Why Does Every App Look Better on iPhone? The Ugly Truth About Android Design

For most of my Android user experience, I've experienced the operating system in-depth, placing close emphasis on Google's design choices. Android's aesthetics, starting right from Material Design that debuted in Android 5.0 Lollipop, felt incredibly refreshing. However, the approach to app designs has fundamentally changed something that it might never be able to recover from.

We're talking a consistent design experience, which Apple seems to have nailed across its ecosystem, but Google actively struggles with. Despite rolling out the Material 3 Expressive recently, its adoption has been rather slow, compared to Apple's Liquid Glass design, which developers are actively adopting. This begs the question, why do apps still bow down to Apple's design lead, leaving Android in the dust? I turned to the developers on Reddit to corroborate my doubts, and I think I finally know the answer, so continue reading.

iOS-First Design: Android Apps Were Never the Priority

Starting with the thing that stings Android fans is that the user interface of an app rarely starts on an Android device. In a recent discussion we had with user u/kbrosnan on r/Androiddev, they highlighted that there's a structural issue within the industry, where design teams and key decision-makers are primarily using Apple products.

As a result, UX designers frequently hand over visual specs that are entirely iOS-focused. Android teams are then forced to push back just to get basic material interactions and gestures considered. This confirms that the adaptability issue runs deep, where developers don't really have a choice.

Combined with Apple's strict design guidelines, which we will get into in a while, it ensures that the apps follow the more recent design instructions. The most upvoted comment in our Reddit post shed light on the fact that Apple forces developers to adopt the latest design changes, all thanks to its Strict Human Interface Guidelines. The other reasons, of course, extend beyond just daily-driving Apple devices, and that's how we transition into the capitalistic reason that I'm sure most saw coming.

Pretty Apps Go Where the Money Is – That's Always Been iPhone

Capital is everything when making an app. Design prioritisation also comes down to the money economics. One of the Reddit users noted that developers prioritise iPhone users because the demographic consists of wealthier folks. People who would not mind spending on a good-looking app. This creates a cycle. Developers make better-designed apps to make more revenue, and users buy them to give developers the revenue they deserve.

A recent SQ Magazine report backs this up, as Apple's 2025 earnings via the App Store were $161 billion, a whopping 25% improvement from the projected $138 billion. That tells you a lot. 

iPhone Makes Design Aspirational, Android Makes It Optional

And yet there's a hidden parameter that not many talk about. Apple possesses a distinct marketing advantage, where when it launches new designs like Liquid Glass, it's immediately associated with "premiumness" and is widely adopted.

Sure, Liquid Glass was criticised for being a mess when it officially released, especially when it came to legibility. However, Apple's marketing still kept at it, creating a premium halo effect. On the other hand, barely anyone outside of niche developer circles even knows what Material 3 Expressive is.

Two Platforms, One Budget: Android Loses Every Time

Building two distinct, high-quality user interfaces requires a massive amount of investment, time and resources. Google thought it had a solution for that with Flutter, but the platform never really fluttered high. One of the users in our Reddit thread pointed out that many dev teams have an abundance of legacy components built for older Material Designs.

Given how often Google tries to redesign its UI, rebuilding these components (loading screens, icons, buttons, etc.) becomes a time-consuming task. Therefore, brands usually opt for the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ideology, leaving their Android skin as a functional but visually unappealing piece of software.

Too Many Redesigns, Too Little Direction: Google's Material Design Identity Crisis

The reasons why developers find very little incentive in adopting Google's latest design languages extend way beyond just Apple being plainly better. It's a chain of drawbacks and multiple aspects affecting each other. This forms a conundrum of confusion and loose rules that don't tie into each other, alongside the manufacturer itself not taking the design seriously.

The Clash with Brand Identity

One of the very first reasons why brands refused to adopt Material You and now Material 3 Expressive is that it clashes with brands' identities. Imagine Spotify trying to make their app adapt to the playful system colours and icons. Material 3 Expressive heavily adapts to the colours in the current wallpaper, creating a massive conflict of interest for the app makers.

The issue is that corporate branding rules are strict, and Apple knew this. We saw this with Material You, where most developers refused to update their app's icon to adapt to the themed icon settings. Google should have learnt from the same, but here we are. Alas, with WhatsApp rolling out a Liquid Glass redesign, we can pretty much never expect a Material 3 Expressive redesign to arrive on any of the mainstream apps.

The Cross-Platform Compromise

Android's biggest drawback remains its fragmentation. Material You and Material 3 Expressive were only extensively seen on Pixel phones, whereas other smartphone makers work on their own UI elements and designs. Therefore, M3E caters to only the tiny fraction of users who own a Pixel phone. Apple is predictable with a uniform canvas, which ensures the efforts of the app developers won't go to waste.

The situation is further exacerbated by Google's own development tools. For starters, Flutter, Google's own cross-platform tool, lacked native support for Material Expressive components. Most users in the thread debated that if the very creator of a design language fails to implement it smoothly within their own cross-platform SDKs, it shows how unserious Google is, creating a negative impact. This is why developers inevitably default to standard, Apple-leaning components that render reliably on both platforms.

Android's Freedom Is a Double-Edged Sword and Google Needs to Do Something

Ironically, the thing that's holding back Android is its owners. Android's freedom is greatly revered among enthusiasts, but this acts like a double-edged sword. The platform lacks strict enforcement where it matters, and Android devolves into visual chaos. Another user argued that Google has started to increasingly lock crucial features behind Pixel Feature Drops, rather than pushing them to AOSP, proving that Google's corporate interests are further fragmenting the very ecosystem they built.

But is there a way out? Foldables present a massive opportunity, as Android currently holds a multi-year head start on the hardware in which Apple is yet to enter. However, it's also worth noting that foldables are still barely accessible due to their prices and have recently become more expensive thanks to the ongoing RAM crisis.

That said, to actually lead the UI conversation, Google needs to start leading by example. A user pointed out that Google still struggles to get basic edge-to-edge rendering to work in their own first-party apps, while their UI SDKs are often left in buggy, abandoned states. If Google truly wants third-party developers to care about Material 3 Expressive, there's a need for stricter UI guidelines, unifying base aesthetics across major OEMs, and ensuring their own software reliably supports the design languages they preach.