What should a bit-tech iPhone 4 review look like?

Comments 1 to 25 of 81

Spiny 24th June 2010, 10:48 Quote
"What should a bit-tech iPhone 4 review look like?"

A large hammer? :)
mi1ez 24th June 2010, 10:58 Quote
Q: What should a bit-tech iPhone 4 review look like?
A: Short
licenced 24th June 2010, 11:16 Quote
I don't think you should bother - there a million and one sites doing smart phone reviews already.

The only way you could differentiate yourselves for me would be to do your reviews late, and have them written by someone who has used the phone being review, and it's rivals, on a day to day basis and knows exactly how the are to use for a period of time. Smart phones are using OSes that are closer and closer to real computer OSes and over time they do tend to slow down as you keep installing and uninstalling apps - what may have been an impressive, 'fast' phone on day 1 may not be after a month.
Stotherd-001 24th June 2010, 11:18 Quote
In short, don't. Please. Stick to your current base. These articles just lead to flame wars. T

The majority of the actual measurable things you're testing there would put the latest Android phones running froyo ahead, and I'm not sure thats something some people can live with. They consistently do better in benchmarks and "modability" than the iphone would... the iPhones really only won on things you can't really measure, mainly aesthetics.
Horizon 24th June 2010, 11:19 Quote
An Iphone review would be kinda of pointless, like reviewing a Xbox 360s, or PS3. It pretty much be nothing more than an editorial.
nuttsan 24th June 2010, 11:33 Quote
A review along the lines of this:
or this one as an article:

and as a G1 owner (hopefully upgrading in September to the Samsung Galaxy S/Droid X, or similar), I'd like to see a UK site look at something like this:
Which I haven't tried yet, as I really don't want to brick my phone...
bogie170 24th June 2010, 11:40 Quote
Just a few pages but cram in what the iphone can do that android can't and vise versa. Yes also have a comparison to the last iphone model for speeds on browser/application load times.

Anyone figured the cheapest iphone4 tariff yet?
licenced 24th June 2010, 11:48 Quote
Originally Posted by bogie170
Anyone figured the cheapest iphone4 tariff yet?
Tesco - by a long way
pimlicosound 24th June 2010, 11:56 Quote
What originally defined the iPhone was the "feeling" of using one - it was suddenly a pleasure to play games and browse the web on a smartphone. I think a BT review should contain more editorial opinion than it does serious benchmarking, so as to convey how the iPhone 4 "feels" to use when compared with, say, previous versions and competing devices.
NuTech 24th June 2010, 12:00 Quote

No offence but it's not like the internet is short on iPhone reviews - and the majority of those reviews are from more experienced authors who are probably better suited to reviewing a device like the iPhone.

In regards to that Engadget quote, while I see you point, I think it's more of a problem with smartphones in general. Due to the insane amount of hardware configurations and operating system variances, it's very difficult to quantify a smartphone. Google tried to do something similar during their recent IO event, by running a series of javascript tests. Although the results were heavily in favour of the Android phone, it didn't actually accomplish much as a lot of iPhone users still find their phones feel 'snappier' than Android equivalents. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that the overall responsiveness of a handset is incredibly difficult to judge and can be highly subjective.

Essentially, your derision of that quote is exactly why you shouldn't review the iPhone. If you're uncomfortable (or don't have the resolve for) passing judgement based on nothing other than the author's personal experience, then smartphone reviews are just not going to be a good fit.

And that is the crux of the issue - bit-tech, which at its core is a very technical site with a heavy reliance on factual data, just isn't suited to something like the iPhone. Everything here is as non-subjective as possible, wholly reliant on benchmarks and scientific testing. Arguably the most subjective content you guys write are game reviews, and you only need to look at the comments of one to see just how well received those are...
liratheal 24th June 2010, 12:01 Quote

Like any other review?

It is supposed to be a smartphone, capable of competing with any other smartphone in its price bracket, and below I guess, so why should it get any special treatment?

I can't imagine I'd read the review, regardless of the approach taken, because I've already made up my mind not to bother with touch screen phones, after my experience with the 3G.

"What does it do, and how well does it do it?"
FelixTech 24th June 2010, 12:07 Quote
Under Custom PC's traditional metrics, given the value part I guess the iPhone gets a 'Crazy but Cool' award :P

I'm been meaning to upgrade my Nokia 9300 Communicator for years now but have never gotten round to it. Having never spent more than £40 on a phone I still can't make that leap!
Autti 24th June 2010, 12:10 Quote
Whats with the negativity for bit-tech testing the water about smartphone reviews?
I say good on you bit-tech, its great to see that you actually are interested in the way we like reviews.

Also NuTech, if a smartphone review is subjective, then there is no point in reviewing them at all by anyone because the review would serve no purpose.

As for my view, i think benchmarks are important, but as you have highlighted it's difficult to do them properly for readers to relate to. I think game load time is a very good measure in fact, as it represents the amount of time spent waiting for the phone to work.
As for owning a phone what would be the most important aspects i would like to know, battery life, ease of use, cellular reception (hard to measure) and voice clarity.
loftie 24th June 2010, 12:24 Quote
Originally Posted by Spiny
"What should a bit-tech iPhone 4 review look like?"

A large hammer? :)

I was thinking that! :D
licenced 24th June 2010, 12:42 Quote
Some good points above. It doesn't really matter whether any phone runs Java (to take one example) faster than any other - that's rarely, if ever, going to affect anyone's buying decision. People buy iPhones because of the seamless user experience and everything you do is almost instant - the user experience. People steer clear of iPhones not because of what features it does or doesn't have but because of the limitations that Apple impose on how it can be tweaked and what you can run on it and when. You can't benchmark those things.
nuttsan 24th June 2010, 12:44 Quote
Originally Posted by Autti

As for owning a phone what would be the most important aspects i would like to know, battery life, ease of use, cellular reception (hard to measure) and voice clarity.

Having owned a G1 for quite awhile now and commuting by train. I would say my phone usage is approx:

20% videos/beebplayer - i.e. unofficial iplayer
20% games
20% reading ePub books/browsing web
20% music/pod casts
10% emailing/texting
5% calls
5% Other, including using it for wifi analysis, shopping lists, navigation...

So top of my list for a new phone is screen (size/brightness), battery, CPU/GPU...
rdhir 24th June 2010, 12:53 Quote
I think its hard to do a benchmark review because its not really that important. We're still in the functionality stage of review with smartphones, that is their functionality is the key to their utility, and that matters. For example iPhones seem to face much criticism for making phone calls and Nokias ffor their ability to do email or other functions. I also think that its hard to abstractly judge a phone unless using it for real tasks. For example, Ihave a Palm Pre, previosuly used the Nokia E800 or whatever it was that had the long internal screen like a mini notebook, then used a Blackberry Bold, and I have a first generation iTouch. The Nokia was just terrible, too many clicks to do anything. The Bold was great for email and the apps kept it competitive, it was also funky with its individual ring tones which allowed me to distinguish between texts, email account and IMs, which effectively allowed me to know who was speaking without picking up the phone. Now while WebOS hardware is a bit crap really, I far prefer its interface to my iTouch (running 3,.x) and for me the killer feacher is the integrated address book that allows me to send things to people and choose the correct channel for the message easily (phone, sms, email, IM, facebook).That is a big thing and means I prefer it as a means of communicating over the PC unless I have something long to type, Its just quicker despite the keyboard, than messing around with a mouse. iOS 4 is just catching up on some of these features and am going to give flock and Gwibber a try to see if I could used them instead.

steveo_mcg 24th June 2010, 13:25 Quote
Originally Posted by Spiny
"What should a bit-tech iPhone 4 review look like?"

A large hammer? :)

Surely a blender would be more appropriate... :D
SNIPERMikeUK 24th June 2010, 13:35 Quote
It should not exist....U Apple
secu 24th June 2010, 13:42 Quote
There should be no review of IPhone 4 on
flibblesan 24th June 2010, 13:50 Quote
Originally Posted by licenced
I don't think you should bother - there a million and one sites doing smart phone reviews already.

pimlicosound 24th June 2010, 14:15 Quote
TechRadar have recently published a good long-term review of the iPad, seeing how it fared over the course of a month.

On release, every other site will publish their iPhone 4 reviews, and they will almost all read like a list of technical specifications. What would perhaps be more interesting, and useful, is a long-term test like TechRadar's, which is more likely to uncover any awkward design flaws or to reveal hidden gems.
Rsaeire 24th June 2010, 15:50 Quote
I don't get the fascination with this device. Of all handsets for Bit-tech to ask about, they ask about the least impressive device from the last few years. Granted, the iPhone 4 has at least, eventually, met some of the hardware specifications of current handsets, thanks to its decent 5 MP camera and 720p video recording capability, but the iPhone has not been and is still not a revolutionary device when looked at pragmatically.

Does a device earn a revolutionary title merely because of how many units it sells, e.g. the iPhone, or does a device earn a revolutionary title when it enables a new way of interaction, e.g. Wii? Both of the aforementioned products have had the revolutionary moniker associated with them since they've been released, but the latter is the only one deserving of such a title as it brought about a new way of gaming interaction. All the iPhone did was refine an interaction technique that had been available for years. This is not to say that Apple's mobile OS isn't, in some areas, innovative, but it can't be called revolutionary by any standards given its multitude of shortcomings; many of which have only now been resolved by iOS 4, a version of software that has been over 3 years in the making.

In addition, Bit-tech would be foolish to think that reviewing a mobile device would do anything but upset their loyal fan base. Leave mobile reviews to Gizmodo and Engadget and concentrate more on what you're good at.
Jim 24th June 2010, 16:27 Quote
C-Sniper 24th June 2010, 16:34 Quote
How about a durability test.

Dropping, Hammer, car, android mobile fight to the death, any thing along those lines
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums