iPhone 3G S cnet review

Ok, OK. So it represents the pinnacle of the iPhone's evolution so far. But does (what is essentially) a speed boost, copy and paste functionality, a better camera and video recording really warrant a score bump of .4 to 9.3 (easily the best mobile phone review the site has ever given)?

I know that it is a very good phone, but in my opinion the camera and the copy and paste functionality are features that should have been on the original iPhone, or at least the second iteration.

By comparison, the Palm Pre scored 7.3, despite having rather similar features and a much-lauded user interface. The Pre also has multitasking support.

Before you accuse me of not using one, my best friend has an iPhone 3G and I use it regularly. The user interface is pretty incredible, granted, but it's not the quantum leap from other mobile phones that Flora Graham seems to think it is.

I'm not accusing cnet of Apple fanboyism, I'm just wondering if they have gotten a little bit over-excited about the new features and given the iPhone 3G S a review score it doesn't deserve. In my opinion, it would be an 8.7.

Please feel free to disagree with me. I like arguing.

The app store has really taken off since the iPhone 3G was reviewed and the battery life is increased which probably help boost the score.

As for the Palm Pre all the reviewers are saying that webOS is excellent but let down by bad hardware, the same goes for Android.

O, and it does push notification for apps now

If you actually tried one side-by-side with the iPhone 3G it's amazing how much faster everything is on the 3G S, be it Safari, Applications, Startup and Shutdown. The battery life is much improved over the older model, and this is something that the Palm Pre and Android phones fall face down at. Couple it with the UI and how intuitive it all is and it's a worthy upgrade to the 3G.

Based on the speed it's definitely worth a higher score, but I would have probably gone for 9 out of 10.