[SA Chris]

Don't you use a manbag Jasper? You have always struck me as a metrosexual type.

No offence!

[Jaspersharpe]

NEVER!

Although to me it's not just the transportation of the thing, I'd prefer my phone to fit in one hand. I will admit that I'm shallow enough that part of what swung it for me when deciding which phone to get was that the Legend was by far the nicest looking one on the market (but it wasn't the biggest factor!).

[magpie]

My phone fits in one hand and I have teensy hands. 

[Jim]

finally got an hd2. i thought it would be too big but its not really. you lot would hate it anyway.
i think its the same size as the desire hd

[tomtom]

Don't you use a manbag Jasper? You have always struck me as a metrosexual type.

Ahem...

[SA Chris]

Ok, so i think the HTC wildfire is the one I am going for, so looking around for deals.

http://www.buymobilephones.net/mobile-phones/HTC/HTC-Wildfire/T-Mobile/T-Mobile-15-300-(24mths)-inc.-Internet/5416231

Is probably the best I have found, does anyone know of any websites that can offer any better?

[Jaspersharpe]

That's the company I got my phone from. Very efficient. I wouldn't get a 24 month contract though.

[SA Chris]

Why not, seems (to my untrained eye) like best deal overall?

[slackline]

You'll probably be hankering after a new one in a year to a year and a half (I know I am, but I've a year left on my contract to go).

[Jaspersharpe]

It does look like a good deal. The thing is though, the contract is basically you buying the phone. So £15pm over 24 months is the same as £20 over 18 months but you get a new phone six months sooner (or if you're still happy with your phone get to switch to a cheaper tarriff / get money off your bills / get a new phone and sell it for a few hundred quid).

I'd also be wary of a phone lasting two years. I have some old Nokias from years ago which still work but have also had phones start to go on the blink (especially the Mrs' Samsungs) after a year. No idea on HTC longevity yet as I've only had mine 6 months but I'd rather not take the risk.

24 months just seems wrong too. Remember it wasn't that long ago that people were baulking at 18 month contracts. The way technology is moving on, two years is an eternity.

[SA Chris]

Thing is I'm kind of an technophobe, and while I like technnology I tend to stick with what I've got and really don't pay much interest to the latest stuff for long periods. My current phone is about 2005 vintage and the time between my two DSLRs was about 6 years. Valid point regarding longevity though.

[Jim]

update on my HD2, its size is not a problem at all, Its the same size more or less as the desire HD.
The one thing I'm really impressed with is the battery life. my old touch diamond2 would barely last a 12 hour shift with moderate web usage. this easily last a 12 hour shift even nailing the data conection constantly and more.
It has just lastest all weekend with a couple of web browses, checking for email every 2 hours, weather update every 3 hours and a couple of calls/texts.
Its mega

[Teaboy]

I wonder whether this sort of thing will become more prevalent in the future and therefore something to be considered when buying a phone:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/google_android_market_peril/

[slackline]

I wonder whether this sort of thing will become more prevalent in the future and therefore something to be considered when buying a phone:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/google_android_market_peril/

Malware/viruses are a potential problem, but this...

The mass infections are already prompting commentary comparing Android to Microsoft Windows.

..is nonce sense as they clearly don't understand the difference between Free Open Source Software (FOSS e.g. Android) and proprietary software (e.g. M$).  There are far more eyes capable of looking at and correcting errors/vulnerabilities and so forth under FOSS model than proprietary, so problems get corrected quicker (although with Android there is the problem of having to wait for updates from your phone provider if you don't root your phone and put custom/stock firmware on it).

Personally I'm avoiding the "Alternative App Markets" that promise loads of official paid-for apps for free because I'm wary of them being infected.  As with most things its down to the user to take responsibility for security and not expect others to do things for them.

Besides, its not like there haven't been viruses hitting the iOS on iPhones, worst of all it Rick-rolled you (before being adapted to be even more malicious).

[Teaboy]

As with most things its down to the user to take responsibility for security and not expect others to do things for them.

I disagree, I don't want to be responsible for anything on my phone other than paying the bill. Life's to short to be wasting time maintaining something who's principle function is to save time and effort.

[slackline]

As with most things its down to the user to take responsibility for security and not expect others to do things for them.

I disagree, I don't want to be responsible for anything on my phone other than paying the bill. Life's to short to be wasting time maintaining something who's principle function is to save time and effort.

Good luck, paying the bill is for services provided, i.e. texts/minutes/data usage, not yet come across a phone provider that includes "protect your phone from viruses and malware" in their contract, and if/when they do you'll likely be paying extra for it, just as Symantec et al. make money from selling their protection.

[Teaboy]

If viruses on phones do become an issue then the providers are going to have to do something about it, the simplest way of doing that will be to go down the Apple route rather than the MS or Android route

[slackline]

If viruses on phones do become an issue then the providers are going to have to do something about it, the simplest way of doing that will be to go down the Apple route rather than the MS or Android route

I'm not going to tell you what phone to buy, but Apple isn't immune...

Besides, its not like there haven't been viruses hitting the iOS on iPhones, worst of all it Rick-rolled you (before being adapted to be even more malicious).

Anyway, you don't get AV bundled in with an M$-OS (you might get an OEM trial version that the manufacturers such as HP/Toshiba/Dell have stuck on there), but you as a user have to make a decision to go out and purchase and install it yourself, I see no difference with phones, and really "smart phones" are just "small computers" so why shouldn't you be responsible for protecting your investment? 

And who are the "providers"?  Google wrote, maintain and develop Android for free, phone manufacturers tweak it (HTC, Motorola etc.) and phone service providers tweak further, who's responsibility is it to do something about it if it becomes a problem?

I agree there are perhaps more important/pressing things to do with your time (one of the reasons I've not rooted or put on custom firmware on my phone), but I have on occasions used my phone to check my bank accounts and am aware of the risks I am taking in doing so (so far the money remains in the accounts, not that there is masses to take!) and have chosen, as above, not to use "Other" app stores because of my cynical view that these would be prime breeding grounds for malware.  Thats a user choice/preference/awareness, but as is evidenced from the proliferation of cracked software for M$, people think if they're getting something for free that they'd normally pay for they don't need to be cautious, which couldn't be further from the truth.

As with virtually everything in life, if you want to do something well you're best of taking responsibility and doing it yourself.

[Teaboy]

I'm not talking about AV because, like you said, that involves effort on the part of the user, I'm talking about a completly worry free, maintainance free service. Smart phones are just mini computers but we view them differently. Its always been the case that home computers are tempremental, need maintainance etc so we, the consumer are greatful for any imorovement there, that's why some people pay a premium Apples. But with phones we're used to 100% reliabilty (even early mobile phones) and zero maintainance so to suddenly start saying to consumers you need start doing X, Y and Z with your phone to make it work (even if this is related to new functionality that wasn't available on phones before) is a retrograde step. If the exisiting interested parties can't provide such a service then the market is open to someone who can (obnviously this all depends on how big a problem virus on mobile phones becomes)

[slackline]

I've never had a 100% reliable phone though, there have been areas of the UK where I couldn't get a signal and the battery keeps on needing to be recharged. 

And Macs aren't the panacea that you're making them out to be, thats why you can take them back to Apple stores and get them repaired (and its disputable as to whether they are any better in terms of build quality anyway).

We're both saying that phones are small computers, but you're coming at it from the angle that its still more a phone than a computer, whereas I think the opposite, its a small computer I carry around in my pocket that allows me to make calls, this has always been the key selling point of "smart" phones to me as I enjoy and use the internet on the go far more than being contactable/convenience of a making phone call 24/7 (e.g. great to check the forecast for North Wales Sunday after getting rained on Saturday, despite it being a good forecast for Saturday).  As such I've no problem with taking responsibility for the security of my device as and when needs arise, just as I do with all other computers I use and maintain (and more people need to take responsibility for their online life/security on home computers too).

I'm still not clear as to who out of the three possible options (Google, handset manufacturers, phone service providers) you think should be responsible or is the "interested party" here?  Clearly they all have interests in not pissing of their customers, but who out of them should take responsibility for providing AV software if/when viruses/malware become a problem? 

If none of them do then Symatec/Norton et al. will likely step in and start selling an App for that....and the user will have to decide to purchase,  install it and upgrade/update it.

[Jim]

 

[slackline]

Cheers Jim, good to know you're not interested.

Just remember not to click on this thread again if the last post is myself or Teaboy, then you won't be bored further.

[Teaboy]

I've never had a 100% reliable phone though, there have been areas of the UK where I couldn't get a signal and the battery keeps on needing to be recharged. 

OK, yeah sorry, it doesn't work if it runs out of batteries. Nor if you hit it with a hammer. Or turn it off or if you try to use it on the moon. I'm sure I've not covered everything but no doubt you'll fill me in on the rest.

And Macs aren't the panacea that you're making them out to be, thats why you can take them back to Apple stores and get them repaired (and its disputable as to whether they are any better in terms of build quality anyway).

I'm not making them out to be a panecea for anything just pointing out that even in the home computing market (which I'd suggest is different from the smart phone market) people are prepared to pay extra for hassle free computing.

We're both saying that phones are small computers, but you're coming at it from the angle that its still more a phone than a computer, whereas I think the opposite, its a small computer I carry around in my pocket that allows me to make calls, this has always been the key selling point of "smart" phones to me as I enjoy and use the internet on the go far more than being contactable/convenience of a making phone call 24/7 (e.g. great to check the forecast for North Wales Sunday after getting rained on Saturday, despite it being a good forecast for Saturday).  As such I've no problem with taking responsibility for the security of my device as and when needs arise, just as I do with all other computers I use and maintain (and more people need to take responsibility for their online life/security on home computers too).

You don't have a problem but I'd venture to suggest you are not a typical user. I want to be able to do all that as well but I don't want instal security software patches, new firmware etc.

I'm still not clear as to who out of the three possible options (Google, handset manufacturers, phone service providers) you think should be responsible or is the "interested party" here? 

I would imagine it'd be an amalgam of all of them rather than just one of them, hardware manufactures, service provides and OS manufacturers already collaborate closely

Clearly they all have interests in not pissing of their customers, but who out of them should take responsibility for providing AV software if/when viruses/malware become a problem? 

Like I said I don't think its a case of providing AV but providing a service that doesn't need it - a bit like the iPhone  . I know you said that iPhones aren't immune from viruses but I can't find an instance of a non-jailbroken phone that has been attacked (admittedly I've only done a quick Google so stand to be corrected).

  this is very  , in reply to the OP I'd say buy a Blackberry!

[Jaspersharpe]

And that's the perfect time for me to jump in.

Want to get my Mrs a new (smart) phone. She's never had one before and mainly uses her phone for calls (a lot) and texts. She wants to be able to get email / Twitter etc but doesn't use the internet loads so I'm thinking a Blackberry is probably the way to go as otherwise the wank battery life of most smartphones is going to piss her off, plus it's going to do a load of stuff that she doesn't need etc.

Dobbin and Stubbs have already confirmed what I was thinking on Twitter and the Bold 9780 is looking like the best option but I just wondered if anyone had experience of that Blackberry or any of the other models (Torch, Storm etc)?

[slackline]

I've never had a 100% reliable phone though, there have been areas of the UK where I couldn't get a signal and the battery keeps on needing to be recharged. 

OK, yeah sorry, it doesn't work if it runs out of batteries. Nor if you hit it with a hammer. Or turn it off or if you try to use it on the moon. I'm sure I've not covered everything but no doubt you'll fill me in on the rest.

Tongue in cheek, but ultimately phones and their services aren't 100% reliable, thats why each provider has maps showing area coverage, insurance policies exist for replacement phones if damaged/broken etc.

And Macs aren't the panacea that you're making them out to be, thats why you can take them back to Apple stores and get them repaired (and its disputable as to whether they are any better in terms of build quality anyway).

I'm not making them out to be a panecea for anything just pointing out that even in the home computing market (which I'd suggest is different from the smart phone market) people are prepared to pay extra for hassle free slightly less hassle computing.

...is the point I was making.

We're both saying that phones are small computers, but you're coming at it from the angle that its still more a phone than a computer, whereas I think the opposite, its a small computer I carry around in my pocket that allows me to make calls, this has always been the key selling point of "smart" phones to me as I enjoy and use the internet on the go far more than being contactable/convenience of a making phone call 24/7 (e.g. great to check the forecast for North Wales Sunday after getting rained on Saturday, despite it being a good forecast for Saturday).  As such I've no problem with taking responsibility for the security of my device as and when needs arise, just as I do with all other computers I use and maintain (and more people need to take responsibility for their online life/security on home computers too).

You don't have a problem but I'd venture to suggest you are not a typical user. I want to be able to do all that as well but I don't want instal security software patches, new firmware etc.

Actually I'm a fairly standard phone user because I spend so much time tinkering with desktop/laptop/NAS/router I've not bothered rooting my phone or installing custom ROMs, I just go with the update from T-mobile as and when its ready and have set applications to update automatically when available.  I still wouldn't be adverse to installing AV software and letting that update either though.

I'd also say that "smart phones" are marketed more as mobile computers, just look at all the "You can Facebook/Flickr/Twitter/share/email/etc." on the go that is used in advertising these devices, making phone calls barely gets a lookin.

I'm still not clear as to who out of the three possible options (Google, handset manufacturers, phone service providers) you think should be responsible or is the "interested party" here? 

I would imagine it'd be an amalgam of all of them rather than just one of them, hardware manufactures, service provides and OS manufacturers already collaborate closely

It depends, but I'd imagine the service providers will stock hardware that "just works", and the hardware manufacturers will use the software that is cheapest and most problem free, which would mean it would be down to Google as developers of Android to provide an OS without security holes, however, who else is giving away their phone OS with "guarantees" that its secure?

The very fact that Android is open source means more eyes look at the code and can correct security holes/errors than the limited number of employees working on iOS/M$'s phone version.  Should an exploitable security hole be detected that can be fixed quickly in Android (there is a big problem with that filtering through the tweaks that manufacturers and worse still the phone providers make so it can take months for updates to reach most end users who aren't using custom ROMs).  In my view this means that it is more secure.

Clearly they all have interests in not pissing of their customers, but who out of them should take responsibility for providing AV software if/when viruses/malware become a problem? 

Like I said I don't think its a case of providing AV but providing a service that doesn't need it - a bit like the iPhone  . I know you said that iPhones aren't immune from viruses but I can't find an instance of a non-jailbroken phone that has been attacked (admittedly I've only done a quick Google so stand to be corrected).