Creatix / January 27, 2025
Human Division Is Not a Bug. It’s a Feature.
Human beings almost never agree. Not fully. Not for long. Across history, cultures, beliefs, aesthetics, and technologies, consensus rarely reaches 100%. Instead, humanity tends to fracture—often strikingly close to 50/50. And once that split forms, each side subdivides again, and again, like a branching tree of disagreement. This pattern shows up so consistently everywhere you look that it’s hard to dismiss as noise. It looks structural.
From an evolutionary perspective, that structure makes sense. Universal agreement is dangerous. If an entire population converges on the same wrong decision (e.g. wrong migration route, wrong food source, wrong social rule) the result is extinction. Division hedges risk. Some go left, others go right. Some adopt one strategy, others reject it. When one path fails, another survives. Disagreement preserves optionality. It keeps experiments running in parallel. A species that argues is a species that lives.
What’s striking is how this ancient survival mechanism keeps resurfacing in modern, seemingly trivial domains. We divide over politics, religion, parenting styles, diets, fashion, cities, cars, sports teams, and ideologies that didn’t exist a century ago. The objects change. The pattern does not.
Since the early 2000s, one of the cleanest, most emotionally charged versions of this divide has emerged in our pockets and hands: iPhone vs Android.
At first glance, it looks like a technology preference. Underneath, it behaves like something much older and more human: tribal identity. Two camps form. Signals emerge. Norms harden. Switching sides becomes socially costly. Arguments stop being about features and start being about your tribe and about who you are.
This is where psychology takes over. Humans are not optimized to choose the objectively best tool in isolation. We are optimized to belong, to minimize friction with our group, and to protect our past decisions from regret. Once a critical mass forms around a shared default, that default stops being optional. It becomes invisible, normal, and morally neutral, while the alternative becomes “other,” even if it is equally good or better.
That’s why the iPhone–Android divide persists even as hardware differences shrink. It’s why for people in the iPhone class, the debate is effectively over. It doesn’t matter how beautiful, powerful, innovative, or intelligent an Android phone becomes. The decision is no longer technical. It’s social. And social decisions, once locked in, are the hardest ones to reverse. Interestingly, almost the same phenomenon happens in politics, but we'll stay out of it.
What we have been witnessing for almost two decades in the smartphone world isn’t just brand loyalty. It’s iPhonism: a modern expression of an ancient human instinct to divide, signal, and survive through belonging.
And like all deep divides, it tells us far more about ourselves than about the devices we hold.The smartphone wars are basically over in terms of hardware. Android flagships can be gorgeous. Cameras can be insane. Screens can be brighter than the sun. The chip benchmarks can be poetic.
And yet… in modern social life, there’s still a blunt caste system:
iPhone class: “My phone is normal and we are comfortably normal.”
Android class: “My phone is better, cheaper, or both, but it's not an iphone.”
This isn’t about processors. It’s about psychology.
1) The real product is not the iPhone. It’s the group chat.
Humans are pack animals with notifications.
Once a friend group, family, workplace, or school cohort settles on a default (iMessage groups, FaceTime, AirDrop habits), the phone becomes a membership card. Switching isn’t “changing phones.” It’s changing your social plumbing.
That’s why “green bubbles” matter. They’re a visual label that’s instantly legible in a social setting—like wearing a different uniform to school. Researchers and commentators have explicitly pointed to green bubbles as a mechanism of stigma and “non-user utility” (the value you get from what others see and how they react). (NBER)
And it’s not just vibes. In a widely discussed result tied to this debate, researchers estimated you’d need to pay college students about $31/month to accept having their messages show up as green bubbles. (The Economist)
That is… an incredibly expensive color.
2) iPhonism is status signaling disguised as “preference”
A lot of “I just like iPhone” is real. But the phenomenon you’re pointing at—the refusal to switch no matter how good Android gets—is classic human psychology:
Social identity (tribes are comforting)
People don’t just buy objects. They buy identities.
Once “I’m an iPhone person” becomes part of your self-story, switching can feel like a small betrayal of your tribe, a betrayal to yourself, an "admission" that you were somehow wrong, or that somehow you didn't belong. Quickly, the decision gets too emotionally painful for you to even think about rationalizing it. You stay with your tribe in good and bad times.
Conformity pressure (especially among teens)
If your social world treats iPhone as default, not having one becomes a friction tax in daily life. Surveys regularly show very high iPhone ownership among U.S. teens (Piper Sandler has reported ~87–88%). (Piper Sandler)
When almost everyone has the same “membership card,” not having it becomes a chronic and conspicuous sore spot.
The “coolness heuristic”
Humans use shortcuts: popular = safe; rare = risky; familiar = correct.
In tech, that turns into: “If everyone has it, it must be the right answer.” Those who dare to venture out, pay a huge price as social outcasts. That is hard for teenagers. While it could very well be that a teenager using an Android today is the one who changes the world tomorrow, not too many teens are interested in taking that risk. For those who it is not a "risk", the outcast label may not be too off the mark.
3) The ecosystem lock-in isn’t an accident. It’s a strategy.
Apple doesn’t need to make you love the iPhone every year. It just needs to make leaving feel extremely painful. By now, there may be more consumers avoiding the pain of leaving than seeking the "pleasure" of owning an iphone. This is especially true if you have been an iphone owner, or a member of the "class" for many years.
By the way, this idea is now mainstream enough to show up in policy and legal arguments: the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Apple explicitly argues Apple has maintained power by raising the “friction” of switching and preserving ecosystem dependence (including messaging dynamics). (Department of Justice)
Whether you agree with the lawsuit or not, the underlying behavior is obvious in real life: people don’t switch because it’s not a phone decision—it’s a social life or "death" decision (devices, services, habits, family tech support, accessories, shared albums, backups).
4) “But Android is better!” — why that argument often fails
Because people don’t choose phones like engineers. They choose them like humans. Again, this resembles politics very closely. We can go to the extreme of arguing that 100% of human decisions are always partly emotional, and never ever fully rational.
Here are the mental traps that keep “iPhone class” stable:
Switching costs: learning a new interface, moving stuff, losing “it just works” routines.
Endowment effect: you overvalue what you already own because it’s yours.
Choice-supportive bias: your brain edits the past to make your past choice feel smart.
Loss aversion: losing familiar features hurts more than gaining new ones feels good.
Network effects: the more your friends use iMessage/FaceTime defaults, the more valuable iPhone feels.
So an Android phone can be objectively incredible… and still lose to the invisible force of social convenience + identity.
5) The plot twist: Apple is slowly defusing the class fare war a little
Apple announced iOS 18 would support RCS in Messages to improve iPhone ↔ Android texting (media, group messaging reliability, etc.). (Apple)
And industry updates have moved toward end-to-end encryption for cross-platform RCS via updated standards, with Apple saying it will add support in future updates. (The Verge)
Translation: the worst technical pain points may keep shrinking… even if the social label (“green vs blue”) still does its little class theater.
6) So what is “iPhonism,” really?
It’s a modern example of how humans create hierarchies and divisions out of almost anything:
shoes
schools
accents
cars
phone bubbles
What looks like a tech preference is often a social preference tied to the feeling of belonging to a particular tribe or class. And the feeling of belonging is one of the strongest "highs" the human brain has ever discovered.
Now you know it.
www.creatix.one (creating meaning)
consultingbooks.com (smart alternatives to dumb scrolling)
Comments
Post a Comment