplicity: 30%
- Learning: 30%
A transcendentalist would resist reducing virtues to a formula. Emerson repeatedly argues that no external rule can substitute for an individual’s moral judgment.
Instead, transcendentalism suggests the values are hierarchical.
Self-reliance comes first because it governs the others. If your choice merely imitates others, then even a “correct” decision fails the transcendentalist test. Simplicity comes second because unnecessary complexity distracts from living deliberately. Learning comes third, not because it is less important, but because learning should cultivate wisdom rather than endless consumption of information.
If forced to choose between the two ecosystems, a transcendentalist argument can be made that Android better embodies transcendentalist principles, primarily because it offers greater user autonomy, broader freedom to shape one’s technological environment, and less dependence on a single authority. These qualities resonate with Emerson’s emphasis on self-reliance and Fuller’s commitment to empowering individuals.
However, an iPhone can also be the more transcendentalist choice for some people if its simplicity genuinely reduces technological preoccupation. If a person spends less time managing the device and more time reading, thinking, creating, or engaging with nature, then the more constrained system may better serve Thoreau’s ideal of deliberate living.
No clear favorite
The deeper lesson is that transcendentalism does not prescribe a particular operating system for all people. It asks whether the technology remains a tool rather than becoming a master. The most transcendentalist phone is the one that increases your capacity to think independently, live simply, and engage meaningfully with the world. Likely the individual’s answer differs depending on how each individual uses it.
Thus our choice is subject to how well we can handle the pressure of the modern world, of platform lock-in, of commercial pressure and of cultural values shared with colleagues at work, with friends and family.
How then, pick one platform over the other?
If a philosophical approach does not work conclusively for everyone, what then are the remaining aspects available to make you pick one platform over the other?
Platform lock-in and peer pressure appear to be more important than capabilities. As for costs, Apple’s high prices are a deterrent in a large part of the world.
The power of platform lock-in
As of 2026, iOS holds a majority market share in North America and Oceania, while Android dominates in Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa
In reality I have to assume that it ain’t philosophy but rather peer pressure, marketing and commercial, even cultural, factors that determine which type of phone a person has. Apple, in particular, has designed its platform with a form of lock-in that is proving very sticky.
Perhaps it is specifically the dominance of iMessage in the US versus WhatsApp in Europe that determine the choice. Without the iMessage lock-in, European consumers choose based on value and hardware diversity as WhatsApp is available on both platforms. iMessage is only available on the iPhone.
In the US the big three decide what you use
US telecommunications carriers effectively dictate smartphone choices in the US by controlling the device supply chain, pricing models, and consumer access points. The big three carriers, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, act as the primary customers for manufacturers, purchasing devices in bulk to resell to end-users. Because carriers sell plans rather than just hardware, they prioritize phones that lock consumers into long-term contracts or installment plans, creating a market heavily skewed toward Apple and Samsung.
Thus they have perhaps the biggest influence on what people use as their smart phone. Spreading the (often subsidized) high cost of top end smart phones over monthly installments, making premium pricing less of a barrier, is working in Apple’s and, to a lesser extend, Samsung’s favor in the US.
The notion that the consumer has a choice, one that is uniquely theirs, may only be superficially true.