smartphone OS wars: Android vs. iPhone vs. WebOS vs...

[hotaru]

Which is best? Android, with it's widgets and google integration? The iPhone OS with it's BSDish goodness under the hood but horrible UI? Palm's WebOS? Nokia's Maemo Linux? Or some outdated OS like Windows Mobile, Blackberry, or PalmOS?

[Berengal]

Voted Maemo, because that what I'm getting, and that makes me subconciously biased.

[stephentyrone]

I voted for the one I helped write, which probably makes me biased.

[headprogrammingczar]

Voted other, because this is the best cell phone ever made:

[lulzfish]

Either Maemo or Symbian S60, which ever one Nokia uses that lets me write Qt stuff for a phone.

[Endless Mike]

iPhone's interface is so horrible that nearly every handset maker is still trying to copy it.

[OOPMan]

I voted WebOS, because I like the way it multi-tasks...

[Xanthir]

Like Berengal, I voted Android because that's what I'll be getting next month.

[ash.gti]

iPhone, but I am also biased as its the one i have spent the most time with. I have only gotten to use one of my colleagues phones, a G1, just a few times.

[Endless Mike]

I think "Android" is a bit deceiving since every handset can potentially have a different interface (hell, that's true of WinMo, too).

[Xanthir]

This is true. I'm specifically going for the Motorola Cliq phone, because I like the functionality of its frontend over other similar Android phones.

[LeroyBrandybuck]

Android. I am slightly biased because it's the phone I have, but I've used the iPhone a bit and I still like the Android more. Also, the Motorola Droid's full keyboard is quite nice. And I tend to do most of my internet browsing (especially this forum) on my Droid. So yeah, Android for me.

[duane534]

What's out-of-date about BlackBerry?

[cristorb]

I prefer using android. It is very open source and customizable. I have owned 2 android phones and i love all the things i can do with it. I have used iphone before and to do any real work on it you have to do so much extra stuff. iphone is a great music/camera/phone device but android has the true power almost like a desktop.

[Endless Mike]

I posted this in the News forum. In the time since my last post in this thread, I've gone through an LG G2x (Android) and an HTC HD7 (Windows Phone 7). I didn't really mention WP7, which I liked, but was too limited. I'm now on an iPhone 4S.

Spoiler:

I use my phone for a handful of things: (in rough order of priority, but not really): listening to music and podcasts, reading Twitter and Facebook, sending texts via Google Voice, checking email, playing games, reading the web, and making phone calls. There's maybe a few additional tasks I might do, but they're generally of much lesser priority. To break those out:

Music/Podcasts: I never found an Android music player that would do everything I want. To play podcasts at double speed, I had to purchase both a $6 podcast manager and a $4 app for double speed. They worked well enough when they weren't crashing, though the latter used around 40% of CPU, which has a huge negative effect on the already-poor battery (I'll get to this). These functions come with the stock iOS player and iTunes handles the management. There's also a $2 podcast app that does these that's supposed to be more powerful than the free stuff, but I'm happy with iTunes/iOS and can't comment. The best Android player I found was Ubermusic, which costs a couple bucks and was incredibly crashy. Looks and works nice, though. Which isn't a surprise since it's a knockoff of Zune/WP7. I was able to find an app to sync Android with iTunes that worked well enough, and even had a wifi plug-in, however, my phone seemed to have problems staying connected to wifi, so I'd end up having to do it manually (not a big deal, but slightly annoying). The bigger problem is that the Android build I was using had lock screen controls, which is cool, but it seems to be selective about what it controls, and isn't very good at it. For instance, when listening to a podcast in Doggcatcher, the controls would just have a play symbol like nothing was being played. Pressing this would interrupt the podcast and start playing music. I also like the option to use headphone controls, something iOS does out of the box (and even includes (even if they suck)!). Android kind of does it, but seems to forget (for lack of a better term) after you pause. Whether you can even use them depends on the specific phone you get, as well, since not everyone uses the same headphone jack design, and there's no resource that I know of to determine if your phone will work with a given set of headphones. Not so with iPhones. There's only a handful of models, and they all use the same plugs.

Twitter and Facebook: Twitter is roughly equal on both platforms, especially now that it's integrated into iOS 5. Before that I would give a slight edge to Android. The Android Facebook app is not as good as the iOS one, though I'm not sure I can easily explain it. It just never felt quite as polished. This is a wash, really.

Google Voice: Android has a surprisingly small advantage here, but an advantage none the less. Both platforms require you to send via the official app if you want them to come from your GV number, although you can have Android receive in any arbitrary SMS program. iOS is stuck with the stock app. In neither can you send from your GV number in anything but the GV app as far as I can tell. Android's phone calling through GV is better, though, since you can set any arbitrary dialer to use it. iOS requires you to go through the GV app, but it's not that big a deal since your contacts (Google ones, anyway, but that's what I use, regardless) are available in it.

Email: Another wash. They both do it well enough for my needs (provided iOS has GMail set up as an Exchange server), though the Android Gmail app maybe has a better search. It's possible one or the other is better for people who have multiple accounts, but I can't comment.

Games: iOS wins hands down. Android's gaming scene is neither as large nor as high quality. I had a *really* hard time finding anything free of any quality on the Android Market, while finding them on the App Store is pretty simple. (It probably doesn't help that the Android Market is not that easy to search, surprisingly.) Not that there's nothing of quality on Android, but it's largely ports of old iOS games. My completely uninformed guess about this is that development is more difficult on Android due to the sheer number of phone configurations available.

Web viewing: Android mostly wins here since you can find alternate browsers and set them as default. There's alternate iOS browsers, some very good, but you can't set them default. Safari is perfectly adequate for light browsing, though. Android has Flash, but my few attempts at actually checking Flash sites on my phone didn't really convince me that it's a *good* thing.

Phone calls: Wash. Both sync with Google contacts without a problem. The dialers are fine on both. The above Google Voice issues exist. Slight advantage to Android in that T-Mobile has free wifi calling, but I use so few minutes, that even the basic plan I now have on Verizon is far more than I need in a given month.

Other stuff: iOS comes with a bunch of stock apps that seem to not be in stock Android (calculator, weather, stocks, notepad), but this is easily solved via the Android Market, so I don't really consider it a big deal. It's a strange oversight, though. I assume the various manufacturer custom versions (Sense, Blur, Touchwiz, etc.) have these things.

Battery: This is, of course, going to vary by phone, but with similar usages on my current iPhone and old Android phone, the iPhones wins by a good margin. On a work day, the phone comes off the charger at ~7:30AM, I take the train to work and listen to podcasts until I run out, then listen to music for most of the day, and take the train home. On Android, I had a utility that turned wifi on and off depending on location and if I remembered, I'd just put it in airplane mode while underground. On iOS, I just leave it all on. On my G2x, I'd be under 30% around 4PM at the latest, meaning I'd have to charge at work (not a big deal, but I'd prefer not to) while with the iPhone, I can make it home (~6:30PM) with 35-40% available.

Some other thoughts: iPhones are the top selling smartphone on the market (iPhone 4 was the top selling smartphone for AT&T and Verizon April-September, and I doubt the 4S will break this trend) though Android has the greater share of the OS market. While I don't have any dog in the sales race, more iPhones does mean more available accessories and more integration with other things (car stereos, home receivers, etc.), which does affect me. As I said, Android does some things very well. I liked the breadth of customizations. The previously mentioned wifi utility is nice. The ability to put controls for things like wifi, cellular data, and so on on the homescreen is very handy. The variety of hardware is nice in that it gives people options, and that's not a bad thing. Want a hardware keyboard? There's probably an Android phone for you! No iPhone though, sorry! I like the ability to expand storage, but that seems to be slowly going away. This does lead to the issue of now having a directory structure to deal with. My G2x came with 8 GB internal and I stuck a 32 GB SD card in it. Great, 40 GB of space! Well, sure, but not contiguous, and it therefore necessitated telling individual apps where to save. Not a huge gripe, but kind of pointless. Switching batteries is theoretically handy, but I'm usually not away from outlets long enough for it to matter (and this, again, depends on the phone).

EDIT: A big one I forgot: Updates: Apple has released one big iOS update each year (though there's a possibility that could slow a bit to 18 months, but that remains to be seen) and a number of smaller bug updates with an occasional new feature in the interim. They've traditionally been putting the updates on anything up to two generations older than whatever it was released with, albeit not always to great performance (the iPhone 3G didn't much like iOS 4, though the 3GS is reportedly fine on iOS 5). Currently, this means Apple is still officially supporting a 2.5 year old phone. Google, similarly, releases one or two major updates per year (if we, like the majority of the market, ignore Honeycomb, which is essentially a beta for ICS, anyway, and also define 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 all as major updates, which is arguable), with a number of smaller bug releases with an occasional new feature in the interim. However, getting from Google to a given phone is a much bigger process involving the OEMs hacking it to run on their handsets (remember, Google only codes for the Nexus phones - every other handset on the market is derived from this), often with some user interface stuck on top that is really great at using system resources so you can have a giant clock taking up half your home screen (in addition to the status bar clock). The end result of this is that there's no guarantee when or even if your phone will get the latest release unless it is a Nexus phone. There's brand new handsets being released with 2.2 despite 2.3 being nearly a year old. A number of very capable year old phones (the US Galaxy S line comes to mind) have yet to receive official 2.3 updates. So the obvious choice is to just get a Nexus phone, except that there's *still* no guarantee that you will get updates more than a year out. Google has officially stated that the Nexus One, a less than two year old phone, will not be getting the ICS update. So basically anyone who bought one on contract will have an unsupported phone before the contract even ends. (I will grant that Apple is still selling new 3GSes today which will certainly not be supported when that contract ends, but I will also say that anyone buying a 2.5 year old phone just to save $100 (or, more accurately, $4.16 per month of contract) needs to seriously reconsider holding off a month or two to buy something better.) It's a pretty sorry state of affairs. You can argue that this can be solved by using custom ROMs, but, frankly, I think that's a really, really poor solution and something most people aren't willing to do. I did it, and it ultimately ended up being far more of a hassle than it was worth, and there's never any guarantee that the developers will ever be able to enable all phone functions due to various things.

[lalop]

You can argue that this can be solved by using custom ROMs, but, frankly, I think that's a really, really poor solution and something most people aren't willing to do. I did it, and it ultimately ended up being far more of a hassle than it was worth, and there's never any guarantee that the developers will ever be able to enable all phone functions due to various things.

Custom ROMs may not be the primary solution of choice, but you do have them as fallback. If your oem screws you over with updates, or the carrier is too slow to push them through, then you can look up alternatives on the internet relatively easily. On the other hand, because the iphone has no custom roms, you're relying on the benevolence of apple to keep it updated (and to get the features you want. While, as you pointed out, that's also not guaranteed with custom roms, it's not even a possibility with iphone).

Not saying you're wrong, because there are definitely non-technically minded people who can't install anything, and paying a premium would make sense for them, for example. But I guess I'm coming from a different perspective, in that you're not just stuck rooting for your manufacturer to be better than the others' (we've all seen where that leads). Sure, the android manufacturers may not be quite as effective as the guys who only release a few phones and keep everything locked down, but if worse comes to worse you don't actually need them. For whatever bizarre reason, ROMs outstrip official releases by a gigantic margin. You don't have to, but you always can. That's the difference.

[About ICS: I read somewhere that the reason it's failing to release it on nexus one is not really comparable to apple supporting their phones for x years is that it's a huge update, unlike anything apple has really done. Take that with a grain of salt, I guess.]

[Endless Mike]

ICS isn't on the Nexus 1 because it doesn't have enough ROM space available for it. Android updates are unable to increase the space dedicated to the OS, and it's simply not enough available for a full ICS install. (From what I understand, it's barely adequate for much of anything at this point, since it can only hold a handful of apps without doing weird hacky shit to get them to install to an SD card.) Hardware-wise, it's able to run it without much of a problem, since there's been some ICS ROMs built. It's a simple matter of HTC or Google cheaping out on the specs back when it was released as well as some design decisions in pre-ICS Android that came back to bite them.

There's actually other negative side effects to the lack of updates: it holds back app development. App developers can't use new APIs since they have to worry about supporting the significant number of phones still running 2.2 (never mind 2.3).

[KnightExemplar]

Note: If I'm wrong, please be nice. I don't own a smartphone... so this post is more or less just how I understand things from a purely academic perspective. I just am doing research because I plan to buy one within a couple of months.

--------------

If you want a cheap or no-contract plan, you're pretty much forced to use Android.

Ex: if you want that Virgin Mobile's $35/month no-contract plan (300 minutes / unlimited texts / ~2.5 GB before throttling) you're gonna have to use an Android system. Sure, you pay full price for the phones but you save a ton on your month-to-month charges.

For the numbers: the Optimus Slider is $200 from Virgin Mobile, and the plan above costs $35/month. Verizon gives the LG Enlighten away for free, but a comparable* plan costs you $80/month and you need to sign a 2-year contract. Of course, its not apples-to-apples since Verizon's bandwidth is better and they've got better reception around my area, as well as a large 4G LTE network. On the other hand... there's no contract on Virgin Mobile and that $45/month difference adds up quick.

* (The benchmark Verizon Plan has 450 minutes / 1000 texts / 2GB for again, $80/month. Also, the LG Enlighten is exactly the same as the Optimus Slider. Verizon just decided to rename it on their network for some reason)

Apple is restrictive on the carriers that they "bless" with the iPhone. With only 3 national carriers serving the iPhone, you severely limit your options if you choose the iPhone. Even using an unlocked iPhone requires you to do some tinkering to make it work on a GSM carrier like T-Mobile... and most carriers in the USA are CDMA. So you really don't have many options on an iPhone.

I just don't see any US plan with an iPhone costing me less than $2000 over the next two years (Verizon, and Sprint are $80/month plans if you get voice/text/ and reasonable amounts of data. AT&T is a $90/month plan). Even if I take advantage of my company's 18% off of AT&T, the prices come nowhere close to the virgin mobile plan, clocking in at only $1040 over two years. That is a fair bit of money...

Its not just Virgin either. There's Cricket who sells $55/month plans (throttles after 1GB) and T-Mobile has a reasonable $60/month plan if you go no-contract. ($60/month throttles after 2GB. $50/month throttles after 0.1GB. Yes, thats 100 Megabytes. $50/month might be reasonable if you're happy with the slower speed). Even these more expensive plans are significantly cheaper than plans from Verizon/Sprint/AT&T. Of course, if you WANT Verizon's 4G LTE network, you are gonna have to pay those prices if you go iPhone OR Android. So the point is somewhat moot at the high-end side of the market. Also, none of the high-end Androids (Galaxy Nexus, Evo 4G, etc. etc.) are available on these dealers.

On the other hand, iPhones are completely non-existent at the low-end of the market. As far as I know, it is impossible to get anything close to those Virgin Mobile prices with an iPhone. When iPhones are available on more carriers... carriers who can lower that total-cost of ownership... maybe we'll be able to talk. But for me at least, my focus remains on this cheaper side of the smartphone market.

[Endless Mike]

There's only four national carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile), and calling 1-2 of those national is pretty laughable considering Sprint and T-Mobile have very spotty voice coverage in areas, to say nothing of 3G networks. Saying "most" carriers are CDMA is not entirely true. Verizon and Sprint use incompatible CDMA and AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM with incompatible 3G networks (and no 4G on T-Mo). The smaller carriers like Cricket and Virgin are regional and purchase their bandwidth from the larger carriers who actually own the networks (well, Virgin is owned by Sprint, but is basically their cheap option). This is important since the larger carriers assign a lower QOS to those calls and data signals than their own. In the specific case of Virgin, this means that Sprint's already comparatively slow 3G is even worse. From what I understand, they often don't include free roaming in many cases. Basically, they're cheap for a good reason, and if you ever travel, this can be a significant issue.

Also, for what it's worth, T-Mobile is now selling microSIM cards to work in iPhones (and has been since July), so you don't have to chop up a normal one.

You might want to consider what your actual data use is. I'm on wifi most of the time, so my actual data use is around 500 MB or less per month and I use Google Voice for text messaging, so with my work discount, I spend $63 per month for Verizon after all the taxes and fees are added in. I'm not saying get an iPhone, but there's MUCH better Android phone (or, I should say, one of the only two Android phones currently worth having - Galaxy Nexus (Nexus S being the other)) available on the slightly more expensive carriers, especially if you're a new customer and buy through Amazon who seems to run $0.01 deals all the time.

[KnightExemplar]

Thanks for the response Mike. This debate will definitely influence my decision soon as my current normal phone plan is about to run out. So in the next few months, I'm planning to upgrade to a smartphone + dataplan.

There's only four national carriers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile), and calling 1-2 of those national is pretty laughable considering Sprint and T-Mobile have very spotty voice coverage in areas, to say nothing of 3G networks. Saying "most" carriers are CDMA is not entirely true. Verizon and Sprint use incompatible CDMA and AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM with incompatible 3G networks (and no 4G on T-Mo). The smaller carriers like Cricket and Virgin are regional and purchase their bandwidth from the larger carriers who actually own the networks (well, Virgin is owned by Sprint, but is basically their cheap option). This is important since the larger carriers assign a lower QOS to those calls and data signals than their own. In the specific case of Virgin, this means that Sprint's already comparatively slow 3G is even worse. From what I understand, they often don't include free roaming in many cases. Basically, they're cheap for a good reason, and if you ever travel, this can be a significant issue.

Also, for what it's worth, T-Mobile is now selling microSIM cards to work in iPhones (and has been since July), so you don't have to chop up a normal one.

Good call on the roaming charges and the microSIM cards. I checked and Cricket does charge for roaming. But Boost and Virgin seem to have either free or nearly free roaming. (Completely free on Virgin, on Boost, you can't use weekend minutes for roaming). So Cricket is definitely out for me... but both Boost and Virgin seem like good services (damn it, they're just Sprint in disguise, lol) . As for the GSM and CDMA stuff, you're right. My main point is that a single phone (like the iPhone) doesn't hit all the markets. IIRC, the iPhone can only run at 2G speeds on T-Mobile's network. My point ultimately is that the iPhone cuts out a huge selection of carriers.

If you're going for the fastest internet then sure, you're right. Only AT&T and Verizon have a reasonably sized 4G network. But if you're looking to save money or look at the lower/cheaper segment of cell phones (Ex: you're willing to put up with 3G speeds), taking an iPhone cuts you out of that price range.

Damn it, I was wrong. Here is a $45/month plan thats compatible with iPhones. The reported speed tests don't seem bad either.

You might want to consider what your actual data use is. I'm on wifi most of the time, so my actual data use is around 500 MB or less per month and I use Google Voice for text messaging, so with my work discount, I spend $63 per month for Verizon after all the taxes and fees are added in. I'm not saying get an iPhone, but there's MUCH better Android phone (or, I should say, one of the only two Android phones currently worth having - Galaxy Nexus (Nexus S being the other)) available on the slightly more expensive carriers, especially if you're a new customer and buy through Amazon who seems to run $0.01 deals all the time.

Yeah, I've thought of that. Almost everyone offers pretty cheap plans for ~100MB / month or ~200MB/month, but that doesn't seem usable at all. (Lol @ T-Mobile's $30/month plan with 30 MB). Really, 1GB would be more than enough for me IMO, but no one offers 1GB plans except for Cricket. So you're either gonna pay cheap for far too little bandwidth... or overpay a little on bandwidth. Everyone seems to offer a ~2GB plan so that is what I use as a baseline.

As for that specific methodology, a friend of mine does do that so I've considered it as an option. However, I don't want my texting number to be tied to Google Voice... in particular because I use two-factor authentication on my Google account. I've also got two-factor authentication on one of my Banks, and I don't want my number to go through an additional point of failure. Minor annoyances sure... probably worth the $10 that a texting plan from Verizon would cost you.

But still, things go back to the cost. Lets say you take that company discount and then get a free smartphone (like the LG Enlighten). You also don't get any texts because of the Google Voice thing. After two years, you've spent ~$1450 (assuming $60/month). That is still 40% more expensive than the Virgin Mobile plan I proposed earlier, and you had to go through the hassle of transferring your number to Google voice (Also, that costs another $20 to set up). When you start looking at the Galaxy Nexus, then we're looking at ~$1750 over the two years of the plan. Personally, I'm fine with slower speeds... as long as I can get email on the go and use Amazon's price checker app while I'm shopping. Its not like I'm going to be surfing Youtube on the train. Coverage may be an issue, but since Virgin Mobile uses Sprint's network I know its adequate enough in my area. And since Roaming is free on Virgin, I don't have to worry about that either.

In addition, my personal criteria unfortunately wipe out most of the high-end phones... because I definitely want to keep a real physical keyboard. I've played around with my friend's Swype and I've also tested the keyboards of various smartphones... none of them allow me to type as quickly as my current "Pantech Ease" dumbphone. Thus, a keyboard model is a necessity for me. I understand the limitations of the phone I'm planning to get right now: the Optimus Slider won't be upgraded to Ice Cream Sandwich, but I've developed on Froyo and Gingerbread and am happy settling for that. It has a smaller-than-average screensize, but its also physically smaller than the other phones. (although its thicker). The 3.2 inch screensize is ideal IMO for "one-handed phone use"... these new 4 inch or wtf 5 inch models are too big for a single thumb to cover the entire screen. (Something I like about the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4... which is unfortunate. Because the iPhone 5 follows the market and will have too large of a screen at 4 inches again)

Battery life of these cheaper phones may be an issue, but I've seen an extended battery pack for the phone. I'm willing to check out the double-size battery pack on the Optimus Slider ($30 on Amazon).

True, its not going to be as fast as Verizon's network. And its not going to be as big of a screen or as fast of a phone, nor would it have NFC or other new goodies on the newer models. But again, ~$1750 vs $1040... that is ~70% savings when you compare Galaxy Nexus + Verizon vs Optimus Slider / Virgin Mobile. It seems like the ideal price/performance point at the moment, and I'm getting a physical keyboard and a smaller phone to boot.

EDIT: I figured that I'd conglomerate my research on these various plans over 2 years:

• Virgin Mobile -- $1040 for $200 phone @ $35/month (400 minutes)
• Boost Mobile -- $1340 for $200 phone @ $55/month for first 6 months, $50 for next 6 months, $45 next 6 months, and $40 for the last 6 months. ($40 each month after that). "Unlimited"
• StraightTalk -- $1200 for $200 phone @ $500/year "unlimited"
• Net10 -- $1400 for ~$200 phone @ $50/month "unlimited"
• Cricket -- $1520 for $200 phone @ $55/month "unlimited" (WTF roaming charges and throttling after only 1GB)
• Verizon -- $1450 after 16% company discount on a free phone @ $70/month, 400 minutes / no texting

Verizon gets a free phone because $200 phones are comparable to free phones from Verizon. From the high-end size, Verizon seems to offer $300 discounts from their high-end models like the Galaxy Nexus or iPhones.

I haven't looked up the throttling of these guys aside from Cricket and Virgin. Cricket throttles after 1GB and Virgin throttles after ~2.5GB. So I'll say your verizon plan is clearly superior to Cricket.. but it really seems like Cricket is just a piece of crap provider. Everyone else offers a sizable price difference even when taking a free phone from Verizon. You need to take no texting at all AND a 16% discount before Verizon is even comparable to Net10... and there are other plans available that are even cheaper than that.

Again, it certainly isn't an apples to apples comparison. With the right phone, you'll be getting LTE speeds on Verizon's network. In my area, Verizon has put cell phone micro-towers inside of the subway stations, so even underground you'd get service. So undoubtedly you will get superior reception on Verizon. I give them credit on that. Nonetheless, Verizon just isn't targeting the price segment that I'm after.

[Endless Mike]

A couple things: If you're taking Android as a whole, it hits every carrier, but suggesting every Android phone is equivalent is incredibly wrong. Low-end phones tend to have little support from either the manufacturer or the aftermarket community, so even getting custom ROMs is a crapshoot, never mind getting an official update. If you're fine having a phone that will probably have 2.3 for as long as you own it, then cool, but be damned sure you're okay with that.

Have you use Google Voice on a phone? You enter your password once, and never have to worry about it again unless you reset your phone. On Android, in particular, it's entirely transparent in its use, as long as you have any data available. I've never had a problem using it for either calling or texting, but your mileage may vary.

Also, higher end phones have higher resale values. Your $200 Virgin phone might be worth $50 after two years (and probably not that, based on even at-the-time high-end Android phones like the original Droid and Droid X, though the Nexus line seems to buck this trend quite a bit). You can still get around $150 for an iPhone 3GS, so your Virgin phone cost $150 for two years while the iPhone cost $50.

Obviously, you have your priorities, and I have mine, if you're happy, then that's all that matters.

[KnightExemplar]

Oh, sorry didn't mean it to be interpreted like that.

What I'm saying is that Verizon severely discounts their phones, although you pay for a higher plan. A $0 phone from Verizon would cost you easily $200 from a no-contract provider. The more expensive the phone, the better the subsidy from Verizon. The Galaxy Nexus is ~$300 from Verizon, but is $600 no-contract. So in the issue of fairness, I give a penalty of $200 to the other contract-less plans. And as you do note, the more expensive phones seem to depreciate more slowly... and yeah, I didn't factor that in either.

Ultimately, my point was that I have a different set of requirements for my phone. Not necessarily a superiority thing... just that Android seems to provide that kind of flexibility. On the other hand, my primary point has been demolished with StraightTalk's $45/month plan. So I guess at the end of the day... it is possible to get an iPhone and a relatively cheap plan.

I guess the only thing I disagree with is...

Have you use Google Voice on a phone? You enter your password once, and never have to worry about it again unless you reset your phone. On Android, in particular, it's entirely transparent in its use, as long as you have any data available. I've never had a problem using it for either calling or texting, but your mileage may vary.

I understand that. However, with two-factor authentication, you are unable to log into your account unless you recieve a text message from Google. If you route all of your texts through Google, you need to sign in before you can recieve that text message. (Lets say your phone runs out of battery and restarts). After that, you're permanently locked out of your account. (you can't recieve texts because you haven't logged in... and you can't log in because you can't recieve texts).

Not everyone uses two-factor authentication. But for those people that do use this security measure, routing Text messages through Google Voice is incompatible.

[Endless Mike]

Have you use Google Voice on a phone? You enter your password once, and never have to worry about it again unless you reset your phone. On Android, in particular, it's entirely transparent in its use, as long as you have any data available. I've never had a problem using it for either calling or texting, but your mileage may vary.

I understand that. However, with two-factor authentication, you are unable to log into your account unless you recieve a text message from Google. If you route all of your texts through Google, you need to sign in before you can recieve that text message. (Lets say your phone runs out of battery and restarts). After that, you're permanently locked out of your account. (you can't recieve texts because you haven't logged in... and you can't log in because you can't recieve texts).

Not everyone uses two-factor authentication. But for those people that do use this security measure, routing Text messages through Google Voice is incompatible.

I'm 99% sure this is not the case, since I use two-step authentication with Google and have never run into this problem across the three phones on three different OSes I've used it with. By reset, I meant completely return the phone to factory settings, not simply reboot (be it due to battery or done manually). The latter would be exceptionally poor design, and not even Google is that bad.

[KnightExemplar]

Here's a citation from Gmail's "Help" page itself:
http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/ ... pic#gvoice

Why you shouldn’t use Google Voice to receive verification codes

If you use Google Voice to receive verification codes, you can easily create a situation where you’ve locked yourself out of your account.

For example, if you are signed out of your Google Voice app, you might need a verification code to get back in. However, you won’t be able to receive this verification code because it will be sent to your Google Voice, which you can’t access.

Seems like a known and documented problem...

[Endless Mike]

Yes, that is common sense (or should be, anyway). You have Google send the verification code to your phone's actual number and pay the whole dime and don't sign out of your various services since why would you do that?

EDIT: I think I see where the confusion is. The ideal situation is this: you get a new number with your provider of choice and port your current number to Google Voice. Prior to doing this, you change the number Google verifies with to the NEW number, so it sends to that rather than Google Voice. At this point, everyone who has your number still has your number, but you also have a separate number that's not terribly important except that you might get a verification text from Google, which you might have to pay a whole dime for. If your phone is set up properly, phone calls will all route through Google Voice such that they show up on caller IDs as the number expected. You do texting through the Google Voice app, which also shows that number instead of your phone's number.

[KnightExemplar]

I think that is where I got confused then. I think I assumed that you wouldn't be able to receive texts... but Verizon does allow you to receive texts on your line even without a texting plan. Its expensive at $0.10 per text... but if you're only receiving two-factor authentication texts... then its not a big deal at all.

Also... fish? Its not yet April 1st!

[RAKtheUndead]

From my perspective, almost all smartphone operating systems suck. They're far too restrictive for me to enjoy. There's a definite consumer bias there that prevents me from getting as much as I want out of them. If Nokia had decided to put their full momentum behind Maemo/MeeGo, I'd enjoy those, because they seem a little bit more hackable than the rest. The problem for me with most OSes is that they create things which are easy to use, but feel sterile because there's too little room for potentially clever solutions to arise without having to battle the whole OS.

[KnightExemplar]

BTW: a lot has changed since our debate. Among them:

* iPhone is offered from many prepaid networks now. I noted the unofficial support from StraightTalk, but it also is on Virgin Mobile now. Although the iPhone is over $500, you're saving so much on your month-to-month bill that IMO the cost is negligible compared to the other Android Phones.

* Ting is a new MVNO with pretty good prices and 4G support. (Woah, Galaxy SII on a 4G network with roaming for $35/month for 500 minutes / 1000 texts / 500Mb of data. Teathering and WiFi hotspot included free in the costs)

If anyone is looking for a new cell phone, I suggest checking the new market out.