Agreed. But it just makes me laugh when some folk (not you i hasten to add) think they are getting a 'free phone' with a contract when they are getting nothing of the sort. It's the sort of stupid thinking mobile companies must love to hear. The Nexus 4 is Google's way of trying to move people away from the very restrictive 24 month contracts, I guess. It's got to be a worry for the networks should they really get their act together with regards to marketing/distribution to the masses...which I think will start to happen with the next Nexus. (my 23 year old son has a huge circle of friends of his age and none of them had previously heard of the Nexus 4 let alone seen one before he got his).

This just shows raw benchmarks are pretty meaningless. I have an iPhone 5 and an HTC One, and I have owned a Nexus 4 as well for a couple of months. In my opinion the iP5 is streets better for PERCEIVED performance. It is silky smooth on touch operations in comparison to my HTC One or N4. I see quite a bit of unresponsiveness on the One, often I have to tap twice to achieve something, particularly positioning the cursor in text (and before someone says I have a faulty phone, it was just the same on the N4). Launching applications is slower on the One - as an example I have just launched two common apps on both phones, the Kindle app and Skype. The Kindle app on the iPhone showed the book immediately, but on the One there was a white screen for a second or two while it loaded. The Skype app took about 6 seconds to log me in on the iPhone but about 10 on the One.
Just shows what can be achieved with end to end integration of the software and hardware.

Slower for doing what? Slower spec but..... slower for what? At a benchmark but in real world hardly noticeable.

Telegraph also reported http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...isappoint.html

So i guess it really doesn't matter about RAW speed.

Only if you would have spent the extra £500 anyway.
Personally I'm waiting for the next instalment on the speed saga. It has gone backwards 'almost overnight'.

An interesting report considering it was the US equivalent 'Consumer Reports' who last seemed to bring us bad news on the iPhone.

What I meant was that many people taking out these contracts believe the phone is heavily "subsidised" and that they are getting it for free or for the small upfront cash payment on the contract. In fact they are paying the full retail SIM-free price (or worse) for a phone which is locked to one network. Would certainly horrify me if I took out the contract thinking it included a "free" phone.

Well, the phone is free. It belongs to you the second you take the contract out and there is nothing stopping you unlocking it or selling it. You are just on an expense contract.

What a bizarre interpretation of the word 'free'. it isn't free, never was, never will be. You see, I could buy a phone outright now and sell it on the next day. Does that mean the phone was free?

The iPhone 5 should be compared to phones of its generation which would include the S3, the HTC One X, the note 2 and the nexus 4. It held its own amongst those devices.

I have no great faith in Which reviews nor any particular interest in these phones. However, this comment is nonsense. If I am looking to buy a product I want to know how it compares with the current competition not their superceded models.

Which is renowned for pointing out the major differences in brands of white goods and stuff.

Those change little so the reliability data and suchlike is very useful. Obviously with smartphones there is much smoke and mirrors but Which do at least attempt to give you unbiased facts.

£840 with all you can eat data, 2000 voice minutes, 5,000 three-to-three minutes and 5,000 texts.

I don't find that 'horrifying' in any way, shape or form. £840, conveniently split into 24 monthly payments of £35 gets me my phone, the Internet through tethering, camera, video camera, music player, diary, mobile office, mobile FTP/Texteditor (Textastic), mobile SSH for emergency remote server reboots, Dropbox, Kindle and a games machine on a single device for £35/month.

I have now have no landline (£11/mo no longer paid), no other Internet bill (£20/mo no longer paid). My phone and One Plan from Three do everything.

I looked at Android phones (the S4 in particular), but could find no compelling reason to move that overcame the hassle of switching platforms and finding replacements for iOS only apps (lack of Textastic on Android is especially problematic for me personally).

Nitpicking over a few hundred pounds to isolate the cost of the device over its utility and the other things that come with the device is crazy in my view.

But you get it at that price (plus the yearly just below RPI increase) because you are completely captive for 2 years (plus iPhone 5 contract prices have plummeted, no doubt due to the networks over estimating the demand and being left with large stocks). There is no wriggle room, they can change the T&Cs basically at will and you can't do a damn thing about it. Lose your job? Still got to pay etc!

You are getting the phone (iPhone contracts have not plummeted any different to S4 or HTC one contracts) effectively on a 24 month interest free deal. That has to be a good thing especially for those that cannot afford the upfront payment.

The phone does not cost you a horrific amount of money buying it that way.

My feeling is if you can't afford to buy an 'entertainment' product outright you can't actually afford it all. fair enough, most people can't afford to buy a house or car outright so of course some sort of loan is fine. But a phone?? It's not like this 'loan agreement' doesn't come with lots of caveats, either.

So you think someone who can afford £30pm but cannot afford £500 upfront should go without

You're right, they should know their place

What caveats are you referring to? None relating to the phone?

It depends on personal circumstances, but you have to admit there is a section of the population who say "it's only £30pm" on half a dozen different things when they really can't afford it and end up in serious debt when their circumstances suddenly change.

This type of phrase is the selling line of many a salesman.

It not that incredible that it has leaked over to 'keen' Apple user phraseology.

I totally agree. There are always people who will spend more than they can afford, but I'm not sure that is a reason to stop providing easy payment options.

I would also question whether a phone contract can ever really be a serious debt. It is unsecured against a service provided monthly and therefore something the mobile operator can withdraw from you. I wouldn't bet much money on an operator getting the contract paid up if payment became a problem. One for a different thread

My point is that, in my opinion, if you can't afford to buy something as 'frivolous' (relatively speaking) as a mobile phone in cash then you really can't afford it in the first place. The advent of the contract has, in my opinion, caused people to buy phones they wouldn't ordinarily have considered buying.

The main caveat i was alluding to was this is not just your average loan agreement, this in addition ties you to a supplier (and tariff, which may become wholly inappropriate due to changing circumstances) for a period of 2 years. It's very very restrictive imo, especially for something like a mobile phone.

My advice would always be buy (outright) the best mobile you can afford and pair it with a 30 day SIM deal (there are some amazing deals out there, starting from nowt!). This makes total financial sense plus if the T&Cs change or there is the dreaded price rise you can be out of there within a month. I guess this is the sort of joined up thinking Google are looking to promote with the Nexus 4 (plus I accept they are also promoting the Android OS).

I never suggested other high end smartphone contract prices hadn't plummeted but we were specifically talking about the iPhone 5.

PS And no, it really isn't a good deal for people who can't afford the upfront price; see my earlier posts(s) for an explanation of this. I'm happy to get into debt for a house purchase and even a car but a mobile phone? why?

I've not a clue what point you are making, but I get the feeling it is a barbed comment aimed at me.

I agree, that's why I said "it depends on personal circumstances"

I can understand the point you are making but for some the choice isnt there to buy a phone upfront. Do you think those should go without?

If someone can afford to save £30 per month, do you think they should have to save up and wait 17 months before they get a phone £500, or do you think they don't deserve the phone because they can't afford it?

It is just a choice people make, and I'm not sure why that choice should be taken away from them.

I said before, ultimately they are getting a phone interest free so I'm not sure what the problem is.

I agree with you, as I said it depends on personal circumstances. If a person is say, spending £50 month extra on eating out, then if the worst came to the worst they could stop that discretionary spend and pay the phone bill.

I find it hard to get my head around this issue. If you can afford £30/month on a luxury item then you should be able to access £500 otherwise you are not being financially responsible

30/month for a 2 year contract is 720. And you are bound into this with a contract or credit agreement so if you lose your job or whatever then the 30 still has to be found.

something like giff gaff is £12/month for a sort of unlimited data/calls package so that's £288 you may spend over the 2 years. A nexus 4 can be had for 239 so you are looking at a cost of £527 over the 2 years. And you're not bound to any contract so you are free at any time to sell the phone, or just have pay and go etc..