Two recent studies illustrate the issue, which to be fair, is complicated not just by handset manufacturers but by the carriers too, who have to test them, integrate their own services, then push them out to handsets. Having said that, all handset makers have to deal with the carriers, and several manufacturers are far faster than Samsung.

Take this Computerworld research from last week, for example. Motorola’s Android phones have waited 54.5 days on average for an upgrade to Android 2.2, or Froyo. HTC handsets fare just slightly worse at a wait of 56 days. And then there are Samsung phones, which on average, wait 159 days. And some are still waiting, even as Gingerbread, or Android 2.3 has launched: Samsung’s Galaxy S devices have faced a “coming next month” upgrade path each month since September of last year.

If statistical analysis of the calendar doesn’t sway you, perhaps some basic facts will. Yesterday, PC Magazine created a chart of the top Android phones, what version of Android they shipped with, and what version of Android they currently run. It’s easy to spot which handset manufacturer is behind the others: Samsung’s entire line of Galaxy S devices is behind the curve and in a big way. The jump from Android 2.1 to 2.2 is far more significant than the next jump after that; I’m running Gingerbread (2.3) currently, and aside from a little more polish and shine, most users won’t see a difference from the prior version until developers take advantage of new under-the-hood features.

Back to T-Mobile and the new Galaxy S 4G then: If the slow Android update cycle for Samsung devices is recognized by consumers, will that play a part in the success of T-Mobile’s newest handset? I posed that question to my Twitter followers this afternoon, and here are some of the responses:

@KevinCTofel For the average consumer doubtful, for android fans no doubt about it. Same way I feel about Dell.—
Sloan Bowman (@sloanb) January 20, 2011

@KevinCTofel The two things I constantly read about Samsung – cheap plastic feel & slow-to-no updates = no Samsung for me!—
bubbatex (@TheBubbaTex) January 20, 2011

@KevinCTofel It has scared me away from replacing my Nexus One with anything from Samsung.—
Sean Brady (@seanabrady) January 20, 2011

@KevinCTofel normals don't care. It will sell because of the 4g branding.—
Jason Smith (@ohpleaseno) January 20, 2011

There were other insightful tweets, but rather than list them all, here’s a summary for you: Early adopters and power users are leery of Samsung’s track record, but purchase decisions by newer smartphone owners won’t likely be impacted, which would be good news for T-Mobile by attracting more consumers to its fast HSPA+ network.

That’s a fair answer to the question, which may even be helped by T-Mobile announcing Thursday that its current Samsung Galaxy S phone, the Vibrant, will finally begin to see the Android 2.2 update starting tomorrow. Such news follows recent reports that Samsung was holding back the upgrade to gain more support dollars from U.S. carriers. Not so, said T-Mobile today to PC Mag, indicating that Samsung provided the update back in late November. It’s just taken until now for the operator to test and get its carrier-branded bits in the update.

Does Samsung’s history with Android updates have any impact on your decision to buy a Samsung smartphone on Google’s platform, or do you simply hope they’ll come through in the future?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Why Carriers Should Care About Customer Care
• Marketing Handsets in the Superphone Era
• Why Carriers Still Hold the Key to Handset Sales

According to Engadget, iPhone user Antoni Nygaard managed to activate the hidden multi-touch gesture features on his device using the iOS 4.3 pre-release software (as well as options to change the function of the iPhone’s mute button to a rotation lock, another iPad import). BGR also has screenshots of the gestures in action and the relevant Settings screen from a separate source. Nygaard’s demonstration of the feature in action can be seen in the video below.

Apple dampened anticipation surrounding the new gestures for iPad when it noted, alongside the release of the second beta of iOS 4.3, that these would not be included in the pubic release of the update, and were intended for testing purposes only. The gestures are even less likely to make it into a public 4.3 release on the iPhone, since they aren’t an acknowledged feature of the beta.

So why is the feature there? There are those who argue that it’s because Apple is going to get rid of the home button (that adorable one with the white rounded rectangle) in future hardware iterations of the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. It’s true that the gestures replace navigation duties normally handled by the home button, making it possible to fully use the devices without ever touching such a button. But just because it can be done, does that mean it should?

The Case For

Gestures. The presence of the gestures themselves are probably the most convincing evidence in favor of a home buttonless future for iOS devices. Why else would Apple be testing not only app switching through swipes, but also the ability to bring up the multitasking tray and to return to the home screen, both of which taken together currently make up the bulk of the home button’s duties? Feature redundancy for its own sake isn’t one of Apple’s prevailing design principles. Ever look for the physical volume knob on a Mac?

Apple Hates Buttons. The latest iPod shuffle is a rare exception, but speaking generally, Apple has a tendency to do away with physical buttons if it can get away with it. The new nano is a prime example of the culmination of Apple’s design aesthetic: a touchscreen device with a thin bezel and no buttons on its face. Its simple swipe-back navigation works fine for the nano, but is obviously too limiting for an iPhone or iPod touch. Hence the introduction of more complex multi-touch gestures on devices that allow for them, like those mentioned above.

Smaller Devices With Bigger Screens. As Kevin pointed out, Apple may start thinking about equipping the iPhone with a larger display, and soon. Four-inch and larger screens have become de rigueur on many Android devices, and while the Retina Display still gives Apple a major advantage, a bigger Retina Display would provide a bigger advantage for video and gaming enjoyment. If Apple removes the home button, it can increase screen size without adding much or any bulk to the iPhone itself.

The Case Against

Usability. As you can see from the video above, things get pretty cramped when you’re trying to use four-finger gestures on the iPhone, assuming Apple doesn’t increase the overall size of the iPhone. Even putting that aside, gestures on both the iPad and the iPhone are far from intuitive (as Jon Gruber notes), unlike a big, obvious hardware button sitting all by its lonesome on the face of the device. It’s hard to imagine Apple implementing a control scheme that requires an introductory walk-through as the default mode of getting around its mobile OS, which is the benchmark of simplicity in most other regards.

Accessibility. The home button has a very key function that probably isn’t used by most, but is important nonetheless. It can be configured to enable various accessibility options, including toggling VoiceOver, white on black, zoom modes, and having your device prompt you for a command. These are things that can’t or shouldn’t be rerouted to gestures, and that might prove confusing and awkward (read: less accessible) if attached to volume or sleep buttons.

Keeping Button Roles Clearly Defined. Apple would also have to reassign things like taking screenshots (currently done by pressing the home and sleep buttons simultaneously) and performing a hard reset (holding the home and sleep buttons simultaneously). Redirecting these functions to some combination of volume and sleep buttons would be a confusing change.

The iPod Shuffle. As mentioned, Apple went back on its buttonless iPod shuffle design after users and reviewers complained. The shuffle is a safe playground for testing new features like a buttonless interface, since consumers aren’t investing much in it and in Apple’s larger revenue picture, it represents only a very small part. It’s hard to imagine Apple taking the same chance with either the iPhone or iPad, which are revenue stars for the company and much more likely to leave a lasting bad taste in the mouth of consumers.

Home Is Where the UX Is

While Apple testing gesture controls at this juncture might indicate that the company is considering taking away the home button in future iOS devices, I think rumors of a buttonless iPhone 5 or iPad 2 are extremely premature. There’s too much at stake, and not enough potential return to justify a change like that. The home button is, in fact, at the core of why iOS devices are so easy to just pick up and use. Apple’s not going to go messing with its biggest competitive advantage and make adoption harder.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• 5 Companies That Ruled Mobile in 2010
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies to Watch in 2011
• 5 Connected Consumer Companies That Ruled 2010

I’ve been an avid Netflix user for years, so I’ve accumulated quite a list of instant titles in my instant queue: about 450 at last count. So imagine my surprise when 160 of those titles were no longer available for streaming — and this happened after I had already chosen to discontinue the DVD-by-mail portion of my subscription. But it’s not just the number of movies that had dropped out of the streaming service, but the quality of the movies that were no longer available: award-winnings films like The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II, indie favorites like The Royal Tenenbaums and Fargo, even cult classics like A Nightmare on Elm Street have all disappeared from the streaming service.

At the same time that some top content has passed out of my instant queue, the quality of new content being added seems (to me) to have markedly depreciated. While Netflix’s “Top Picks for Ryan” and overall recommendations system is still pretty good at pinpointing new content I’ll find interesting, I’ve noticed that I’m finding less and less of interest in the “New Movies to Watch Instantly” that have been added to the company’s streaming library. Sure, I might check out I’m Still Here just to see what all the buzz is about, and maybe — maybe — I’ll watch 70s classics like Woody Allen’s All You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex or Dustin Hoffman’s turn as Lenny. But by and large, the new additions to Netflix’s streaming library pale in comparison to the content that just fell out of my Instant Queue.

Surely, Netflix is going through some growing pains right now. For all its success in growing its subscriber base and building a distribution platform for streaming content to practically every connected device known to man, Hollywood studios are growing increasingly wary of its market power. Some executives — like Time Warner Chairman and CEO Jeff Bewkes — are openly hostile towards the company, while others are merely ambivalent about Netflix. While it is writing bigger and bigger checks to secure streaming rights to their content, it’s also eating away at DVD sales and could be prompting some consumers to cancel their cable subscriptions.

The overwhelming attitude towards Netflix seems to be that studios are willing to license their content — but for a price. And as this price goes ever higher, Netflix is having to pick and choose which streaming rights it wants to maintain and which it chooses to let lapse. All this could be what’s behind the big drop-off in availability of streaming titles that have interested me.

We’ve largely praised Netflix for being able to secure some high-profile content over the last year or so, including striking a deal with Epix to bring its streaming library to Netflix subscribers, and doing exclusive deals with indie film studios like Relativity Media and FilmDistrict to get exclusive access to their movies in the pay TV window. But all those exclusive, first-run deals come at a price; Netflix is reportedly paying upwards of $200 million a year for Epix content and another $150-$200 million for a deal it struck with Disney for access to ABC and Disney TV content.

The problem comes when access to new releases — especially new releases that aren’t particularly good — comes at the expense of library content that members still find valuable. For me, one of the key benefits of the service is being able to fire up a browser or my Xbox and choose from a wide variety of content that I find appealing. There’s still plenty of titles to choose from (including the other 280 films and TV shows in my Instant Queue), but the proportion of quality content disappearing versus that which is being added is troubling.

If Netflix hopes to keep its existing user base — and not just tack on new users — it should be aware of these issues. The company has long been criticized for not having enough quality content in its streaming library. While I was never one to complain about that, now more than ever I’m finding that sentiment to be true.

Related content on GigaOM Pro: (subscription required)

• Three Reasons Hulu Plus is No Threat to Netflix
• Report: The Connected TV Marketplace
• Connected Consumer 2011: What Not to Expect

Using a Verizon handset for voice and web surfing at the same time hasn’t been possible in the past, because Verizon uses one network for both voice and data. So current CDMA handsets on Verizon must pause their cellular data connection in order to use the network for voice. If the leaked training slide is accurate, Verizon and HTC have come up with a solution for that limitation. While it could be some type of VoIP offering over LTE such as VoLTE (Voice over LTE), I suspect it isn’t, for a few reasons.

The GSMA, the governing body of GSM telecommunications systems, launched a VoLTE initiative only last year. The intent is to create a set of standards for voice communication over LTE networks, which unlike current 3G networks, are completely IP-based. It’s going to take time for those standards to evolve, and I simply don’t see Verizon trying to set the standard for the rest of the world, especially since the operator is just now beginning to adopt GSM technologies.

Adding to that challenge is the lack of LTE network coverage; Verizon’s next-generation network currently covers 38 markets and about one-third of the U.S. population. The carrier expects to cover 140 additional markets by the end of 2011. How would a VoLTE-capable phone handle a voice call when leaving a 4G coverage area? The digital call would have to seamlessly route over to the analog network and that’s simply too complicated. As it is today, available LTE data sticks take time to switch back and forth from 4G to 3G, for example, and any delay would create a poor voice experience.

More likely to me is the idea of managing voice and data through completely separate radios within a handset such as the ThunderBolt. In an LTE coverage area, the data connection would be handled on the faster 4G network and voice would simply be handled as it is today: on the CDMA network. Through software management and multiple radios, this solution seems most likely to me in the short term to provide simultaneous voice and data on Verizon’s network. It’s worth noting that among the new LTE handsets, only the ThunderBolt is using Qualcomm’s new silicon, combining a Snapdragon system-on-a-chip with a Gobi-enabled LTE modem.

We should know soon if indeed the ThunderBolt will handle voice and data at the same time because my sources say that among the four new LTE handsets Verizon will launch in the first half of 2011, the ThunderBolt is the most likely one to launch first. That makes sens,e because aside from Motorola, no other smartphone vendor has partnered as much with Verizon than HTC in the past year or two. The other two LTE handsets expected by June are coming from LG and Samsung, which don’t have as much of a smartphone history with Verizon.

It’s possible that some early standard of VoLTE will appear on the ThunderBolt, but my money is on a multiple radio solution that totally separates voice and data to handle simultaneous use. And if I’m correct, that means you’ll only be able to talk and surf on such devices where you have both 3G and LTE coverage. Consider it a stop-gap measure until a true VoLTE standard evolves, which gives Verizon more time to build out its LTE network.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Mobile 2011: Data Consumption Will Explode
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories
• For Operators Who Bet on WiMAX, There’s an LTE Plan B

The report estimates the global market will be worth $25 billion by 2015, with Apple’s App Store accounting for 20.5 percent of total revenues. While on-deck stores like Android Market and the App Store represent 3/4 of app revenues, off-deck application downloads are expected to grow faster through independent stores like GetJar and others and will ultimately eclipse on-deck stores by 2015. This is consistent with another report by Chetan Sharma Consulting last year, which forecast that off-deck mobile app sales will eclipse on-deck, operator-managed mobile app sales by 2012. That report was commissioned by GetJar, but the latest forecast by MarketsandMarkets validates that conclusion.

If this holds true, it suggests developers will have to embrace the increasing complexity of multiple app markets. Amazon, for example, recently launched a new app market for Android, joining other markets from carriers such as Verizon Wireless. While it may mean more work updating multiple apps in various stores, the payoff may be greater for developers willing to wade into various app stores. And as the numbers show, Apple’s dominance in app revenues will subside over time as competing platforms mature into solid revenue makers for app developers. That’s another reason for app developers to look at all their options.

Overall, the consistent theme out of the latest MarketsandMarkets report is that the app revolution is real and only getting bigger. With the Apple App Store hitting 300,000 apps and poised to hit 10 billion downloads, the overall market for apps has shown remarkable growth in the past few years. MarketsandMarkets estimates that mobile apps generated $6.8 billion revenue in 2010 and is expected to grow by 29.6 percent between 2009 and 2014.

The research firm said mobile app downloads grew by 146 percent in 2008 to 1 billion, then jumped to 6.4 billion downloads in 2009. The biggest market for revenue is North America, which had 41.6 percent share in 2009. Asia, however, is the largest market for downloads, while the European market is expected to become the largest market for downloads by 2015.

Related research on GigaOM Pro (sub. req’d):

• Why RIM’s Future (Unfortunately) Hinges on BlackBerry OS 6
• Why Google Launched App Inventor
• Is Amazon the New Self-Publish Kingpin?

The Zokem study shows that iPhone has a vast lead over all others when it comes to platform loyalty; the “loyalty index” for iPhone, a figure between -100 and +100, is 73. Android’s loyalty index comes in at number two with a score of 40, followed by mobile platforms from Samsung, Research In Motion, Nokia, Microsoft and Palm.

The low loyalty score for Symbian S60 devices makes sense, because Zokem polled U.S. residents and few subsidized S60 handsets are sold here. After stagnating, Windows Mobile has been recently replaced by the brand-new Windows Phone 7 and Palm’s webOS has only seen a slightly revised new device in the past year in the Palm Pre 2. And RIM’s BlackBerry loyalty scores don’t surprise either; when the new BlackBerry OS 6 arrived, I said that it might appeal to current BlackBerry owners, but few new users, since iOS and Android devices have gained enterprise functionality.

What is surprising, at least to me, is that even though iPhone owners show the most loyalty, they’re not the group most likely to stick with their current platform. That distinction belongs to Google Android owners, 89 percent of which expect their new smartphone to run Android too. By comparison, 85 percent of iPhone owners surveyed expect to stick with Apple for their next phone.

This seems counterintuitive to me; if iPhone owners are more satisfied with their platform than Android owners, why are Android owners still planning to use Android on future phones? The only thought that comes to mind has less to do with the platform, and more to do with the apps. Google apps, such as Mail, Maps and Voice, for example, are either more fully featured or simply provide a better experience on Android devices. I’m sure there are other reasons, but that one stands out in particular as a growing number of consumers rely on Google services. Of course, in the U.S., some iPhone owners are less than satisfied with their network. Zokem’s survey took place before the recent Verizon iPhone news, so it’s possible that some iPhone owners were considering Android for a different network.

Whatever the reason, the bigger concern should be held by all of the other competing platforms. I’ve argued in the past that as consumers invest more in applications for a specific smartphone platform, the less likely they are to switch. That’s a potential hurdle to Microsoft’s new Windows Phone 7 devices, although they offer unique functionality such as Office Mobile and Xbox Live integration. Palm, Nokia and Research In Motion too will be challenged in the future because of app lock-in, unless they can each come up with some compelling reason for customers to buy their phones in the future. They may want to start by finding out how to boost satisfaction with their platforms, which ought to help increase product loyalty.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Why RIM’s Future (Unfortunately) Hinges on BlackBerry OS 6
• Nokia’s Tie-Up With Microsoft Won’t Help
• Needed: A Neiman Marcus for Mobile Apps

SD Card Slot

The latest rumor making the rounds is that the iPad will indeed have an SD memory card slot. This isn’t the first time such expansion is a possibility for the iPad 2, but now it’s been reported by a “trusted source” talking to Engadget, and it’s showing up in case designs from multiple manufacturers, as identified separately by AppleInsider and MIC Gadget. Since Apple already offers a way to access SD cards via the iPad Camera Connection Kit, there’s no good reason the company would object to building in the same functionality. In fact, it’s possible the only reason an SD slot wasn’t included the first time around was that it wouldn’t fit in the case.

Mini DisplayPort

The same case designs that back up the SD card slot rumor also indicate that another port will be introduced at the top of the device. The cutout for this alleged port is quite small, leaving few options for what it might be. Mini DisplayPort is a likely candidate, since even though it would eliminate the need for the iPad dock connector-to-VGA adapter, Apple could still sell various Mini DisplayPort converter accessories. A far less likely possibility for the spot is a micro-USB port, but there’s no way Apple would include that and still keep the dock connector.

“Retina” Display

The iPhone 4 introduced the world to the Retina Display, a 960×640 pixel screen with 331 ppi, a pixel density apparently beyond the threshold of human detection that makes for super crisp text and graphics. According to recent rumors stemming from resources found in the latest version of Apple iBooks app (1.2), the iPad will get twice the resolution it currently enjoys, bringing the total from 1024×768 to 2048×1536. As Kevin notes, that only adds up to a pixel density of 265 ppi, which, while not at the same level as the iPhone, is still a massive improvement, and will probably still be granted the “Retina” from Apple’s marketing department. Simply doubling the display resolution makes sense, since it’ll allow existing iPad apps to be compatible with the iPad 2 through zooming, though image quality will be somewhat degraded.

Front and Back Cameras

If there is any “sure thing” for the iPad 2, it’s that it will have two cameras: one in front for FaceTime, and one in the back for… well, actually, on a 9.7-inch tablet, probably mostly for occasional FaceTime use, too. Using it for general photographic and film-making seems incredibly awkward, even if the iPad 2 does sport a lighter, smaller body design.

Lighter, Smaller Body Design

Case designs and an actual iPad 2 mock-up used by a developer at CES earlier this month seem to support the idea that the next iPad will be smaller and slimmer than its predecessor. This is a standard improvement for new iterations of Apple gadgets, and it could help appease customers asking for a 7-inch iPad, something the company seems unwilling to provide. AppleInsider recently reported on an Apple patent that would allow the company to reduce the thickness and power consumption of capacitive touchscreens, which could be partially responsible for a new, smaller physical footprint in iPad 2.

Improved Processing and Graphics Power

The iPad 2 (along with the iPhone 5) is expected to get a new version of Apple’s custom A4 system-on-a-chip. According to a source talking to AppleInsider, the new version will have dual graphics cores to support the new Retina Display, and to allow for 1080p video playback (the current version tops out at 720p). The new graphics cores support OpenCL to share the burden of general purpose computing tasks with the GPU. The new chip will also pair the dual graphics cores with a dual core ARM Cortex-A9 chip for general processing. With a huge crop of potential iPad competitors unveiled at CES, these kinds of performance improvements are almost a necessity, but as is always the case with Apple products, hardware specs take a backseat to actual user experience, so if we see more modest improvements I won’t be surprised.

The iPad, Only Better

That’s the rumor picture of the iPad 2 as it currently stands. While all of these might not pan out, it’s worth remembering that no matter what the predictions made prior to an Apple product launch, and whatever the initial reaction to what does get announced, Apple consistently delivers a product that’s much better than the one that preceded it. Whatever its features, rest assured that the iPad 2 won’t be an exception to this rule.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories
• Can Anyone Compete With the iPad?
• Why Apple Hasn’t Sewn Up the Tablet Market — Yet

What exactly is Siegler comparing? One the iOS side, he’s counting the major version, iOS 4, and all other minor versions, i.e., 4.1, 4.2, etc. … Yet on the Android side, he’s specifically saying that Android 2.3 is the only one that matters. If you have Android 2.1 or 2.2, you’re behind and simply don’t count in Siegler’s world. Simply put: Counting the major and minor versions on one side the equation means you have to count them on the other side too.

And what happens when you do that, using the most current Google Android dashboard numbers? You find that 87.4 percent of Android devices are on version 2.x, which is statistically the exact same as the number of iOS handsets on version 4.x. I could give Siegler’s article the benefit of the doubt if he’d never used Gingerbread and assumed it was completely different from Android 2.2, but he reviewed a Nexus S with Gingerbread. He knows the same thing I know because I’m running a custom Gingerbread ROM on my Nexus One: The differences are very subtle and the number of new features are relatively few.

Questionable use of statistics aside, there is a valid point to be made here in terms of Android updates as compared to those from Apple for iOS devices. With the exception of the Nexus devices, the carriers, and not Google, shoot over-the-air updates to Android devices. By and large then, carriers control the Android experience, which is very different from how Apple controls the iPhone experience. Google tried to wrest this control from carriers with the Nexus One, but had to give up in order to get carriers to adopt the Android operating system.

In return, Android consumers gain a choice of hardware form factors and features not found on the iPhone. Want a portrait or landscape keyboard with physical buttons? You can buy that. Have to have a whopping 4.3-inch screen? There are a few of those available now and plenty more coming this year. These are just two examples, and they’re important to point out because each hardware variance means a potential impact to the software updates; carriers and handset manufacturers have to ensure that Android works with the hardware. Yes, they use the time to put in their own apps and customizations too, but they can’t just take Google’s code and immediately push it out to phones.

This situation allows Android handset owners to be considered “second class citizens” in the eyes of the carriers. After all, which do carriers consider a better investment: spending money to upgrade phones they’ve already sold or spending money on new handsets to gain new customers? Sadly, I suspect the latter situation is more prevalent, which is why many Android handsets don’t see up minor version OS upgrades for months, if ever. The T-Mobile myTouch 3G (3.5mm jack and Fender editions) are just now getting Android 2.2, for example, even though the devices hit market in October of 2009.

Unfortunately, Android is still a mobile blend of the old-school carrier control combined with a flexible and customizable mobile operating system. And unless Google asserts itself by trying to wrest back control of the platform from the carriers — something I don’t think it can easily do at this point — most Android owners will continue to be at the mercy of the carriers: a totally different situation from the Apple world.

Back to the original source for this post: I still completely respect Siegler and he’s probably the most likely competitor I’d love to sit back and have a few beers with over an iOS vs Android conversation. (MG: the first round is on me.) But based on his choice of statistics for this particular topic, I’m wondering if he and his iPhone are already waiting for me at the bar, clouding judgement on what the definition of “current version” really is. Using the more appropriate rationalization that the minor versions count too, the majority of Android handsets have been current for months.

Oh, and just to proactively cut off the expected “fanboi” comments, I’ll disclose that I did dump my iPhone for the Nexus One a year ago. But it’s also worth the mention that I’ve been using my 4th generation iPod touch more and more of late — so much so that I’m thinking of moving back to iPhone this summer and simply using my 7-inch Galaxy Tab for my Android experience. It may depend on Apple boosting the screen size of the iPhone, simply because I prefer a larger display on my smartphone.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Why Carriers Should Care About Customer Care
• Marketing Handsets in the Superphone Era
• Why Carriers Still Hold the Key to Handset Sales

Facebook has certainly had its troubles with the film in the past, and for good reason. There are plenty of well-documented arguments justifying Zuckerberg anger about the movie. It’s not exactly flattering. It paints him as something between arrogant and autistic. It suggests he’d sell his friends out for a buck. And it misrepresents his love life quite drastically for dramatic effect.

But Zuckerberg, despite the funds at his disposal, has essentially done nothing to shut it down. Why? Because he understands that the publicity generated by the movie ultimately makes him — and therefore Facebook — look more interesting than reality.

After I watched the film with some friends, we talked about it. Some admired the way the film managed to deliver a fairly accurate on-screen representation of programming — because, let’s face it, making coding look sexy is about as hard a task as you can imagine. Other friends thought it immature and demeaning to technologists.

Personally, I found the film a little boring. But I did emerge with an image of Zuckerberg that was, if not positive then certainly more powerful than it had been. The pseudo-Zuckerberg portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg might not be somebody I’d want to hang out with, but he was probably going to take over the world.

On screen, he is smart, rapacious and intimidatingly clever. He might clash with his friends, but he is willing to do whatever it took to turn Facebook into a success story. He is driven, analytical and apparently destined for success. I would lay money on the fact that investors at Goldman Sachs saw the movie and thought admiringly of this cutthroat young man who was motivated by a chance of glory.

In real life, of course, there’s plenty to be said for Zuckerberg’s leadership: he’s focused and determined, and has played it smart almost every step of the way. He might get caught asking for forgiveness rather than permission, he might have more than a few lawsuits on his hands, and might be redrawing popular concepts of privacy — but he’s found success almost every time he’s turned the corner. And whatever you think of Facebook’s $50 billion valuation, it certainly makes his regular decisions to keep hold of the company look like genius.

However, as an individual, he remains largely in the shadows. Even as Facebook has moved out of college dorms and into mainstream life, he kept fairly quiet. The odd awkward interview at SXSW or sweaty appearance at All Things Digital aside, he’s restricted his public persona.

But The Social Network has changed all that, and Zuckerberg has used the opportunity, whether it’s making a headline-grabbing appearance on Oprah, a confident keynote at the Web 2.0 Summit or racking up millions more users and big investors.

In the end, it’s this approach that has surprised me most about Zuckerberg, and demonstrated that he is even more clever than he is usually given credit for.

It’s unusual for somebody who clearly loves to be in control to hand his public image over to Hollywood, but Zuckerberg appears to have recognized that in the space of two hours, The Social Network does more to bring him alive than any public appearance could ever manage. Myth, in cases like this, is often more important than fact — and by giving the myth room to breathe, Zuckerberg proves he’s not just a business mind, but also a master of public relations. After all, he can let the Hollywood version of himself hog the spotlight while he laughs all the way to the bank.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• How Much is Facebook’s Market Power Worth?
• 4 NewNet Companies That Made Headlines in 2010
• What Facebook Messages Is Really After

• It can still be a “retina display.” The iPhone 4 display shows 330 ppi, or pixels per inch, but the definition of the “retina display” marketing term isn’t solely based on the ppi. If it were, then reported 2048×1536 won’t qualify because on a 9.7-inch display, that only works out to 265 ppi. The other part of the equation is how far the screen is from the eye because the further away one holds the device, the harder it becomes for the human eye to resolve individual pixels. Based on my personal observations of how people use mobile devices, one constant generally holds true, with few exceptions: The larger the display, the farther the device is held and used. Meaning: a 4-inch iPhone at 960×640 resolution, or 288 ppi (a greater density than the expected iPad, by the way), could be held out another inch or two from today’s iPhone and still appear to have the same visual quality.
• The competition is bigger. Nearly every hot new smartphone I saw at the Consumer Electronics Show that will be compared to Apple’s iPhone had a few common denominators, with one being larger displays. Most had 4.3-inch screens, some with the standard Android resolution of 800×480, but a few with what are called qHD screens. These use a 960×540 resolution, or nearly that of the iPhone’s 960×640. The trend for larger displays on high-end smartphones is growing, not shrinking.
• A larger display won’t impact phone size that much. Barring a non-button approach, increasing the display size of a phone is sure to make the device bigger. But the size boost could be marginal. Samsung’s Galaxy S handset, for example, uses a 4-inch display, as compared to iPhone’s 3.5-inch screen, but the Galaxy S isn’t much bigger, even with its front-facing camera and home button. The Samsung phone measures in at 122.4 mm (4.82 in) x 64.2 mm (2.53 in) x 9.9 mm (0.39 in). Apple’s iPhone 4, with a smaller display, is 115.2 mm (4.54 in) x 58.66 mm (2.309 in) x 9.3 mm (0.37 in). The difference in size is negligible.
• Mobile video consumption is on the rise. Although I’d argue that watching video is more enjoyable on an iPad, Android tablet or even a notebook computer, video consumption on the go continues to increase. A Bytemobile study in October reported that mobile video traffic was 39 percent of all data traffic, eclipsing even web traffic on mobile devices. Granted, video over the web can use more traffic than all other activity types, but this is just one data point. Early data from after the iPad launch indicated that consumers use the device three times more to watch video than traditional web users. And YouTube Mobile traffic nearly doubled in the second half of 2009 from the first six months of the year. It’s great to watch video on the iPhone’s 3.5-inch retina display, but the experience improves with a 4- or 4.3-inch screen with a similar resolution.

One the of the biggest arguments against a larger iPhone screen is that it won’t be considered a retina display any longer. If iPad 2 at 265 ppi qualifies, then surely an iPhone with 4-inch display at 288 ppi will too. And while much of this argument hinges upon the screen resolution of the next iPad, I can’t believe that Apple’s iPhone will use the same screen size forever. There’s simply no reason the handset can’t gain a boost in screen size, while still keeping the resolution crisp on a device that’s easily pocketable. The entire experience improves with a larger display because users feel less constrained– not just for video — web browsing requires less zooming, gaming controls feel more spread out and it’s easier to use the keyboard.

To me, it’s not a question of “if” the iPhone gains a larger display, but rather one of “when,” and I suspect its coming soon. I’m curious to hear thoughts from readers to see if this would be welcome change or it’s simply not needed because the iPhone 4 screen with its retina display is perfect at 3.5-inches in size.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Marketing Handsets in the Superphone Era
• Can Anyone Compete With the iPad?
• For Phones, the Future is Multiple Cores

That pessimistic view of AT&T’s chances is given a big push by this survey by ChangeWave, which must count as one of the most drastic predictions of the impact Verizon selling the iPhone will have on the market. According to the numbers, a full 16 per cent of AT&T users intend to switch to Verizon as soon as it starts selling the iPhone.

(It’s worth noting, too, that this question was asked before the February launch was confirmed, so it would be reasonable to suggest the numbers could be even higher now.)

So what does that mean for AT&T? Panic stations? Perhaps not.

In fact, prior experience suggests that the Verizon iPhone will almost certainly going to have a smaller impact on AT&T’s sales figures than ChangeWave’s research suggests.

Why? Well, for a start, there’s the significant difference between somebody saying they’ll switch providers and those actually doing it.

Then there are the mitigating factors that also make a difference: coverage, contract expiration dates, termination fees and other obstacles. With all that taken into account, Kevin’s smart analysis of the impact, suggests there may as many as one or two million switchers out there.

But there’s another important factor worth remembering too: This isn’t a zero-sum game.

To find out what I mean, it’s worth taking a look across the Atlantic to see what happened when the iPhone lost its exclusivity in the UK.

When the iPhone first launched in Britain, it was — just like in the U.S. — subject to an exclusive deal with one company. The O2 network had played a hard and expensive game to land the deal, and it kept hold of the exclusivity for two years, despite criticisms that O2’s network wasn’t good enough and that coverage was spotty (sound familiar?).

Then, through late 2009 and early 2010, with pressure increasing from European competition regulators, the lock was lifted, and the rest of the country’s voracious mobile operators got an in. Suddenly the iPhone was everywhere: Orange shifted a record number of handsets in a single day. Vodafone, a short while later, had to contend with “phenomenal” demand and managed 100,000 sales in a week. The story was similar on other networks.

People had expected an exodus from O2, but it didn’t seem to happen that way. In fact, the company that had most to lose seemed to benefit: iPhone sales seemed to accelerate. In February 2010, just after its rivals first started selling the handset, the company announced that it had passed 2 million iPhone sales. By July that year, just four months later, it had racked up another million.

Rather than sinking after losing exclusivity, a broader market for the iPhone seemed to become a rising tide that lifted all boats.

There are qualifiers, of course: perhaps O2’s sales would have been higher if it still had exclusivity, and perhaps competition means it’s making less money on each sale. But what’s clear is that a wider, competitive market has helped the iPhone in Britain. Rather than having to cope with a smaller and smaller slice of the market, the pie just kept getting bigger.

There will be switchers, of course. If you live in an area where Verizon can provide service and AT&T struggles, it’s a no-brainer. If you can get a good deal and your contract is up, it will be enticing. But rather than being a battle where one must lose in order for the other to win, it’s just possible that both AT&T and Verizon could benefit from the competition.

Related GigaOM Pro Content (sub req’d):

• Everybody Hertz: The Looming Spectrum Crisis
• The Internet of Things: What It Is, Why It Matters
• 4G: State of the Union

James Choi, marketing strategy and planning team director of LG Electronics global, said LG had high expectations for the WP7 launch, but from a consumer visibility perspective, the November introduction fell short of expectations. This comes after Microsoft said it sold 1.5 million phones to retailers, but gave no indication of end-user sales. But Choi said WP7 addresses a large audience who might find Android too complicated for them.

“What we feel is that it is absolutely perfect for a huge segment out there. What we feel is that some people believe that some operating systems, mainly Google, are extremely complicated for them. But Windows Phone 7 is very intuitive and easy to use,” Choi said. “For tech guys like us it might be a little bit boring after a week or two, but there are certain segments that it really appeals to. We strongly feel that it has a strong potential even though the first push wasn’t what everyone expected.”

Choi makes clear that Windows Phone 7 is still a priority for LG, because in many ways, it brings balance to LG’s portfolio. While Android is increasingly a leader in smartphones, it’s a tricky proposition for carriers and manufacturers to be tied to one platform. Choi said WP7 is set up to be a good counterweight to Android for many mobile players including operators, who Choi says are worried there’s “too much Android,” in their portfolios.

This could be the talk of an executive not interested in angering Microsoft. But there is merit to what he says. There is, I think, a good position to being an alternative to Google, which in itself shot to fame by being the best alternative to Apple’s iOS. For manufacturers and operators, it’s nice to keep the number of platforms they support limited, but a reliance on Android could eventually leave them with fewer options for differentiation. Windows Phone 7 may not be the answer in the long run. We’ll know more later but it has the opportunity to be fresh alternative to Android.

The problem, Choi said, is that Windows Phone 7 is only aimed at the high-end space because of Microsoft’s hardware requirements. But he said if and when Microsoft relaxes those rules and allows more low and mid-tier phones, he expects Windows Phone 7 sales to pick up. As I’ve written before, Windows Phone 7 has a decent shot at taking away some higher end Android customers because it provides one of the most polished user experiences this side of the iPhone, something Choi seems to agree with.

If WP7 can establish itself as the most credible alternative to the iPhone, it could still catch on, because I think simplicity and cost are what many mainstream consumers want. Less than half the market has bought a smartphone, and the hold outs are going to be even more interested in ease of use. Now that the iPhone is becoming more available here in the U.S., it will be interesting to see if WP7 can still get a leg up. Microsoft has a lot of money to spend, and according to at least one parter, it still has a chance.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Could Games Redeem Windows Mobile and Palm’s webOS?
• Why Carriers Still Hold the Key to Handset Sales
• Is an iPhone- and Android-Only World the Best We Can Do?

Yesterday, Reuters reported employees at Harbinger Capital are departing on the heels of investors in the fund pulling out their money and shrinking the asset base. The Reuters story says Harbinger has tied up 40 percent of its assets in LightSquared, and its investors are nervous. Harbinger’s troubles might not be noteworthy, except that LightSquared will undoubtedly need more cash, and it may not be able to get it from its primary backer. The shrinking funds and employee departures also indicate worry over LightSquared, Harbinger’s biggest investment.

Those doubters are smart. LightSquared, which must use both terrestrial towers and satellites in its network, has experienced some setbacks with its satellite launch, including difficulty finding carrier partners and a poorly-reviewed, dual-mode, satellite and terrestrial handset. The dual-mode nature of the network is due to the spectrum that LightSquared both owns and leases from other satellite providers. Those airwaves are burdened with some FCC restrictions that require any network using satellite handsets to have both a satellite and terrestrial network component. I’ve explained why this is so burdensome: Satellites are expensive, and their data rates are slow while the handsets are generally clunkier and pricey, but Harbinger was optimistic. The FCC is too, but mostly because its plan for better broadband in the U.S. and more competition is resting on mobile broadband access for all.

To get around some of the difficulties, LightSquared said in a November filing to the FCC that it would provide 500 kilobytes of satellite capacity for every gigabyte of terrestrial capacity (PDF), which essentially means it would send less than 1/100th of a percent of its traffic over the satellite network. LightSquared hopes to convince the FCC that the traffic split still means it’s providing a dual-network service, and squares it away with the constraints attached to its spectrum.

Meanwhile, the FCC is trying to figure out how to get the MSS band owned by satellite providers to carry data traffic without drawing the ire of carriers who have opposed the FCC’s past attempts to create competition for them in the MSS band. The agency could soon vote on rules that allow satellite providers to lease their existing spectrum in the secondary market and may allow LightSquared to sign up customers who would only use the terrestrial network. A report from last week issued by investment research firm Stifel Nicolaus isn’t optimistic that this will help. It states:

We believe the FCC may soon move forward on two proceedings to provide additional flexibility for wireless broadband use of the mobile satellite (MSS) spectrum. But once again we caution investors that we do not see these steps as sufficient to free up the spectrum for stand-alone broadband wireless service in the spectrum in any of the three MSS bands currently held by Lightsquared, Inmarsat (LSE: ISAT), Globalstar (GSAT), Iridium (IRDM), TerreStar (TSTR), and ICO/DBSD (ICOG). Although it is possible the FCC may take some additional steps toward relaxing the satellite gating criteria in one of these orders, we continue to think it is more likely the agency will see how the run for incentive auction legislation goes first, or respond to a deal that is brought to the agency.

The FCC may approve LightSquared’s plan, although the National Telecommunications and Information Authority on Wednesday demanded that the FCC conduct an interference test first, which would delay things to a point where LightSquared couldn’t meet commitments to cover 9 million people by third quarter of this year, which was part of an FCC approval process for Harbinger to back LightSquared, despite being located outside the U.S.

In short, LightSquared still needs money, and it needs help from the FCC to bring its nationwide network to fruition, but both of those things may be hard to come by given the FCC’s political position after implementing network neutrality, as well as Harbinger’s financial position.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Everybody Hertz: The Looming Spectrum Crisis
• New Opportunities in the Smart Grid
• Who Will Profit From Broadband Innovation?

While the numbers reflect the obvious continued growth of the Android platform, it also solidifies the idea that Android has become the top platform for mobile advertising, which is fitting considering Google’s strength in advertising. As previous GigaOM commenters have chimed in, maybe we shouldn’t be as surprised because Android apps are designed around presenting ads. This may be instructive for developers trying to monetize their apps through ads. But as we’ve seen through evidence, iOS appears to have more revenue opportunities through paid downloads and in-app purchases.

For Google, the latest Millennial numbers are another sign that Android is still growing and matches other sales data that suggest the platform is seeing no let up in momentum. But with the introduction of a Verizon iPhone, it will be interesting to see if the numbers continue in this direction or if Apple grabs back some of its share of impressions. Millennial is the largest independent mobile advertising network.

Millennial said Android requests have grown 3,130 percent since January and 141 percent from the third quarter to the fourth quarter 2010. Apple iOS requests have grown by 12 percent from the third quarter to the fourth quarter, and 14 percent since the beginning of the year. Requests on the iPad, however, grew 280 percent in the fourth quarter sequentially, which suggests tablets are going to be a key player in mobile advertising.

Apple still remains the top manufacturer in Millennial’s data with the iPhone and iPod Touch in first and third place and the iPad in eighth place, holding off a pack of 16 Android devices in the top 30 devices on Millennial’s network.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Why Android Could Fuel Mobile Advertising
• Social Advertising Models Go Back to the Future
• Why 2010 Still Won’t Be the Year of Mobile Advertising

When Virgin Mobile rolled out its unlimited Broadband2Go service in August, we pointed out the value of the no-contract, $40 per month offering for unlimited service, which is provided on Sprint’s 3G network. At the time, the deal was half the price of comparable prepaid service from Verizon. And now, just six months later, the “unlimited” nature of the plan will be capped by speed throttling, the same method T-Mobile implemented last April for its data plans.

The Virgin Mobile plan change in the U.S. follows a modification from T-Mobile UK earlier today, which cut its “unlimited” 1 GB monthly plan in half. At this point 3 is the only mobile broadband provider in the UK testing the unlimited data plan waters while here in the U.S., only Sprint, and it’s WiMAX partner Clearwire, offer all-you-can-use data plans among the largest carriers. With such unpredictable variances in data demand, combined with the number of mobile broadband subscribers about to surpass wired subscribers around the globe, it’s clearly becoming a challenge for any provider to offer truly unlimited mobile data.

Related GigaOM Pro Content (sub req’d):

• Who Will Profit From Broadband Innovation?
• The New Net-Neutrality Debate: What’s the Best Way to Discriminate?
• When It Comes to Pain at the Pipe, Upstream Is the New Downstream

The phone that Verizon is announcing today is nearly eight months old. That makes it a senior citizen given Apple’s established iPhone hardware upgrade cycle of 12 months. The next iPhone will almost certainly make its debut at the Worldwide Developer’s Conference in June, and should go on sale not long after that. There’s no reason to expect it not to be leaps and bounds better than its predecessor. More processing power, better battery life, and maybe even NFC all seem to be in the cards.

Judging by the images from the Verizon announcement earlier today, Apple has indeed redesigned the antenna system that forms the outside border of the iPhone 4 for this launch. Presumably, that’s to mitigate any potential antenna reception issues. It’s a nice touch if it works, but not nice enough to justify locking yourself into a two-year contract a scant few months before a complete hardware overhaul.

Verizon offers no advantage in pricing for the hardware; the 16 GB model will cost you $199 on a two-year contract, and the 32GB version is still $299. Verizon does allow the iPhone 4 to connect up to five Wi-Fi enabled devices to share its mobile network connection via Personal Hotspot capabilities. That’s a big advantage, but one that’s not going anywhere on next-generation devices. As for data pricing, that’s to be determined still, and could confer a slight advantage.

If you want an iPhone from Verizon, it must be awfully tempting now that it’s here. But remember that today’s announcement isn’t a limited-time only offer; it’s not going anywhere anytime soon. And if you’ve managed to survive this long with whatever alternative solution you have been using, you can make it a few more months. Trust me, once the excitement wears off, those who waited will be much better off.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• Mobile 2011: Data Consumption Will Explode
• Metered Mobile Data Is Coming and Here’s How
• For Operators Who Bet on WiMAX, There’s an LTE Plan B