EVO LTE reviews (latest: GSM Arena 5/20)

[Duffin]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Droid Life 5/14)

I just can't take looking at these reviews any longer. I have several glowing issues with all of them:

1. Most reviews don't even know what they are reviewing. They don't even know that most of the EVO is aluminum. Additionally, they wus out on looks. Come on. It's not that bad.
2. Virtually every review trashes the phone for Sprint's lack of LTE. True, Sprint does not have LTE at the moment. If that really mattered to me, I would have left along time ago. If a person reviews something, you would think they would be well versed in that area. All I keep hearing is LTE is nowhere and KC could be getting it soon. I can read a headline and come to that conclusion. How about digging deeper. What is the LTE rollout for Sprint? They have no clue. I live in Nashville and can tell you Sprint began testing LTE in late February. I expect it to go live in the not too distant future. If they knew anything they would know that from a infrastructure point of view, going from Wimax to LTE doesn't require a complete overhaul. But of course they wouldn't know any of these things because that plastic cover Sprint uses to mount the antennas is ugly.
3. Finally, yes we are on Sprint and we could leave to ATT for the LTE and get a One X. However, we value our phones for making calls. And on Sprint's network, calls actually go through and don't drop.

In summary "so called expert" reviewers, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

I love this guy/girl!

I could not agree more. I firmly believe that if they had just called this the EVO 3 or something, no one would be complaining about the lack of LTE. They'd say, "Plus, it'll use Sprint's new LTE network once it's turned on!"

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

I don't agree. The lack of LTE in today's marketplace is a real issue, and deserves a prominent place in any high end phone review. Sprint's EDVO is slow compared to other options out there.

Now, this does not mean that LTE is important to any given reader. I mostly use wifi myself. But it is silly to suggest that smartphone reviews should ignore network data speed.

 

[Duffin]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

I don't agree. The lack of LTE in today's marketplace is a real issue, and deserves a prominent place in any high end phone review. Sprint's EDVO is slow compared to other options out there.

Now, this does not mean that LTE is important to any given reader. I mostly use wifi myself. But it is silly to suggest that smartphone reviews should ignore network data speed.

I didn't say they should ignore it. But, it shouldn't be prominently displayed as a con. Mentioning it is fine. It's good for people to be made aware that LTE isn't available yet, but that's incidental.

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

I didn't say they should ignore it. But, it shouldn't be prominently displayed as a con. Mentioning it is fine. It's good for people to be made aware that LTE isn't available yet, but that's incidental.

I would say that significantly inferior data speeds is a major con. Imagine someone coming from LTE to Sprint's evdo network. Things take more than 10 times longer to download.

 

[Duffin]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

I would say that significantly inferior data speeds is a major con. Imagine someone coming from LTE to Sprint's evdo network. Things take more than 10 times longer to download.

That may be a con of the network itself, but it has no bearing on how good the phone is. It's a phone review, afterall, not a network review.

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

That may be a con of the network itself, but it has no bearing on how good the phone is. It's a phone review, afterall, not a network review.

The two are inextricably linked. It is the SPRINT Evo 4g LTE. If Sprint shut off all their cell towers, would that not change the value of your Sprint phone? The fact that this phone can only connect to 3g (or less) matters.

 

[Insp_Gadget]

That may be a con of the network itself, but it has no bearing on how good the phone is. It's a phone review, afterall, not a network review.

Bingo! They knock the phone for limitations of the current network. That's just wrong. The phone is capable of more than the current network can do. How is that a shortcoming of the phone?

 

[PookiePrancer]

The two are inextricably linked. It is the SPRINT Evo 4g LTE. If Sprint shut off all their cell towers, would that not change the value of your Sprint phone? The fact that this phone can only connect to 3g (or less) matters.

So the Sprint iPhone must REALLY suck. Hardware inferior to the Evo LTE in every way, arguably better software, and the same crippled network. If Gizmodo rated the Evo 3 stars, I have to think the iPhone is good for no more than that, and maybe even 2.5. Anybody look into what all these pundits rated the Sprint iPhone?

 

[Duffin]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

So the Sprint iPhone must REALLY suck. Hardware inferior to the Evo LTE in every way, arguably better software, and the same crippled network. If Gizmodo rated the Evo 3 stars, I have to think the iPhone is good for no more than that, and maybe even 2.5. Anybody look into what all these pundits rated the Sprint iPhone?

Yup, they of course gave the iPhone a nearly perfect 4.5 star score while the LTEVO got a 3. Interesting how the slow network didn't knock the score for that phone, huh?

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

Bingo! They knock the phone for limitations of the current network. That's just wrong. The phone is capable of more than the current network can do. How is that a shortcoming of the phone?

A phone is designed to work on a network. This particular phone can only achieve 3g speeds. The fact that it could do better in an alternative universe where Sprint had an LTE network is meaningless.

Think of it this way. If the EVO LTE did not have an LTE radio in it, it would still function exactly the same. For the user, it is a 3g phone in a LTE market. Reviews are for users. Users care about data speeds.

Would you buy a phone that could not make calls due to incompatibility with the network? Would you buy a phone that could not be charged due to incompatibility with the grid? These things matter.

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

So the Sprint iPhone must REALLY suck. Hardware inferior to the Evo LTE in every way, arguably better software, and the same crippled network. If Gizmodo rated the Evo 3 stars, I have to think the iPhone is good for no more than that, and maybe even 2.5. Anybody look into what all these pundits rated the Sprint iPhone?

I'd say that the lack of LTE on the Sprint iPhone is a serious con. One of many serious cons.

 

[Duffin]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

A phone is designed to work on a network. This particular phone can only achieve 3g speeds. The fact that it could do better in an alternative universe where Sprint had an LTE network is meaningless.

Think of it this way. If the EVO LTE did not have an LTE radio in it, it would still function exactly the same. For the user, it is a 3g phone in a LTE market. Reviews are for users. Users care about data speeds.

Would you buy a phone that could not make calls due to incompatibility with the network? Would you buy a phone that could not be charged due to incompatibility with the grid? These things matter.

There is a HUGE difference between something not being compatible while still being sold as a feature, and something that just isn't yet available, but will work otherwise. Your comparisons aren't accurate. A lack of LTE doesn't make the phone unusable.

 

[PookiePrancer]

Yup, they of course gave the iPhone a nearly perfect 4.5 star score while the LTEVO got a 3. Interesting how the slow network didn't knock the score for that phone, huh?

Thanks for looking that up. I figured there were a lot of hypocrites out there. I can't imagine the S III on Sprint should do any better either. After all, it too won't have LTE if released in June, and it'll be strapped to the same "crappy" network! So basically, these reviews are turning into a Sprint rape fest. I hope some of the bozos revisit their reviews in 6 months.

 

[PookiePrancer]

I'd say that the lack of LTE on the Sprint iPhone is a serious con. One of many serious cons.

Apparently, Sprint's network must be doing magical things for the iphone though. 4.5 stars!

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

There is a HUGE difference between something not being compatible while still being sold as a feature, and something that just isn't yet available, but will work otherwise. Your comparisons aren't accurate. A lack of LTE doesn't make the phone unusable.

Analogies are imprecise by their very nature. The fact remains that the EVO LTE is a 3g phone in a LTE market.

If Sprint had a full LTE network, but the phone's LTE radio could not be turned on for months or years, would that be a problem with the phone? The net effect on the user is identical. Reviews are not about listing the bits and pieces that can be found in the phone. They are about usage of the product in the real world. This phone has no LTE network to hook up to. It can't connect to the WIMAX network. It is, in real work usage, a 3g phone.

 

[PookiePrancer]

A phone is designed to work on a network. This particular phone can only achieve 3g speeds. The fact that it could do better in an alternative universe where Sprint had an LTE network is meaningless.

Think of it this way. If the EVO LTE did not have an LTE radio in it, it would still function exactly the same. For the user, it is a 3g phone in a LTE market. Reviews are for users. Users care about data speeds.

Would you buy a phone that could not make calls due to incompatibility with the network? Would you buy a phone that could not be charged due to incompatibility with the grid? These things matter.

If the Evo doesn't work on LTE when the network is switched on, I'll have a problem with that. A manufacturer including a feature that future-proofs my purchase...I fail to see the down side. And like I suggested: you can't say a network cripples one device, but say another is almost perfect. What? Phone calls and data speeds are somehow good enough on a Sprint iPhone that they had no negative impact on its rating. Every LTE phone on Sprint is doomed to low ratings until they flip the switch.

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

Apparently, Sprint's network must be doing magical things for the iphone though. 4.5 stars!

I don't read Gizmodo, and I am certainly not defending their iPhone review. I'm saying that it is legitimate for reviews to discuss the slow data speeds users will have with the Evo LTE.

 

[Sapient]

Re: EVO LTE reviews (latest: Computer World 5/14)

If the Evo doesn't work on LTE when the network is switched on, I'll have a problem with that. A manufacturer including a feature that future-proofs my purchase...I fail to see the down side.

And if data speeds now don't matter to you, you should ignore that aspect of the reviews. But I don't think reviews should cater to people who don't care about such things.

 

[PookiePrancer]

And if data speeds now don't matter to you, you should ignore that aspect of the reviews. But I don't think reviews should cater to people who don't care about such things.

Of course they matter, but darlings like the iphone shouldn't get a pass.

 

[shadowhawk2020]

I don't agree. The lack of LTE in today's marketplace is a real issue, and deserves a prominent place in any high end phone review. Sprint's EDVO is slow compared to other options out there.

Now, this does not mean that LTE is important to any given reader. I mostly use wifi myself. But it is silly to suggest that smartphone reviews should ignore network data speed.

Then they should review the network, not the phone. This phone isnt slower than most phones on Sprint's network. The only ones with any faster data speeds are Wimax phones which are A) is not in many markets and B) not expanding.