If you actually saw the EVO screen, and you could actually see the pixels, more power to you. I can't, and I doubt most people can. If you ask me if I'd rather have a 40" 1080p HDTV or a 58" 720p HDTV, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat. The retina screen is a marketing gimmick -- the resolution was set to double each dimension for easier scaling between generations. Isn't it fishy that Apple's big thing to to tell you they have a screen with resolution you can see? Doesn't that smell of marketing hype? 230 dpi isn't lo-res by any stretch of the imagination, not on a screen that size. To me, that's waste of money. But you will probably hear iPhone users clinging to this single spec as each new Android device blows away the previous one -- "but our screen is higher resolution"! At some point, the marketing hype will force one of the Android manufacturers to push a higher res screen just to win the spec war. Put an EVO at full brightness against the vaunted Retina screen, and the differences wash away. Note that I don't go on about EVO's 8MP camera because it's a silly number. And the picture quality contest is a draw, as some people think the EVO takes slightly better pictures with almost no lag while others like the iPhone's low light performance. The EVO has two LED flashes! Who gives a shit?
Flash capable browser may be a negative to you, but for many people, it completes the browsing experience. Even die-hard iPhone users want flash.
4G is in a handful of cities now, but will be in many more by the end of the year. It's rolling out in the NYC area as we speak. Anyone in a 4G area should be excited by this, but for some reason, you want to discount it because it's not widely available. Well, 3G isn't widely available for AT&T users, so by your logic, the 3G capability of the iPhone is useless. And 4G does not suck extra battery life (at least, not significantly more battery life) -- the 4G issue is that if you leave your 4G antenna on and don't have 4G service, it will expend energy trying to connect to it periodically. So this is a non-issue -- you have 4G, or you turn it off. I would be shocked if there weren't an app by the end of the year that automatically manages that for you.
Turn by turn apps on the Apple cost money, and the good ones cost monthly fees. If you're going to bring up the $10 up charge for the EVO as a negative (which still doesn't make the Sprint plan any more expensive than the comparable AT&T plan), I don't know why you'd toss off the monthly fees for a turn based nav program. But, Google is coming to the rescue with a free turn by turn app... if you're willing to pay the $7/mo for GPS with AT&T. Sprint does not charge.
Originally Posted by DaveF
Bigger screen but lower resolution. The iPhone 4's screen is "ahead of the curve", in your parlance. Personal preference as to which you prefer.
Flash capable browser is a negative to me. I don't understand the appeal on a mobile device.
4G. On Sprint. In the handful of cities that have it. And it consumes your battery rapidly. And you still get to pay the surcharge even that service is unavailable. It's more advanced than the iPhone, but it isn't national and has limitations.
Turn by turn Google maps is nice. But I can buy an app for that.
So in other words, there is no phone that puts the iPhone "behind the curve already". No doubt there will be a phone sooner or later with higher res screen, faster processor, more storage, more RAM, better camera, etc. But it's not out yet, and it's not the EVO.