Commentary: Why I Recommend Getting an iPhone

Within the last few months, several family members have wanted to make the jump to a modern smartphone, each for different reasons, different carriers and different levels of experience.  One had a dumbphone, one a Palm Pre, another a BlackBerry.  With two of them, I felt the iPhone was the best choice; the third, the iPhone came third to the Galaxy Nexus and Droid 3.

You might wonder how I could give such a recommendation when I have an Android phone that I love and have sworn to never go back to iOS.  I don't like to call myself an Android fanboy, but I admit it: when I see a stranger fiddling around with his iPhone, I smile patronizingly as he plays with his Fisher Price phone.

The truth is, I know the iPhone is still a great smartphone. In fact, if you're not sure what you want in a smartphone, then the iPhone is my top recommendation.  Sure, Android is great, but it still has aways to go before it becomes a phone for the common man or woman.  It's great for power users and thrifty users, but for everyone else, there's the iPhone.  I'll tell you why the iPhone works for most people: it has the qualities they want (aesthetics, ease of use, stability, apps, and battery life) and most people don't care about the features it's missing (4G, customizability, no closed ecosystem, a file system, size)

Windows Phone 7 phones are an alternative that share most of these qualities, but I feel like it's an iPhone for people who don't want an actual iPhone.


Qualities You Want:

Aesthetics
The iPhone 4 and 4S are beautiful devices.  Even though many gadget fans raged over the lack of a new design for the 4S, I can understand why Apple didn't want to make any changes: you don't mess with a good thing.  Aside from the Motorola Droid RAZR and the Sony Ericsson Xperia series (which I have yet to see in real life), I have trouble thinking of any truly beautiful Android phones.

Ease of Use
Explaining this quality is a no-brainer.  Apple has a history of making simple, easy-to-use products.  Their user interfaces are the best in the industry.  This is partially due to their limited functionality, which we'll talk about later.  But iPhones are the simplest phones to pick up and begin using.  Their icons are well-designed, their stock apps look like the functionality they emulate (Notes looks like a notepad, Voice Recorder looks like a microphone, etc.).  All apps are plainly displayed on the home screen.  Siri has taken user-friendliness to a new level with fairly good natural language processing.

Stability
iOS crashes less than Android.  Aside from various bugs with setting alarms in iOS, I feel like there are no known issues with the software.  There have been antenna issues, battery life issues, and exploding issues, but these are all relatively rare or have easy workarounds (stop holding it wrong).

Apps
I still miss TowerMadness and consider it a good reason to own an iPhone.  The number of apps on Android is increasing and, inevitably, the number of Android apps will surpass or at least match the number of iOS apps.  But Android can't match the quality of many iPhone apps that aren't yet available for Android, especially games.  Where Android Market shines is utility apps (tethering, rooting, settings, etc.).

Battery Life
The battery lives of most Android phones suck. Sure, most of them have removable batteries, so you can swap when your battery is low (unlike iPhones), but this is a necessary feature for Android phones.  The lack of a removable battery is more of a minor annoyance for iPhone users.

Support
Because Apple controls the hardware and software of the phone, you can go to Apple for good technical support. Whereas Android phones have Google software and hardware from some other company (HTC, Samsung, etc.) and you are more likely to have to go to your carrier for support.  Carriers, who have no hand in the making of your phone, don't know how to diagnose issues as well Apple can for their phones.

Especially if you pay for services such as Applecare and One to One, you can get excellent service for your phone and one-on-one lessons on how to use the phone.  They're expensive, but if you need help, there's no comparison for any other phones out there.


Qualities You Don't Care About:

Size
I love my EVO 3D's glorious 4.3" screen.  Video looks so much better and webpages are so much easier to read, yet the phone still fits nicely in my pocket.

But many people think their iPhones are the perfect size.  Dustin Curtis pointed out that the iPhone's 3.5" screen is perfect for one-handed use, since he can press anywhere on an iPhone screen but he can't reach to the other side of a Galaxy S II screen.  This may well be true for people with tiny little hands.  But even users with larger hands may just prefer a smaller phone that fits in tight pockets.

4G Data
My favorite line from the new Samsung Galaxy S II commercials is when the girl with a Galaxy S II asks a group of people waiting to see if the new iPhone has 4G, "Why don't you just get a 4G phone?"  Android has so many 4G phones, it's ridiculous.  I don't think they even release 3G-only Android phones anymore.  4G data makes browsing the web, downloading photos and downloading videos so much faster, who wouldn't want it?

This is where I have to own up and admit that the iPhone kinda is a 4G phone.  At least on AT&T.

You see, "4G" is a very loose term and means different things on different carriers.  On Verizon, 4G means blazing fast ~20 Mbps data (depending on some factors).  On T-Mobile, 4G means blazing fast 21 Mbps data.  On Sprint, however, 4G means 3-4 Mbps data (for me at least).  While that's noticeably faster than Sprint's 3G network, that's pretty slow.  In fact, Sprint's 4G can be slower than AT&T's HSPA+ network, which the iPhone supports and some people maxed out at 13 Mbps during one Gizmodo study. Using their iPhones.  Although the average speed for an iPhone 4S was 2.3 Mbps for that study, it's hard not to call the iPhone a 4G phone when it's getting speeds that are similar to Sprint's "real 4G" network.

So if iPhone users really want decently fast data, they can get it on AT&T.  If they want blazing fast 4G speeds or just want a different carrier, they have to just put up with what they got and console themselves with the fact that LTE and WiMAX are huge battery killers.

Also Interesting: The iPhone 4S, HSPA+, and When HSPA+ is Real 4G

Customizability
Android has many ways to customize the user interface, from using the manufacturer's skins (TouchWiz, Sense, etc.) to using 3rd party apps like LauncherPro.  You don't even need to hack your phones to do this.  Not only can you change the way the phone looks, you can change how it works by using 3rd party apps that have the same functionality as stock apps.  For example, Android has plenty of free music players and web browsers.  The web browsers and music players available in the App Store are pretty weak and usually still cost money.

However, as I said earlier, Apple does good work designing their UI and apps.  The iOS user interface is simple and easy, if lackluster, and the stock apps (Safari for browsing, iPod for playing music, etc.) are decent.  Many people might even prefer Apple's stock apps to Android's best stock or 3rd party apps.

No Apple-Only Ecosystem
Owning an iPhone means having an iPhone-only compatible charger and using iTunes to manage your phone.  Want to output video to a TV?  You'll need a special iPhone cable or the Apple TV device.  Whereas Blackberries, Android phones, and WP7 phones all charge with the same micro USB charger and I haven't opened the incorrigible iTunes program in weeks.  Most Android phones have HDMI out.

However, since a lot of people still have iPhones this incompatibility with other devices is not a problem for everyone yet.  If you need to charge your phone, your friend is just as likely to have an iPhone charger as he is to have a Android/BlackBerry/WP7 charger.  He might have the video cables, too.  And now that the iPhone can be activated without iTunes, you can forgo installing iTunes on your computer if you want.

The File System
Say a band is giving away a free song at their website.  Using my Android phone, I can download that song, add it to my music collection, play it with whatever music player I want, and then add it to my music collection on my computer later.  If you want to download a song with an iPhone and keep it, you need to use iTunes, where the song may or may not exist, and if it does, it's probably not free.

Similarly, say I want to download any file from the Internet and save it for later.  Be it a Word document, PowerPoint slideshow, .AVI movie, text file, or even a Windows-only executable, I can download it using my Android phone.  Even if I can't use the file on my phone, I can save it and transfer it to my computer later. iPhones can only do this with pictures.

There are lots of workarounds for iPhones, like emailing files to yourself, but I suspect most people just don't care about this functionality.

Cost
Charging cables and A/V cables that work only with the iPhone cost money.  Buying ringtones through iTunes costs money (instead of just using your mp3s as ringtones).  And, unless you get the 2-year-old iPhone 3GS, an iPhone will cost you at least $100 on contract, whereas you can get great Android phones like the HTC Thunderbolt for less than a dollar on contract if you know where to buy (Amazon).  Going iPhone means paying more money, plain and simple.  In my opinion, Android even has a better selection of free apps.

The expense of owning an iPhone seems not to bother people.  The iPhone is still the most popular brand of smartphones and UBS predicted 11.7 million iPhones were sold in the US this quarter.  It sorta makes sense when you look at the cost of owning any smartphone.  A data plan will run you about $20 -$30 on the major four carriers and the contract runs for 24 months.  That means you're paying at least $480 more when you upgrade to any smartphone.  Spending a few bucks more for one may consider as the best smartphone available doesn't seem unwise.

Other Functionality/Qualities
In addition to the features listed, only Android phones have glasses-free 3D, or NFC.  No iPhones have physical keyboards, removable storage or removable batteries.  The iPhone's Retina Display screen can't match the HTC Rezound's pixel density or the Samsung Galaxy S II's rich, colorful SAMOLED+ screen.  My  EVO 3D's front camera at only 1.3 megapixels still blows away the iPhone 4S VGA front camera.  There are innumerable Android phone features and tech specs that are worse or non-existent in the latest iPhone.

They don't matter in the long run because Apple will catch up.  In the last couple of years, iPhones got copy/paste, wireless sync, a decent notification system, multitasking, and many more features that Android had first.  It's only a matter of time before they get other Android features as well, either through operating system updates, or new hardware.


In Summation
I still recommend the iPhone for many people--perhaps most people--because while I'm extolling the virtues of 4G data and DLNA to others, their eyes gloss over and I realize that iPhones are sufficient.  People coming from dumbphones and old BlackBerrys don't care about tech specs, open source, or cool power-user features.

If you don't realize why Android phones are better than iPhones, they probably aren't (for you).

Wish List: Smartphone and Tablet

Not to scale.

I don't know what I'm going to do.  When I first got into phones a few years ago--and tablets even more recently--there was so much more room for improvement.  Now, they're getting so powerful and thin and beautiful, there's not a lot else to wish for. At least, not spec-wise.  Every phone and tablet comes with front and back cameras, they all have capacitive multitouch screens, they all have at least 16 GB of memory, and all the (non-Apple) phones have 4G.  In fact, my dream phone is pretty much the Galaxy Nexus and my dream tablet is mostly accomplished through the Transformer Prime.  Nevertheless, I'll list the specs of my dream devices since there is still room for improvement on both devices.

Dream Phone (Galaxy Nexus features denoted with a ✓)
OS: Stock Android 4 (Ice Cream Sandwich) ✓
Processor: Quad-core
Expandable Memory: Micro SD slot
Display Tech: Super AMOLED Plus
Display Resolution: Full HD (1920x1080p)
Display Size (horizontal): 4.3 - 4.5" ✓
Thickness: <9mm ✓
Battery Life: 10 hours talk time
Charging/Connectivity: Micro USB or MHL ✓
Video Out: Micro HDMI or MHL ✓
Back Camera: iPhone 4S or Nokia N8 quality
Front Camera: 5 megapixels
4G: LTE or T-Mobile HSPA+ ✓
Design Other: Camera button, Kickstand
Other: Gorilla Glass or Fortified glass screen ✓, DLNA ✓, NFC ✓, Pixel Qi?
Price: $200

Further Description
The Samsung Galaxy Nexus almost fits this description.  It has Ice Cream Sandwich, a 4.6" screen (a bit over 4.5", but that figure didn't account for on-screen buttons), MHL, LTE, a fortified glass screen, DLNA and NFC. It's also 8.9mm thick.  The display tech (Super AMOLED) and resolution (720p), are close, too.  It's $300 now, but it'll probably be $200 at Amazon.com in 3 months.  Some people like name brands and the fortified glass screen is not technically Corning® Gorilla® Glass.  However, some have suggested that Gorilla Glass doesn't work well with high resolutions, so this nameless glass will suffice until Corning releases their newest big thing: Lotus Glass.

What it doesn't have is the removable storage.  16 GB might be enough for me now, but what if I want to upgrade to 32 GB?  Plus, files are easier to manage when I can remove a micro SD card and put it in my computer.

Also missing is great battery life.  This is probably my biggest wish for any smartphone, especially for battery-consuming Android.  iPhones claim 8 hours of talk time and I think that is barely sufficient.  10 hours would be nice and would start us on the path to dumbphone-esque battery life.

The rest is mostly me setting the bar high because I can, not because I actually need it.  I'm just throwing quad-core out there.  Full HD? Why not?  If we have HD phones now (the Galaxy Nexus and the Rezound), full HD can surely happen this year.  The camera is fine on my phone, but I am a little jealous of the iPhone 4S camera, which takes better shots than my Coolpix.  I really like having a camera button on my EVO 3D and don't see why more phones don't have it.  Kickstands are always great.  I put Pixel Qi with a question mark because I haven't seen a Pixel Qi screen in real life and suspect that the display may not be as gorgeous as Super AMOLED Plus.  And $200 is just how much any new smartphone should cost.  It's what my iPhone 3G, iPhone 4 and EVO 3D all cost at release, and it's the max price I want to pay for a phone.

Didn't put RAM here because I don't know how much it takes to make a phone great.  My phone seems to be doing just fine with the standard 1 gigabyte.


Dream Tablet (Transformer Prime features denoted with a ✓)
OS: Stock? Android 4, Windows 8 compatible
Processor: Quad core ✓
Expandable Memory: Micro SD ✓
Display Tech: Super AMOLED Plus
Display Resolution: Full HD (1920x1080p) ✓*
Display Size (horizontal): 9" - 11" ✓
Thickness: <9mm ✓
Battery Life: 10 hrs battery life without keyboard ✓
Charging/Connectivity: USB, Micro USB or MHL ✓
Video Out: Micro HDMI or MHL ✓
Front Camera: 5 megapixels
Antenna: Wi-Fi only ✓
Design Other: Kickstand/Keyboard Stand ✓
Other: Gorilla Glass or Fortified glass screen ✓, DLNA ✓, Pixel Qi?, HDMI In
Price: $500 ✓

Further Description
The ASUS Eee Pad Transformer Prime is nearly this tablet. It's got a quad-core processor, a Micro SD slot, a 10.1" screen, roughly 10 hours of battery life (plus 6 more with the keyboard dock), and a full USB port. It's 8.3mm thick (!).  Although there is a proprietary charging port, you can charge the tablet with USB (but not the dock).  There's a Mini-HDMI port, a Wi-Fi-only edition, the optional--albeit expensive--keyboard dock, Gorilla Glass, and DLNA.  The expected price is $500 (again, keyboard dock not included).

Drawbacks: Although it's got Android 4, it isn't stock, which is not something I'm sure I need on a tablet.  It also will require some hacking to get Windows 8 on it, if it's even possible, because of the Android bootloader.  Instead of Super AMOLED Plus, ASUS opted for a Super IPS screen.  While I haven't seen it in person, I can't imagine it will match the rich colors and deep dark blacks of Super AMOLED Plus.  The 1280 x 800 display is better than 720p, but not quite full HD, which I think is achievable in the near future.  In fact, there's a rumor that Samsung is releasing a 2560 x 1600 tablet next February (which is not quite as good as the iPhone's Retina Display, but better than 1080p).

The front camera at 1.2 MP is good enough for video chat, the only real purpose of a front camera.  But I don't see why they couldn't have stuck the 8 MP rear camera on the front.  I still think it's ridiculous to take pictures with a rear camera, since holding a tablet to take pictures is awkward.  If I want to take pictures, I'll use my phone and email/Bluetooth/SD card transfer/beam the photos to my tablet.  I don't even need a rear camera.

Pixel Qi, once again, is something I still have (fading) hopes for, but I can't call it a hard requirement, or even a soft requirement.  The truth is, Pixel Qi might suck.  But I believe in its promise: backlit LCD for inside use and an e-reader-like display for use in direct sunlight.  It may not be the Pixel Qi brand... it might just be an upgraded version of SAMOLED+--but mark my words: someday I will have an inside/outside screen on my phone and/or tablet.

Lastly, tablets have nice big screens.  Why can't they be used as displays for your phone or other devices?  Transferring files or looking up a webpage that's already open on your phone can be time-consuming.  Tablets should have a HDMI in port for simple displaying of stuff on smaller devices.  Perhaps, this can be achieved with DLNA; I'm not sure.


*Update: ASUS is releasing an updated Transformer Prime (TF700T) in the second quarter of this year that will have better than full HD resolution.  It will be 1920x1200 pixels!

Review: HTC EVO 3D

The HTC EVO 3D is the successor to the HTC EVO 4G and is one of the HTC's flagship phones for Sprint.  It's comparable to the HTC Thunderbolt and the HTC Sensation.

Overall Experience
The HTC EVO 3D is a flagship phone on Sprint and it feels as such.  It's fast, it's got 4G, and it's got a nice screen.  The bugginess of Sense and Android as well as some hardware omissions make it far from perfect, but it was one of the best phones when it was released and remains a strong contender today.  If you want an Android phone on Sprint, it's between this and a Galaxy S II.


3D
3D is the main marketing point of the EVO 3D.  It's a gimmick, for sure, but it's a gimmick that might be worth buying the phone for.  At least, it was for me.  3D is unique.  Except for the poorly-reviewed LG Optimus 3D, this is the only glasses-free 3D out in America (that I know of).  And when I show friends and family my phone--and these are people that used to old iPhones and BlackBerrys--it's not the HTC Sense UI or my 4G data speed that wows them.  It's the glasses-free 3D effect.  It's a fun feature that I haven't personally seen anywhere other than the Nintendo 3DS.

This awesome pic was taken with the EVO 3D

So, coolness aside, what's glasses-free 3D actually like on the EVO 3D?  It's… um, interesting.  There's some special screen technology that allows one eye to see one what one camera sees and your other eye to see the other camera's vantage point.  It's not unlike one of the magic-eye 3D pictures where you have to cross your eyes, except your eyes are crossed for you, if that makes sense.   However, it's really easy to look at the screen from the wrong viewpoint and then you just appear to be looking at a blurry mess of a picture.  I think this is also the reason some people get headaches from looking at the EVO 3D's screen.  Headache time may vary: some people instantly complain of eyeball assault when they see a 3D picture, and some people can look at 3D for minutes or hours, like me.  You can only take 3D pictures and 3D video in landscape mode, and although you can view them in portrait mode, that's not really worth doing.

However amazing it is at first, the awe of glasses-free 3D will eventually wear off.

Cameras
The front camera is decent, it's better than the iPhone 4S's front camera, yada yada, etc etc.

The defining point of the EVO 3D is the 3D camera on the back.  Since there is very little 3D content anywhere on the web and on this phone, most of the 3D photos and videos you watch on the phone will have been created by you on this phone, using the back cameras.

There are two 5 megapixel cameras on the back of this phone (though 3D photos are only captured with 2 megapixels resolution).  As long as the subject is not too close (more than a few inches), it can be captured in 3D.  If the subject is too far away, the 3D effect is minimal.  The best 3D pictures have something in the foreground and something in the background to compare against.

As I said above, you'll eventually grow weary of taking 3D photos that can only be seen on the phone and will opt to take mostly 2D photos.  There's a very convenient 2D-3D switch on the side of the phone for this.  The back camera takes nice 2D images, helped by the dual LED flash.  Like most smartphones that aren't the iPhone 4S, the camera is a little slow, so most of my shots have a significant amount of motion blur (like most of my shots on any camera, really).  But the dedicated camera button is a nice feature that I feel all phones should have.

Build
In terms of build quality the EVO 3D is no iPhone, but then again, nothing really is.  But it doesn't feel cheap.  Those of you used to the glass and metal on the iPhone may be disappointed at first, but while the plastic back doesn't feel expensive, it also doesn't feel as scarily fragile as the iPhone.  The ridges on the back feel nice against your palm.  The red trim around the dual cameras is a nice signature touch.  Pulling off the back part of the case (to replace the battery or micro SD card) is scary the first few times because you feel like you're going to break the back, but you get used to it.

The only thing missing on the back is the kickstand from the EVO 4G.  Every now and then I wish I had a kickstand so I could put my phone on a flat surface and show off video to friends.   Also, another drawback is that you have to remove the battery to access the micro SD slot.

The front is a typical HTC phone with few frills, just four capacitive light-up buttons.  Unlike the back, there's nothing to make it stand out from other Android phones.  Gorilla glass protects the screen.  Between that and the plastic back, I feel like I can drop this phone and it will still work.

My one problem with the hardware is the overly touch-sensitive screen.  I don't need to physically touch the screen for my fingers to register on the phone; I can just hover my finger a millimeter above the screen.  This leads to me accidentally pressing buttons when the fat of my palm spills over to the screen and accidentally registers as a touch--and I'm not a fat guy.  I also blame the sensitivity for unlocking the phone when I put it in my pocket.  The only reason I have a password on my phone is to prevent this pocket-unlocking.  But as for the screen's appearance...

Display
The screen is a 4.3" qHD (960 x 540) screen.  While it doesn't have the gorgeous resolution of the HTC Rezound's HD screen or the amazing contrast of the Samsung Galaxy S II's Super AMOLED Plus screen, it's still a beautiful with a better pixel density than the Galaxy S II.  This screen gets pretty bright.  As for the size, I was a little worried it would be too big, but it took me maybe a day to get used to having more screen real estate.  I don't think I can go back to the iPhone's paltry 3.5 inch display.

I honestly love this display.

Battery
I hate the battery life.  After a year of owning the iPhone 4, I probably could get got about 10 hours of light usage (email, web browsing) with 3G turned off.  With this new EVO 3D, I can probably get 3-4 hours of battery life using it lightly with 4G off.  I keep the phone charged when in the car and have a backup battery, just in case.

It's well-known that HTC phones have terrible battery life, and you get used to turning off all your antennas, lowering the brightness and killing any apps that might be battery killers.  Some of this poor battery management is Android's fault.  For example, if I'm in an area with no Sprint coverage, the battery will dwindle down to nothing looking for a signal (literally, 100 to 20% battery in a few hours with 0% use and no apps running).  So it's necessary to put the phone in airplane mode when in an area with no coverage.  But then some apps will still take a lot of battery, since they don't realize the phone is in airplane mode or something.  It can be frustrating and sometimes I just turn my phone off if there's no coverage.  I think the OS could manage battery better by freezing apps that require Internet connections and handle signal-searching better.

This thing has crappy battery life, no matter how you cut it.  I'd easily sacrifice half an inch of thinness for more battery.  However, I'm told that the battery life is better than the EVO 4G.

Performance
The phone feels zippy and fast all the time.  Well, the phone can take a while to boot up if you have it off, but once you're in, navigating around the UI is a joy.

Data Speed
Unless you're stuck on 3G, Sprint's 4G (WiMAX) is nothing to write home about.  I usually get around 3-4 Mbps, which is nothing compared to Verizon's LTE and T-Mobile's HSPA+ which both reportedly get over 20 Mbps these days.  Only AT&T has similar lackluster speeds.  Since 4G is such a battery hog and this phone already has lackluster battery life, I usually leave it off.

3G is obviously worse, averaging around 500 kbps.  It serves its purpose when I need to browse the web and my battery is low.

Audio
Ordinarily, I wouldn't include an audio section because most phones measure up about the same, but the speaker doesn't get very loud.  When you crank the volume up to 11, you'll really get an 8.  Some voice calls also sound a bit tinny.  But generally, it's not a problem unless you're watching a really quiet YouTube video or calling a friend who mumbles a lot.  In that case you'll find yourself putting your ear as close to the speakers as possible.

Preloaded Apps (Bloatware)
The EVO 3D is a non-vanilla Android phone on an American carrier, so of course it comes with free bloatware, such as a NASCAR app, Sprint TV, HTC Watch and some other stuff.  Unlike several other phones, these apps can be uninstalled without rooting the phone.  I am pleased with just removing them from my app drawer.

The one good thing the phone comes with is a free copy of The Green Hornet 3D.  While it's not a very good movie, it's still entertaining and great for showing off the phone's 3D capabilities.

OS
The EVO 3D comes with the latest version Android 2.3 (Gingerbread).  I haven't had much experience with earlier versions of Android, so it's hard to review Gingerbread in and of itself.  And there aren't that many Froyo and earlier phones out there.  The important thing to know about the operating system on the EVO 3D is that you have the latest OS and will probably be upgraded to the next version, Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), a few months from now.

Sense 3.0
Before I had an Android phone, I often wondered why manufacturers put their skins on Android.  Then I got this phone and messed around with some other Android phones.  One reason is this: stock Android (Gingerbread) is ugly.  It begs to be skinned.  Most manufacturers didn't do a very good job of skinning Android, but HTC has created the 2nd best-looking skin (after Sony Ericsson's skin, which looks gorgeous).  The version that comes with the EVO 3D is Sense 3.0.

There are several Sense apps worth noting, one is the clock/weather widget, omnipresent on all HTC phones.  One click takes you the gorgeous weather app, which shows you the weather with a full-screen looped video of whirling clouds, frightening lightning, or whatever is happening outside.  Another is the Sense launcher, which has a "carousel" effect when turning pages at the homescreen.

However, I believe that most of the EVO 3D's bugginess can be blamed on Sense and not on Android.  The stock music player crashing (seems fixed with an update) was Sense, the display only showing half of the screen (fixed in an update) was Sense.  This leads me to believe that other bugs, like some app crashes and Swype sometimes not showing the trail, are also Sense's fault.

There are obvious glaring omissions in Sense, like the lack of a vibrate toggle at the lockscreen.  Stock Android has this and HTC could have removed this if they added a physical vibrate toggle button to the phone (like the iPhone has), but they didn't.  Now, if I want to put my phone in vibrate from the lockscreen, I have to unlock my phone, enter in the pass code, go to my homescreen and press the vibrate widget on my homescreen.  I know, I know, it's a real First World Problem. But a simple vibrate toggle at the lockscreen or a physical button would be preferable.

Conclusion
A lot of this review sounds negative, and I do have some serious gripes with individual aspects of my phone.  However, when it comes down to it, I love my EVO 3D and think it's clearly superior to other superphones like the iPhone 4S.  It's got a big, beautiful screen; a gimmicky-but-fun 3D camera; a micro SD slot that lets me put as much music, movies and whatever else files I want on the device (32 GB max, 8 GB micro SD included); and all the freedom that comes with Android.  You gotta love free unlimited wireless tethering! (only available with root)

I think this phone was the best smartphone available when it was released (tied with the Nexus S 4G).  Though it's now outdated with the release of the HTC Rezound and the impending release of the Galaxy Nexus, that's just how it goes with Android phones: today's greatest phone will be outdated in 4 months, tops.  But if you want to be on Sprint, this is one of the best phones to get.  It is arguably on par with the Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch.

First Impressions: HTC Rezound

This is not a formal review, but a list of initial thoughts on the device.

The HTC Rezound for Verizon is a true media phone. Great screen, good sound... though, for some reason, HTC neglects to advertise the gorgeous screen on this phone.  It has a pixel density greater than the iPhone's Retina Display, yet you'd never know it by watching HTC's commercials.  Instead, they insist on only advertising the audio capabilities of the phone, which are indeed decent.  The speaker is certainly a step up from the HTC EVO 3D's tinny speaker (my EVO 3D review is coming shortly).

But that's just it.  The speaker is decent, not great, not game-changing, and definitely not a preferred way to listen to music, even the music you store on the phone.  The speaker is still a tiny phone speaker and it sounds no better than your laptop--which also may be rocking Dr. Dre's Beats. I wonder how much more money Dr. Dre is going to make on Beats until the rest of the populace realize what audiophiles have been telling me for years: his products are marginal upgrades on the speakers and headphones that you pick out of the bargain bin at Marshall's.  But I digress.

The HD (1280 x 720 pixels) screen makes the Rezound the first HD phone in the US, soon to be followed by the Galaxy Nexus.  However, unlike the Galaxy Nexus, HTC crams all those pixels into a 4.3 inch screen, meaning it has a pixel density of 342 ppi.  This bests even the iPhone's screen (330 ppi).  It has a better pixel density than any phone announced, including the Galaxy Nexus.

The only drawback?  Most of time you probably won't notice it.  Unlike the iPhone, where stock apps appear with high resolution, Android 2.3 and Sense 3.5 aren't taking advantage of this high resolution screen.  Instead, the home screen has the typical, pixel-y apps and widgets.  The only places where you can see the density shine are pictures, video, and small text in webpages.  I took some pictures and looked at one of the videos on the device and they were gorgeous.  I took a picture of my hand and not only could I see my skin cells, I could see into the future where liver spots are going to appear in 60 years.  Well, almost.

HD wallpapers also look great on this.  There's a Beats wallpaper that comes with the phone and it looks awesome.  If only it weren't hidden behind those icons and widgets.

Sense 3.5 comes on this phone, which has its downsides.  One downside is that they've needlessly rearranged some HTC app settings, like the camera and general phone settings.  Sense also means this phone won't get Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) for at least a few months.  And while Sense is the most beautiful manufacturer skin and certainly prettier than Gingerbread, I doubt it's prettier than Ice Cream Sandwich will be.  I'm having trouble thinking of any upsides to Sense 3.5.  Perhaps, the software rearrangement will prove to be a benefit when a user gets used to it.

No dedicated camera button.  Lame.

To sum up, don't buy this.  Get the Galaxy Nexus instead, which is certain to drop in December or January, since it's already being sold in other countries.

Commentary: An Open Dear John Letter to AT&T

I got a letter from AT&T today.  It read: "Dear Omari, You recently disconnected the qualified number above and we at AT&T want you back.  Here are some compelling reasons that we've designed to make it as easy as possible: [blah blah blah]"

So here is my response, an open letter to AT&T:

Dear AT&T,

As you may have noticed, I've left you for Sprint. My service has been cancelled, and my iPhone is up for sale on eBay. I've left you my early termination fee and some rollover minutes in the fridge.

Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of good times. We spent 10 mostly-wonderful years together. You were my first mobile provider, back when you were called Cingular. And you introduced me to smartphones by providing me with the iPhone. I thought we would last forever, or for at least a few more contracts.

But I've moved on. I'm an Android man now. And while my phone has issues and I may return to the iPhone someday, I think I am done with you for good, AT&T. You just haven't catered to my needs. Sure, you have fast 3G, but that's about it. Your coverage is terrible in LA and worse elsewhere; your prices aren't very low; your "4G" is just embarrassingly slow, especially uploads. Your Android phone selection is poor and your Android phones are bloated and locked down. You wouldn't even allow non-Market apps until a few months ago! And your ridiculous anti-tethering policy is not Net Neutral. I lived in a constant state of fear, worried that I might get charged for a tethering plan when I used my jailbroken iPhone as a wifi hotspot. It was my shameful secret. I had to tell my friends that my phone fell down some stairs and couldn't tether anymore.

And then I heard that you want to merge with T-Mobile and ruin a perfectly good mobile carrier. I remember the moment I read the news—I spent all day crying. Why would my mobile carrier want to create an carrier oligopoly and a GSM monopoly? It was all too much to bear.

Sprint knows how to make a man feel good. I've got real 4G now and a powerful Android phone that'll be rooted soon. I've got unlimited texting. And unlimited data (with no throttling!). I even have mobile to mobile to any mobile, not just to Sprint phones. But most importantly, I can make a phone call from wherever I want. In the parking lot at work, in the Samurai Sam's near Bristol Farms… Sprint and I have done it everywhere that you refused to go.

I wish you luck in your endeavors, though I hope that merger dies in a fire.


Omari

iPhone 4 Review, 1 Year Later

Just over a year ago, Apple released the iPhone 4 for AT&T.

Why review the phone now? A couple of reasons. 1) I just jumped ship to Android, so I need to review the iPhone before I sell it; 2) for some reason, no new iPhone was released this summer, so the iPhone 4 is still the newest iPhone; and 3) even a year later, the iPhone 4 is still one of the best smartphones available.

Let's break down the phone by comparing it to the newer Android phones that it is currently competing against.

Overall Experience
It's hard to compare the iPhone to non-Apple phones, mostly because I have such little experience with them.  But, having owned an Android phone for a week now, there are some features (and lack thereof that stand out).

The fact that Apple tightly controls the software and hardware of the iPhone from start to end has become clear to me.  This is good and bad.  The iPhone may lack in features and developers may hate Apple's draconian app store approval process, but the iPhone is a solid phone, inside and out.  The only "major issue" with the iPhone 4--hardware or software--is the signal attenuation issue, which is easily solved by a piece of tape or just holding the phone carefully.  Well, all the iPhones also suffer from a generally crappy signal, especially on AT&T's crappy network, but I suspect that is a general smartphone issue.  I wish someone would design a smartphone with an external antenna.

This is in contrast to Android phones which have features galore and are customizable as all get-out, but many seem to suffer from more severe and less fixable issues.  My new HTC EVO 3D seems to have an issue with crappy sound recording and low sound playback.  Others have reported a tinny sound during calls, which I have noticed, but not 100% of the time.  Android had an infrequent issue that would send text messages to the wrong recipients.  This was fixed in version 2.3 of the OS, but, of course, many Android phones have yet to receive this updated version of the OS.  The Nexus 4G has slow 4G issues.  Several Android phones (EVO 4G, Thunderbolt) have terrible battery life.

There are plenty of reasons for this, one being that Apple has the advantage of being able to focus all of its energy on just one phone.  But regardless of reason, the consistent, bug-free experience of using an iPhone is a noticeable advantage.

But enough about experience.  Let's get to specifics.

Design
At 9.3mm deep, the iPhone is still quite thin.  It's thinner than new Android phones like the EVO 3D and the Atrix.  It's got a glass back which makes it pretty and easy to clean, though is crackable if dropped.  The size is nice: it feels comfortable in your hand, although it does limit the screen size (see Screen section).

The main flaws of the design versus other phones are the lack of a physical camera button (like the EVO 3D has), proprietary port (an Apple cable is required instead of a mini HDMI or mini USB cable)  and the lack of a removable battery.  Apple will probably never shift on their unremovable battery and proprietary port, but hopefully the iPhone 5 will see a dedicated camera button.

The iPhone having one physical button on its face is a drawback.  It's less efficient than phones with multiple buttons.  How do you search for something in iOS? Swipe left until you get to the search panel.  In Android, just press the Search button.  To go backwards in an app (like going to a previous webpage) you have to press something on the screen.  Android has a dedicated Back button.  Settings for an app?  Use the Settings button in Android.  Take a picture?  For iOS it means pressing a little camera button on the screen, which is damned impossible if you want to take a picture of yourself with the good camera (the back camera).  The EVO 3D (and some other Android phones) have a dedicated camera button.  The only button omission on the EVO 3D and I think all other Android phones is a Vibrate/Silent Ring switch.

Cameras
The back 5MP camera with flash is quite good and is comparable to those found on new Android phones.  At this point (the 5 megapixels point, that is) the measure of a camera's quality will be more about its sensor size, since upgrades in the amount of pixels means increasingly less.  Since phones rarely list sensor information in their tech specs it's hard to compare.  What I can say is that the iPhone 4, the Atrix, and the EVO 3D all have 5MP back cameras with flash capable of taking 720p video.

The front facing camera is less competitive as it only has VGA resolution (640x480) instead of the now standard 1.3 MP.  But it does the job.

Screen
A lot of Android phones (EVO, Epic, Thunderbolt) have large 4.3" - 4.5" screens, and I feel those are better because you can more easily see what you're doing.  Big screens mean big phones though and not everyone wants a huge phone filling up their pocket.  The iPhone has a 3.5" screen, which feels small to me.

However, that small screen makes the resolution that much more impressive.  Somehow, Apple crammed a 960x640 pixel screen into 3.5 inches making for a fabolous 326 pixels-per-inch.  That's better than the qHD screens (960x540) found on the newest Android phones like the EVO 3D.

The one thing the iPhone 4's screen doesn't have is the brilliance and contrast of a Super AMOLED (let alone the newer Super AMOLED Plus) screen.  The SAMOLED tech found on many Samsung Android and Windows Phone 7 screens is truly a beauty to behold, with blacks so dark it's hard to tell where the screen ends and the phone's black plastic begins.  And forget trying to look at your iPhone in direct sunlight on a sunny day.  Unless you have the brightness turned all the way up, you might as well be looking at a blank screen.

Surprisingly, even on the EVO 3D's non-SAMOLED screen, I have found it to be brighter with a better contrast than the iPhone 4's screen.

Battery
While the iPhone 4's battery is smaller (1420 mAh) than some new Android phones (like the EVO 3D's 1730mAh), the iPhone simply uses its battery more efficiently.  When my iPhone was new, I could probably get three days' uses out of it with mild use and leaving 3G on.  I doubt my brand new EVO 3D could last a day even with 4G turned off.

I used to think that multitasking ate up the battery on Android phones, but, looking at the battery usage on a my EVO 3D and a friend's Samsung Captivate, powering the display takes a greater percentage of the battery life than all the other apps, services and wireless technologies put together.  This is probably why Samsung devices (what with their SAMOLED screens) get such great battery life.  I haven't done enough research on all Samsung phones, but the Galaxy S II (not out in the US yet) reportedly has better battery life than the iPhone 4.  I don't know of any other phones that best the iPhone 4 in battery life.

Speed
Speedwise, the iPhone's A4 chip is on par with any Android phone I've ever seen.  There is little lag on the iPhone 4 (though jailbreaking will slow you down).  Similarly, jumping around a fast Android phone like the EVO 3D (which uses a dual-core 1.2 GHz Qualcomm MSM8660) is like flying on a jet made of greased lightning.  However, I'd wager that new Android phones' hardware is faster than the iPhone 4 simply because they are also handling true multitasking and background animations without skipping a beat.

Data Speed
The iPhone doesn't have any sort of 4G antenna yet.  What this means is that while AT&T's 3G is fast (I could get near 2Mbps sometimes, some people in other areas get closer to 5Mbps) and Verizon's 3G is fast (but slower than AT&T's), it's slower to download movies, music and web pages than phones that use Sprint's 4G (WiMAX) and (sometimes) AT&T's 4G (HSPA+) and much slower than Verizon's 4G (LTE) and T-Mobile's 4G (HSPA+).  What's interesting is that AT&T's 4G is spotty.  The uploads are still slow and, at least when it first came out last February, the Motorola Atrix 4G had slower data downloads than the iPhone 4.  So the iPhone 4, even without 4G data, may still have the fastest Internet access out of all AT&T phones.

Apps
The iPhone has more apps.  I think.  I was looking up the numbers and found this article talking about how it doesn't really matter.  They're right.  Both have more third party applications than I could ever hope to download and check out, let alone actually use.

One argument commonly given by iFans is that Apple has more "quality" apps in their App Store.  However, fandroids are quick to point out that Android has more free apps in Android Market (and various other Android app stores).   My personal opinion is that good, quality Apps are easier to find in Apple's App Store because of good organization and Apple's walled garden keeping a lot of crap apps out; but Android has more Apps that provide good functionality (video chat, widgets, synching options, etc.) because of the openness of the platform.

OS
UI-wise, iOS is more intuitive.  Perhaps it's because I've been using it for over 2 years, but I don't think so.  I have long believed that Apple has the world's best GUI designers working for them.  The simplicity and restrictions make things easier.  Where are all the apps in iOS? Press the home button.  They're right there.  What about Android? They're in the list of Applications, which requires you to press the Home button and then the Apps button.  Some are also on your home screen, perhaps as an icon, perhaps as a widget.  If it's a setting, you can set up a shortcut.  But not all settings can have shortcuts.  Notifications? In iOS, it's that big message box covering your screen (until iOS 5 comes out).  Notifications are annoying, but very easy to see what's going on.

But functionality-wise, the iPhone 4 is still behind Android, and probably WebOS too.  iOS lacks real multitasking, wireless synching, a halfway decent notification system and Adobe Flash.  And, sweet mother of Vishnu, I hate that only some text messages have timestamps.  A couple of these features will come with iOS 5 (to be released this fall); but right now, if you are a power user and want to get the most of your phone, the iPhone is not for you.  Not only are these functions not included in the OS, but, unlike Android Market, you won't find these apps in the Apple App Store either.  Apple doesn't like to approve apps that mess with the core functionality of the phone, which is why they rejected a WiFi Sync app a year ago and then decided to implement it in iOS 5.

Ecosystem
I'd say the main problem with buying an iPhone versus any other phone is that you are tied into the Apple ecosystem.  You have to activate and sync your phone using iTunes (the buggiest and biggest memory hog on my computer), you have to use expensive proprietary Apple cables and chargers (though you can find third parties cables for some of them), and you can only wirelessly stream video to your TV via Apple TV.  Wired streaming requires special Apple cables.  If you're a developer (and I'd like to be one, someday), writing an app for iOS means you have to write in Objective C , Apple's terrible programming language, and you have to do it on a Mac.  And if Apple doesn't accept your app, your only option is to try selling your app through Cydia, which only jailbroken iPhones have access to.

By contrast, Android phones aren't tied to anything.  You can drop music files on your phone like an external hard drive.  If you want to play video on your TV, most Android phones have HDMI out, or DLNA for wireless streaming.  To charge your phone, you use a micro USB cable, which is compatible with not just Android phones and also WebOS phones and Blackberry phones, too.  If you're a developer (someday...), writing an app for Android means using Java, one of the most popular programming languages and a personal favorite of mine.  And that app should also work on the Blackberry Playbook, which promises support for Android apps.

Conclusion
Hardware-wise, the iPhone 4 is behind the newest Android phones, but is still competitive.  It has a great battery, still undefeated screen resolution, and dual cameras.  Really, the only major drawbacks compared to other phones, hardware-wise, are the lack of a 4G antenna, (which may not be that much of an improvement on AT&T, but would make a huge difference on Verizon) and the external antenna problem.  Software-wise, Android has left iOS in the dust in terms of functionality and even the upcoming iOS 5 update won't make the iPhone as functional and customizable as any new Android phone.  The only thing the iPhone has going for it, software-wise, is the excellently designed UI and the Apple App Store.

So the iPhone 4 is competitive, but compared to the amazing Android phones out now, it seems a bit dated.  For every excellently-designed feature of the UI and solid hardware feature, there's a little feature that it's lacking.  If Android was perfect, the iPhone 4 would get a much lower score, but as a useable, enjoyable phone that is perfect for some niche groups, it gets a 7.

Note: Working on another tech-related project, so this blog is still on hiatus until that is done.

Commentary: The Reasons Behind Android's Lockdown

It's come to my attention that the biggest problem with Android may not be fragmentation. Over 90% of Android devices are running 2.1 or 2.2 (2.1 Eclair and Froyo), and those two versions of the OS are quite compatible with one another (so I've been led to believe).  Developers can target either version of the OS and users don't have to worry about incompatible apps, for the most part.  This data shows that fragmentation is not a large issue.  However, what is becoming an issue and what is the main cause of what Android fragmentation there is, is the lack of OTA (over the air) OS updates for Android phones.

It's not a major problem yet, since 2.1 and 2.2 are the 2nd and 3rd most recent versions of the OS and, as previously stated, most Android devices are running these versions.  Android users are only one OTA behind.  But this has the potential to be a bigger problem—even if this doesn't cause fragmentation, handsets could fall behind Google's OS releases.  This means Android users won't get important updates (like the fix for the SMS bug that sent text messages to the wrong contacts) or less important updates (like version 2.3).

It's confusing why carriers and manufacturers wouldn't simply spend a couple days testing each update with the manufacturers' custom skins (MOTOBLUR, TouchWiz, etc.) and then send the updates to all their most popular phones, if not all phones.  Why, then, is the Nexus S the only phone running Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) when 2.3 was released almost 4 months ago?  This question plagued me for months until I discussed it with another commenter at Engadget.

Because corporations are not [your] friends. They want to sell you a new phone. Just think if they updated their phones every six months to a year. At that rate as powerful as phones are, when are people going to need to upgrade? It's not like they're Apple and it seems like every successive update make your phone or Mac slower (with no logical reason). Android is made to run on damn near anything. If a ~500mhz phone can run 2.2 as smooth as silk (a new one like the Aria, not the MyTouch) don't you think any of these dual-cores would run anything Google threw at it with a proper uncrippled [ROM]? No one would buy new phones unless there was new innovation. I seriously don't see the masses selling their Droid X for another Droid XX with a better camera, better flash, screen with higher resolution and better battery life. That's the best Motorola can do with it. They are not Apple.

-Ashiedu Nwadiei

This explains why manufacturers don't want to update their phones: planned obsolescence.  A new version of a phone with a slight bump in specs sounds much more appealing when there is also a bump in the OS functionality.  Outdated hardware isn't really an issue, as I previously considered.

But what about carriers? Why should they care if you buy a new phone or not, as long as you're tied to them with a contract?

One reason is that buying a new phone generally means renewing your contract.  Whether a user upgrades mid-contract or after two years, that user is generally going to renew his or her contract, especially given the prices of off-contract smartphones.  Mobile carriers want their customers to renew their contracts, so anything that forces them to buy new phones is good.

But probably most compelling reason for carriers to block updates is to ensure they can control the OS.  The main purpose of controlling Android is to prevent tethering.

A Quick Aside About Tethering: Android, just like iOS, allows users to use their phones as an Internet hotspot, either wirelessly or by using a cable.  Users can then use the phone's 3G or 4G data with their laptop, desktop, iPad or other device.  Although I could do this back in 2005 on my Motorola KRZR dumbphone and I would only be charged for how much data I used, mobile carriers have decided that they should charge users extra for this data.  Now tethering costs $20 (includes 4GB data) on AT&T and is supposedly $20 (unlimited data?) on Verizon, even though it required no work on the carriers' part to enable this feature on phones and doesn't cost the carriers any more than using the data on the phone. But I digress.

You can download free tethering apps on Android, but most of them require root access or heavy OS customization.  By locking down Android handsets, carriers can prevent you from tethering for free.

So what's the solution?

One option, is for Google to better coordinate with manufacturers and carriers so they can release more Google-approved phones like the Nexus phones.  Or they can take more aggressive measures.

Google can make Android more closed source.  They can't make the entire OS closed, as it's built on a modified Linux kernel.  Since Linux is protected with GPL (a type of open source license), any derivative software must also be open source.  However, parts of Android (Google Maps, the Gmail app) could be removed for manufacturers that don't play nice.  Android Market could be locked down, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Another option is to simply create a hardware division.  Google has the money to do this.  Why not be like Apple and the rest and make the phones themselves?  The only drawback is that if they kept Android open, other manufacturers will still create custom Android phones and Google phones might only have moderately successful sales, just like the Nexus phones do now.

The more I think about it, the more that locking down Android seems like the answer.  Who takes advantage of the fact that Android is open?  Only carriers and manufacturers, who lock down the phones, and hackers, who open the phone back up again.  If Android was totally closed source, carriers and manufacturers wouldn't dare risk the legal troubles of messing with Android, and hackers—who don't mind breaking a law or two—would still find a way to hack Android, although they would have less of a reason to do so.  Again, Google can't make Android totally closed source without at least rewriting the kernel, but they could close down parts of Android

And this seems to be the direction Google is taking.  In the past week, Google has let carriers and manufacturers know that they can't make changes to Android without their approval and they have decided to withhold the source code for Honeycomb for an indefinite amount of time, even though Honeycomb is currently deployed on Motorola's Xoom.  This has upset some manufacturers and set the blogosphere ablaze.

Time will tell if this will help Google or will end up as a terrible PR move they will eventually come to regret. Until then, we can only hope this move will spur Android phone makers and carriers to allow users to update their phones.


Update: I think Engadget has been reading my blog. A recent post "Android's problem isn't fragmentation" basically says what this post does in an admittedly more elegant way: Fragmentation isn't much of an issue, the slow desecration of the "Android experience" is.  Google should lock down the OS to prevent carriers and manufacturers from ruining Android.

Speculation: WebOS, WP7, and BlackBerry

Let's briefly talk about the dark horses in the mobile OS world.

WebOS
When I first read about the upcoming HP Pre3 (officially styled as Pre³), my first reaction was much like the gentleman in the latest Xtranormal video: HP wants to fail.  Why else would they wait until the release of the iPhone 5 to release a phone with specs that are worse than the iPhone 4 and on par with an average 2011 Android phone?  Worse resolution than the Retina Display, worse screen than the brilliant efficiency of Super AMOLED screens in many Android and WinPhone7 phones, worse battery capacity than both the iPhone and Nexus S, no gyroscope (for gaming), no HDMI out, no LTE, no WiMAX, and a mind-boggling lack of external memory, leaving only two embarrassing options for memory: 8GB and 16GB.

What are the Pre3's strengths?  WebOS 2.2, an update to a relatively well-received OS; HSPA+, the "4G" technology available on AT&T and T-Mobile, and 5GHz n-Wifi.  None of these features are blockbuster features that will put the Pre back on the map and I can't imagine that Apple and Google phones won't best these specs in almost every way come summer.  And while WebOS is supposedly great, iOS and Android both become better every couple months.  I suppose the Pre3's greatest strength is actually its compatibility with upcoming HP TouchPad, the upcoming WebOS tablet.  If the TouchPad is really successful, just maybe HP won't follow Nokia's lead and quietly kill off their phone division sometime in the next couple of years.

As for the TouchPad, I'm not sure what to say about it.  According to the specs, there is one interesting bit of information: it will have a 1.3MP front camera and no back camera, which makes sense.  In this area, HP seems to be the only one that gets it.  Front-facing cameras are necessary for video chatting, and you're seldom if ever going to hold up a 9+ inch tablet to take photos of your family.  Other tablet makers all have a back-facing camera with a higher resolution than the front facing camera.  While the addition of a back camera is definitely a positive, it is secondary.  The front camera should take better pictures.

Also, the TouchPad will have a 32GB model, which is nice and a battery comparable to the Xoom and PlayBook.  A bit heavy and thick, but the hardware seems decent.  We just need to see how WebOS holds up on tablets.

Windows Phone 7
Windows Phone 7 is a really cool OS that I had high hopes for until recently.  The hardware is great.  What's more is that Nokia, who has a history of making good mobile phone hardware, has finally given up on Symbian and got on board the Windows Phones train.  So WP7 should be able to keep up their solid hardware.  The only issue is their software and its lack of features.  It's been 4 months since the US launch of the new WP7 phones and they still lack copy and paste, multitasking, Flash, and unified email.  They also trail behind in apps.  WP7 has around 9,500 mobile applications, which is rather small when compared to Android's 275,000 and Apple's 350,000.  Does MS really think they can just deliver a feature-less phone and have users eat it up because the UI is pretty and innovative?  Who do they think they are, Apple?  However, I don't predict MS will give up any time soon, as they can keep pouring that XBox and Office suite money into their phones.

As for a tablet strategy, there is none.  All signs point to Microsoft tweaking their desktop OS to be more tablet friendly.

BlackBerry OS
Where to begin.  I never liked BlackBerrys (BlackBerries?) since I first messed around with one a couple years ago.  I found the organization of settings confusing and the trackball inferior to the up/down/left/right buttons found on most dumbphones.  Since then, RIM has updated the OS and the hardware to compete in this new age of capacitive multitouch smartphones.  However, it seems they have failed.  Blackberry has dropped from #2 to #3 in the top smartphone OSes in the US.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of excitement about BlackBerry anymore, and BlackBerry Messenger, the main reason for owning one is rumored to be coming to other phones.  I'm not sure what and when their next phone will be and I don't really care.

But there is a tablet.  The inappropriately-named business-oriented PlayBook is RIM's upcoming tablet.  We can gather a few things from the specs. The 7" size is simply too small for me (that'swhatshesaid), but others will praise the size of this almost pocketable gadget.  USB, HDMI, and Flash are all excellent features that will make this more useful out of the box than the new iPad 2.  The cameras look excellent, spec-wise, and there's plenty of storage choice with 16GB, 32GB and 64GB models.  4G is promised.

On paper, it looks great.  But will the OS be a big bucket of fail, like it is on their phones?  BlackBerry Tablet OS is based on QNX, an operating system RIM bought in 2010.  It actually looks decent (check out Engadget's video preview), with some comparing it to HP's WebOS (including HP themselves).  Like all other phone-tablet combos, the tablet will run the same apps as the phone.  What's more is that you can sync your PlayBook to your BlackBerry using Bluetooth so that the information is synced on both.  That is, the phone and tablet play nice.

The small size kills it for me, but if this thing is really $500 like the rumors have hinted, the PlayBook might hold its own against the iPad 2, especially for enterprise BB users.

Speculation: Android Phones and Tablets in 2011

Now that we've talked about what Apple has coming, let's talk about Android's 2011 phones.  Tablets are mentioned in the end.

Thinner, Better, Faster
Android phones are already heavy on features.  The bulk of the upgrades this year will be evolutionary.  Processors will be faster with the release of the dual-core phones, like the Motorola Atrix.  RAM will be increased; the Atrix and Samsung Galaxy S II have 1 gigabyte of RAM and it's reasonable to consider that 1GB will be standard by the end of 2011.  Screens will hopefully begin to approach the extraordinary resolution of the iPhone 4's Retina Display.  But even if they don't approach that excellent resolution, new Super AMOLED Plus screens (like the one in the Samsung Galaxy S II) are thinner, brighter and more efficient than the old SAMOLED screens (http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus).  Some phones will get thinner.  The Samsung Galaxy S II will be 8.5mm deep, a bit thinner than the iPhone 4's 9.3mm.  Video recording resolution will be bumped up to 1080p, like the LG Optimus 2X.  Cameras on the front and back will increase their megapixels.

The New Stuff
Front and Back Cameras: Is this worth mentioning?  The Nexus S, a dream phone in most other ways didn't have this, so perhaps it's worth saying that almost all Android phones will have this.

4G: A no-brainer (though also lacking from the Nexus S).  Pretty much all Android phones will have 4G (be it LTE, WiMAX, or HSPA+) in 2011.

Gorilla Glass: This ultra-tough glass featured in the Atrix and some other phones will make the screens difficult to break.

NFC: It's hard to say whether NFC will be successful in it's attempt to replace our credit cards as payment devices, but this hardware feature already on the Nexus S and coming to the Galaxy S II will most likely be seen on more Android phones in the future.  And even if it isn't used for payments, it could become a handy way to transfer information to and from the phone.  For example, you'll be able to pair bluetooth devices just by tapping them together.

DLNA: DLNA is a technology that allows you to stream media to your TV (or other devices) wirelessly, as long as both are on the same network.  This means, in short, streaming videos and pictures from your phone to your TV.  We're getting to an age where everything including your toaster is hooked up to your wireless router, so it's exciting to see this interconnectivity actually have a point.  Several phones have this already (Droid X, Droid 2, HTC Thunderbolt), so the only reason many phones may not get this in 2011 is because of seemingly slow adoption by TV manufacturers.

Cheaper Price: iPhone's have a rigid pricing structure, and unless you take your chances with eBay, you're gonna pay $200 for the cheapest iPhone with a new contract.  Not so with Android.  Secondhand phone dealers, such as Amazon.com and Radio Shack, have been knocking down prices on Android phones recently.  The Motorola Atrix is currently $200 from AT&T, but is $150 when you buy it from Amazon Wireless and $130 at Costco.  The availability of brand new, hi-tech, and less expensive Android phones will be the death knell of the iPhone.  When the iPhone 5 comes out this summer, every carrier will already have an Android phone that can do everything the new iPhone does, and for less money.  The iPhone will start to become a niche phone.

Ice Cream: In late 2011, a new version of Android OS will be released.  All signs point to it being a mix of the Gingerbread and Honeycomb versions of the OS.  All I can gather from this is that the beauty of Honeycomb's UI will make its way to phones.  It also might mean greater interactivity between Android phones and Android tablets.  But, if history is any indication, most 2011 Android phones won't receive the update in 2011, if they get it at all.

Hopes
Webtop: The absolute coolest thing about the Motorola Atrix is its "webtop" app that allows you to see your phone on a larger screen (laptop or TV) without simply stretching the screen.  Google would do well to build this functionality into its OS.  Even if it was a simple screen-stretching video out function, I can think of many uses putting your phone on the big screen.  Hopefully, Google will put something like this in Ice Cream, though I won't hold my breath.

Battery: With Android's already short battery life, more powerful processors will necessitate a larger battery.  Instead of making the phones thinner, let's make them a bit thicker with larger batteries.

Higher Resolution Screens: SAMOLED looks great and SAMOLED Plus should look even better, but it's hard to top the crisp, clean look of the iPhone 4's 326 pixels-per-inch Retina Display.  I want to see high-resolution screens on Android and the new big thing in Android screen technology--SAMOLED Plus--actually has a worse resolution per inch than SAMOLED (check the oled-info.com link above).

Wish List: What I Want
I am determined to get a new phone this year, after I see what the iPhone 5 has to offer.  Most likely, I will go with Android.  If I can find a 4G Android phone with 16GB internal storage, a pretty screen (SAMOLED Plus or something with a high pixel density), a way to show media on my TV (either DLNA or an HDMI port), and stock Android (or rootable so I can put stock Android on it), then I will buy it.  The Atrix almost fits most of this description and it was hard not to go out and buy it. The locked (or rather, signed) bootloader helped me save my cash.

Tablets
Tablets will get these features, slowly.  It's hard to say what will happen because the Motorola Xoom (the tablet I'd call the first real Android tablet) is yet to be released.  But just like with the iPhone and iPad, new features will appear in the phones first, then trickle down to the tablets.

That's it for Android.  If I have time, I'll write about WP7 and the other OSes.

Speculation: iPad 2 and iPhone 5

It's already February and I haven't listed the specs for all the upcoming gadgets.  My bad.  I'll start with the Apple products.

The Obvious: Thinner, Better, Faster
As usual, the next iPad and iPhone will likely be faster due to upgraded RAM or an upgraded processor (likely dual-core) or both.  The iPad 2 might be thinner, but the iPhone 5 probably won't because Apple already went through a major design change with the iPhone 4 after three phones with the same design.  They aren't likely to change it up again (except to fix that pesky antenna problem).  The next iPad will come out in April or May and the next iPhone will be released in June or July.

iPad
The next iPad should have a CDMA antenna so it can be available through Verizon.  Verizon has already promised a Verizon iPad, although the iPad 2 wasn't specifically mentioned.  The iPad will NOT have the rumored SD card slot if for no other reason than it would ruin Apple's tiered pricing for different amounts of storage.  Front and back cameras are rumored.   I definitely agree with the front-side camera because it would mean Facetime was available on one more device.  AppleInsider says it might have a mini DisplayPort.  A price drop is somewhat out of character for Apple, but it would help them compete with the cornucopia of Android tablets that will be release this year.  A price drop on the more expensive models is more likely than a price change on their cheaper models.

CrunchGear has a good article on what might and might not be in the iPad 2.  I agree with them on most of it, especially the thinner body and better speakers.  I disagree with the resolution.  Putting a retina-display-style screen on such a large screen would be expensive (though not impossible).  Upping the resolution slightly is more likely and could be done without "awkward" resizing of elements.

It will run iOS 4.3.

iPhone
The next iPhone will also be available on Verizon, so don't get that iPhone 4 yet.  Seriously, just wait 4 months.

The iPhone 5 is rumored to have NFC (near field communication).  Apple doesn't add features to their gadgets unless the features are implemented well, so if the phone does have NFC, you can bet that it will be set up to make payments.  There is little else you can do with NFC.  Apple will have partnered with credit card companies or perhaps worked out a payment system through Verizon and AT&T.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to force users to pay their bills through iTunes.

It might have 4G.  There have been rumors that the next iPhone will have both a CDMA (Verizon) and GSM (AT&T) antenna since the Verizon iPhone 4 has a baseband chip that supports both technologies.  That chip also supports HSPA+ (AT&T's initial "4G" network), but it doesn't have anything to do with LTE (Verizon's 4G network).  If they add in support for LTE, then it would support Verizon's current 4G network and AT&T's future 4G network, while possibly supporting AT&T's current 4G network and both 3G networks.  In short, it would be a multi-carrier future-proof phone.  That would be great, but a bit out of character for Apple, who only puts the bare minimum of features in their phones, unless those features are shiny and pretty. But by then, most new Android phones will have 4G.  Hard to call.

Price will be the same.  No reason to change that.

There will be a 64GB model.

Some software updates to catch up with Android features.

iPhone Nano
The blogsphere has been awash with rumors of a smaller, cheaper iPhone ever since the Wall Street Journal posted this rumor.  It could be true, but it seems like a mistake.  Supposedly, the phone would have less storage, but MobileMe or iTunes would allow users to instead stream music from the Internet, or from their computers through the Internet.  Thus, if you're without Internet, you're without music.  It would also be "half the size of the iPhone 4", which would make Internet browsing ridiculously bad if this means the screen is half the height.  Currently, the iPhone 3GS is $50 on contract (and other Android phones are even cheaper), so I don't see the point of an iPhone Nano unless it is super cheap without a contract.  There are Apple fanboys that will buy anything with a fruit logo on it; perhaps Apple will release this just to test their loyalty.

That's it for Apple.  I'll post soon (hopefully) with Android and WP7 speculation.


Update:  The iPhone Nano didn't sound likely. The New York Times said today (2/17) that Apple is considering a cheaper phone, but not a smaller phone.  This won't happen either, at least not this year.  Old iPhones are already cheap: the 3GS is $50, and a used 3G will run you ~$150 with no contract on eBay.  The only way Apple could compete with their old phones and successfully release a new, cheaper "iPhone Express" would be to make a phone that costs around $200 and somehow isn't worse than a 3G.  They can't, so I don't think they will even try.

Code: Using JavaScript and CSS to Switch to and from a Mobile Site

There are many ways to detect an iPhone or other mobile browser on your website.  I chose JavaScript for my professional website because my webhost restricts the use of PHP.  (I'm not going to link to my website here because it needs some work.)

There are only a couple ways to set up a mobile version of a website.  Using two CSS files is the best method for small sites that don't have a lot of images to resize.  Alternatively, you can build a different site just for mobile browsers and redirect mobile users to that site.  Right now, I have one website with two CSS files, but eventually I will build a separate mobile site.

This guide is for users that have one version of a website, but two CSS files: one for the full site and one for the mobile site.  It shows you how to create dynamic links to the full site from the mobile site and vice versa.  I think it's really important for mobile users to have the choice to view a website's full site and the option to go back to the mobile site, but full browser users shouldn't be bothered with a link to the mobile site.  Surprisingly few websites do this.


Detecting Mobile Browsers Using JavaScript

This JavaScript code detects mobile browsers by checking the user agent string for the words "iPhone" or "iPod".

// Are we using iPhone or iPod to browse this site?
var mobileDetected = ( (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i) != null) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i) != null) );


Selecting the CSS File

This code writes the code to select either the full site CSS file or the mobile CSS file based on whether or not a mobile browser was detected.  It also involves checking cookies, and I'll explain that later.

// If not on mobile or full site was selected, use full site css
if(!mobileDetected || getCookie("occSkipMobile") == "true") {
  document.write("<link rel='stylesheet' href='css.css'>");
} else { // else use mobile css
  document.write("<link rel='stylesheet' href='iphone.css'>");
}


Allowing Mobile Browsers Access to the Full Website

Now that we can detect mobile browsers and get them to use the mobile CSS file, we need a way to prevent our site from always doing this so that the mobile browser can also access the full site.  The way I do this is with cookies.  This HTML code displays the link to the full website:

<div class="mobileOnly"><br>
<br>
<a href="index.html" onClick="skipMobileSite()">go to full site</a>
</div>

Notice that this code is wrapped in a class called mobileOnly.  I ensure that only mobile browsers can see this text by making mobileOnly invisible in my full site CSS file:

/* Always hide this on normal site */
div.mobileOnly {
  display: none;
}

But in my mobile CSS file, mobileOnly is visible:

div.mobileOnly {
  display: inline;
  font-size: 25pt;
  font-style: italic;
  margin-bottom: 30px;
}

You'll notice that in the link to the full site, a JavaScript function skipMobileSite is called.  This sets the actual cookie:

function skipMobileSite() {
  // Skip mobile site with a cookie setting, no expiration date
  document.cookie = 'occSkipMobile=true; path=/';
}

Cookies with no expiration date expire when the user closes his browser.

So this link sets a cookie that tells us that the mobile user prefers to view the full website.  This means we need to check for this cookie every time this page is loaded.  That's what the getCookie function does in the "Selecting the CSS File" section.  When a cookie is found that states a user's preference for the full website, the full website CSS file is selected.  Here's an implementation of getCookie from quirksmode.org (paraphrased):

function getCookie(name) {
  var nameEQ = name + "=";
  var ca = document.cookie.split(';');
  for(var i=0; i < ca.length; i++) {
    var c = ca[i];
    while (c.charAt(0)==' ') { c = c.substring(1,c.length); }
    if (c.indexOf(nameEQ) == 0) { return c.substring(nameEQ.length,c.length); }
  }
  return null;
}

Let's look at that line for selecting the full CSS file again:

if(!mobileDetected || getCookie("occSkipMobile") == "true") {

So, if a mobile browser isn't detected, the full CSS file is selected.  Or if the full website cookie is set to "true", the full CSS file is selected.  Otherwise, we select the mobile CSS file.

Notice that the link to the full site links to "index.html", which is the page all this code is on.  It's just an easy way to refresh the page.  Alternatively, I could have linked to "#" and written a page refresh in the skipMobileSite function.


Allowing Mobile Browsers Access Back to the Mobile Website

Now we have two versions of one website where mobile users are automatically sent to the mobile version, but they can click a link that only they can see that will take them to the full website from that point on.  We just need to link back to the mobile site.

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
  // only write this if we're on a mobile and deliberately selected full site
  if(mobileDetected && getCookie("occSkipMobile") == "true") {
    document.write("<a href='index.html' class='fullSiteOnly' onClick='allowMobileSite()'>go to mobile site</a>");
  }
//-->
</script>

document.write is only called when a mobile browser is detected and the full website cookie is set.  Just to be sure, the class is fullSiteOnly, which is invisible in the mobile CSS file:

/* Always hide this on mobile site */
div.fullSiteOnly {
  display: none;
}

but is visible in the full website CSS (there's no code in the full site CSS for this).  So this link is only visible to mobile browsers that have clicked "go to full site" and it calls a function called allowMobileSite before refreshing the page.  What does allowMobileSite do?  It simply removes the full website cookie by setting the cookie to an expired date:

function allowMobileSite() {
  // Just delete cookie by setting it to past date
  document.cookie = 'occSkipMobile=true; expires=Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:47:11 UTC; path=/';
}


Result (click to enlarge pictures)

This is my website on a regular desktop computer. There are no links to a mobile or full website.

This is my website on an iPhone (two images have been combined to show the entire page).  By default, the mobile edition is showing.  Mobile-friendly CSS code allows for easy navigation on mobile browsers.  It contains a link to the full website at the bottom.

This is my website on an iPhone after clicking "go to full site".  It looks just like the website on a desktop computer, except for the link to the mobile site at the bottom.  If a user clicks that link, he will go back to the "mobile edition" of the site.

All the Code Together

Let's review the whole thing.  First the full website CSS file, css.css:

/* Always hide this on normal site */
div.mobileOnly {
  display: none;
}

Then the mobile CSS file, iphone.css:

div.mobileOnly {
  display: inline;
  font-size: 25pt;
  font-style: italic;
  margin-bottom: 30px;
}

/* Always hide this on mobile site */
div.fullSiteOnly {
  display: none;
}

And finally, the webpage, index.html.  First we define the JavaScript functions, then we detect mobile browsers, then we check the cookie and select a CSS file, and finally we dynamically create links to the full site and mobile site:

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
function getCookie(name) {
  var nameEQ = name + "=";
  var ca = document.cookie.split(';');
  for(var i=0; i < ca.length; i++) {
    var c = ca[i];
    while (c.charAt(0)==' ') { c = c.substring(1,c.length); }
    if (c.indexOf(nameEQ) == 0) { return c.substring(nameEQ.length,c.length); }
  }
  return null;
}

function skipMobileSite() {
  // Skip mobile site with a cookie setting, no expiration date
  document.cookie = 'occSkipMobile=true; path=/';
}

function allowMobileSite() {
  // Just delete cookie by setting it to past date
  document.cookie = 'occSkipMobile=true; expires=Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:47:11 UTC; path=/';
}

// Are we using iPhone or iPod to browse this site?
var mobileDetected = ( (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i) != null) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i) != null) );

// If not on mobile or full site was selected, use full site css
if(!mobileDetected || getCookie("occSkipMobile") == "true") {
  document.write("<link rel='stylesheet' href='css.css'>");
} else { // else use mobile css
  document.write("<link rel='stylesheet' href='iphone.css'>");
}
//-->
</script>

<div class="mobileOnly"><br>
<br>
<a href="index.html" onClick="skipMobileSite()">go to full site</a>
</div>

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
  // only write this if we're on a mobile and deliberately selected full site
  if(mobileDetected && getCookie("occSkipMobile") == "true") {
    document.write("<a href='index.html' class='fullSiteOnly' onClick='allowMobileSite()'>go to mobile site</a>");
  }
//-->
</script>


Just embed those code snippets in your respective CSS and HTML files, and mobile users visiting your website will be able to switch back and forth between the mobile and full websites with ease.

Although this article as a whole and the code on my professional website are protected by copyright, feel free to use and tweak any of the code examples written in this article.