See also (previously in this series):
Why the Budget Battle of the Smartphones is important
Battle of the Budget Smartphones: Hardware
Battle of the Budget Smartphones: Email and Web
Battle of the Budget Smartphones: PIM, Music and Media
Marketplaces and Stores
The advantage to Android that is talked about more than any other is the volume and availability of third party applications. According to legend, the Android Market, and the support from Developers, is enough to overcome any obstacle and make this the perfect phone for everybody.
Marketing speak aside, it's not a case of 'build it and they will come' (or 'code it and they will download').
Having used these two phones in the wild for four weeks, the benefits of third party applications is being overstated. On the Android powered Racer, I've downloaded and been actively using a Twitter client, a Foursquare client, and not much else (okay maybe the Abduction platform game as well). But that's it.
I do have the Facebook app, but frankly it's far quicker to use the mobile version of the site than try to use the app. While I have downloaded Opera Mini, the advantages it offers over the built in browser are not as much when you compare it to the Nokia S60 Browser. On the 5230, Opera Mini is almost a requirement, on the Racer it's a luxury that you can easily live without.
Over on the 5230, my popular third party apps are a Twitter and Facebook client (Gravity), an eBook reader (I never found one that suited me in the Android marketplace), and the already mentioned (in the previous article) Opera Mini.
Do I need a huge number of third party applications to get anything done on either phone? Not at all. [you'll remember my seminal piece on this subject: Three Apps on my Smartphone - Ed]
I do see the value in having a solid ecosystem, and Android certainly has more meaningful applications than the Ovi Store (e.g. a Geo Caching app or alternative Task Manager), but these are apps that have limited appeal. In the same way, I don't have the need for a Project Manager or photo uploader to multiple social networks on the Nokia 5230.
Both the Ovi Store and the Android Market work, and while the Android store is easier to navigate, it has a number of issues, such as the laborious process to update applications, the small number of apps on display at any one time, and to be honest the sheer number of rubbish and pointless apps. There may be more in the Android Market than on Ovi, but more apps doesn't always mean more quality.
But Android, as it stands, has a solid story to tell Developers, something Nokia is lacking. It's one area where Symbian is playing catch-up, and they'll have to go some to match the perceived power of the Android marketplace, even if a lot of it (like most app stores) is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Time to sum it all up
In general, the question of “which is better” at the low end of the market, the Nokia 5230 or the ZTE Racer, is almost an impossible question to answer to everyone's satisfaction. There will be people looking for a definitive answer, but they're not going to get it here. Both devices deliver what they promise, they allow the user to not only get online and do basic web and email work, but also have a competent set of built in applications, and the obvious gaps in the application suite are filled on both platforms by third party software.
You might as well ask who is the best Doctor Who. Everyone will have a valid opinon, and others will disagree vehemently and decry that the other person is being paid to say that, is blind, or a hypocrite (it's Pat Troughton by the way - [agreed - Ed]).
If I was handed either of the devices on review here and asked to get to work, then I'm confident that either handset, and either software platform, would be able to cope with what I look for in a smartphone in day to day to use. There are areas of difference though, and it's those differences that might swing a personal opinion (and it has swung mine), but on a macro level, there's no clear winner.
So I'm going to take this as a two pronged approach. The first is to look at just the Nokia 5230 and the ZTE Racer, the pure head to head. Then I'll consider the more balanced question of Android v Symbian at the lower end of the phone market.
Comparing Handsets
I'm calling the Nokia 5230 the winner, and while there will now be a stream of comments going “Symbian site in 'Symbian wins' shock” let me tell you why, because I think that any neutral observer will agree with me.
There are three major issues that I have with the hardware that lessen the impact of the Racer. The first is build quality, it's very cheap and cheerful. I have a problem with any device where you can hear the battery rattling in the case when you give it a little shake. Even with some sprung contacts, the ZTE Racer does not fit together here. While it doesn't impact on the operation of the phone (the electrical contact is always maintained from battery to circuit board), it just feels wrong.
The second issue is one with the materials used. After four weeks (around the Edinburgh Fringe), the Racer looks pretty battered around – the silver coating on the call buttons is flaking away and as this is a backlit button, a small camouflage-like pattern is appearing. The matt finish on the body and back of the Racer hides a lot of scratches and blemishes, but they are there. And the plastic on the front of the device, including the screen, has been dinged a couple of time and has some scratches already in evidence.
But the biggest problem is that twice in the month the Racer has locked up, frozen and then switched itself off. And even though the battery was almost fully charged, it refused to start unless it was on mains power – which could then be removed to show 85% capacity on the battery. To not be able to be switched on while out and about until you find a convenient USB port or socket for the mains charger means that part of me now simply does not trust - or indeed charge - the Racer.
While the hardware on the Nokia 5230 does have some issues, the sometimes loose fitting back cover being an annoyance I could live without, the hardware is utterly dependable and I've never had cause to question that the Symbian phone would not switch on and do what I ask of it.
Would I give up the 5230 for a Racer? Probably not. Would I be worried about what I could do with the Racer if it's all that I had? Nope. Would I be worried that it would let me down? Just a little.
Comparing the Operating Systems.
It should be clear from previous parts in this series that, in terms of functionality, there is little to differentiate the two Operating Systems. While there is a greater buzz around third party applications on Android, Symbian's baseline of software compensates to an extent for the smaller range of utility applications because the functions are already built into the phone. If you're looking for more games and native interfaces into US-focussed web services then Android does have the edge, but it's not as much as the Google flag wavers would have you believe.
While Symbian and Android both have their roots in the higher end devices, it's Symbian that makes the more successful transition to the low-end. The design decisions made by Android really need a much faster CPU and higher specification device than can be (currently) afforded on a £100 smartphone, and the compromises that have to be made are noticeable.
Nokia have had to compromise as well, but Symbian works at a far better pace on the hardware available. Because of a more direct relationship between the OS and the CPU, with no virtual machines or emulation layers in-between, the difference in battery life is hugely in favour for the 5230. That's almost a reason in itself to go with it.
But there's another, more subtle, benefit. At this price point, to get a touchscreen device you really need to go with a resistive screen. That means a stylus is preferable, and neither device comes with one. To be fair, the 5230 I have shipped with a guitar plectrum that was styled as the pointer, and the ZTE Racer actually has space in the internal chassis for a traditional pointer that is blocked by the battery cover, but this is a notable omission.
While tapping is still easily achieved, sliding and swiping is a lot harder on a resistive screen. Because S60 5th Edition can be perceived as a 'retrofit' of touch to the original S60 UI, the fact that the majority of operations are highlight and tap, rather than touch, slide and release means that it's far, far easier to drive the 5230 with or without a stylus. Android has enough elements that are focussed on the swipe method of input that, coupled with the cheaper touch input, it's just awkward to use on this screen technology.
Android is not yet ready for the low end market – not without some serious changes to accommodate the interface offered by cheaper hardware or the constraints placed on the system by slower CPU chips and less memory.
Symbian will have to keep a careful eye here as well, because one of their strong points here is accidental. Hopefully the marriage of Symbian^3's streamlined interface to the requirement for capacitive touch will bear fruit, though it'll take a while for this combination to make it down to this 'budget' price level.
Final Thoughts
Of course, last year's high end device is next year's bargain basement device, and many devices are purchased with a big discount on hardware through the network subsidy. That means the advantages in the 5230 are transitory at best, and might not be worthwhile points going into 2011. The rate of change is going to be fast. Both Android and Symbian know this and are going to be fighting in this arena more often over the next twelve months, and I'll be keeping a close eye on it.
In summary, Android works on a £100 budget smartphone, but the hardware and software need a few iterations to work well. Symbian has a great operating system that is proven to be rock solid and that makes lowering your bill of materials a valid choice, but it needs to continue to improve the customer-focussed areas to stay relevant in a fickle market. Right now it is ahead, but not by much.
-- Ewan Spence, Sept 2010.