Are all smart phones rubbish when compared to their ancestors? A spot of research we were sent from MyVoucherCodes.co.uk suggests that 24 per cent of folks actually preferred their crusty old blowers to the glistening smart phones of modern times. Did phones used to be better? We need your help to settle the matter.
Mobiles have changed a whole lot in the last few years -- ever since the first iPhone gave manufacturers a kick up the backside in 2007 (yes, it really was that recently), every week there's a new, faster, bigger, more powerful smart phone parachuting into our laps, looking up at us with its big front-facing camera and mewling, "Review meeee."
But we've got this nasty suspicion that old phones were actually better than their newfangled counterparts.
Think about it. Phones like the Nokia 3210 or 3310 are absolute classics, making calls and sending texts with workmanlike diligence. The new Motorola Razr that went on sale yesterday might have a 4.3-inch touchscreen and an 8-megapixel camera, but it'll never warm our cockles like the original Razr did.
Older monochrome mobiles offer vastly superior battery life, and despite advances in touchscreen tech, are often much easier to use than their modern counterparts. Old Nokia phones also boasted Snake, a mobile game so addictive it puts Angry Birds to shame, and that brilliant old composer tool that let you make your own ringtones.
Smart phones do offer apps, and things like Wi-Fi, 3G and GPS, turning your phone into a tiny computer, adept at web surfing, playing hi-def videos and chewing through demanding games without batting an eyelid. But when the battery conks out, or you drop the thing and shatter the screen, the fun ends all too abruptly.
Are our nagging doubts justified? Are old phones better than new ones? Are modern mobiles all talk, or would you rather eat your own hands than swap your Samsung Galaxy S2 for a Nokia 8210?
Tell us in the comments which of your old blowers holds a place in your heart -- if you had to go back to using an old-school mobile, which model would you choose, and why? And if you're prepared to defend new, high-tech smart phones, be sure to take the fight to our Facebook page, or join the fracas on Google+.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 27
Add your comment
anonymous 17 November, 2011 15:31
I'm getting your point, but I think you're comparing apples with oranges. What I mean is that if someone needs a simple talking-and-texting phone, they can still pick one up and they are quite inexpensive too. However, if someone wants a 'tiny computer' in their hands and are perfectly happy charging it every night, or even in the car on the way back from work, then they buy a smartphone.
I do miss Snake though. How come no one has made it a modern era version of it??
Yannis from London
anonymous 17 November, 2011 15:48
The question was already set in the first paragraph.
If only 24% believe their old phones were better, then the majority believes their new phones are better OR are neutral to the question, making the entire point of the article moot.
anonymous 17 November, 2011 16:45
We members of the 24% know something that the other 76% haven't realised yet.
My Nokia 1100 has a 14 day standby time !!! Need I say more ?
anonymous 17 November, 2011 18:01
I adore my old phones! The Nokia 3310 was the first I got (i loved it)...my most beloved was the Nokia 7610! And still, the N93 would use this one again just because it is unique and stunning piece of tech but it's not working anymore :(
The thing is, that our lifestyle changed over the years (of course), "tools" as facebook, twitter or youtube become very important to us (the 76%) and most of the consumers demand phones that serve this "needs". I think we couldn't live without our apps, our angry brids, our notification or our news feeds anymore :D
anonymous 17 November, 2011 21:41
You are comparing pretty mature dumb phones with relatively immature smart phones. Really old phones were rubbish but over years and years they became the easy to use Nokia 3210s that we knew and loved. Smart phones are only just getting going. It will be a while before totally robust and reliable smart phones turn up.
Luketha 17 November, 2011 22:42
I suppose the initial craze of getting phones as they were first widely produced and affordable created such a hype that this nostalgia of excitement still remains today. Also, who didn't love to play snake?!
anonymous 17 November, 2011 23:06
Without defining the word "better," this question is impossible to answer.
anonymous 18 November, 2011 00:06
Old phones are better for battery life time. I had a nokia and I charged this phone once or twice a week!!
anonymous 18 November, 2011 00:07
the best snake was the 3210 version. when they started messing around with it that's when it got rubbish.
i get your point about old phones. the n95 was perfect. if it was just as powerful as some of the phones now it would be awesome! you dont need a phone to have a touch screen as long as it works.
the battery industry does need a kick up the backside if anything. how long has it been since a big leap in battery tech? a long time unless i've missed something?
anonymous 18 November, 2011 00:16
My all time fav phone is the sony ericsson t-68. Color screen, web enabled, battery lasted forever and small.
anonymous 18 November, 2011 08:43
I spend a lot of time out doors in nasty conditions.
My water-resistant Motorola Defy can manage an impressive 2 days (if i lay off fruit ninja), but if i'm out for any longer nothing quite beats my 3310 and a plastic bag. I think the reception is better too.
Ever tried to hammer in a tent peg with an iPhone? It ain't pretty and your tent falls over
ol
anonymous 18 November, 2011 08:46
The old Nokia shaped like a peanut. Blue and white can not recall the name. Or razr or OG sidekick.
anonymous 18 November, 2011 08:46
I'm in the USA, so the market here is a bit different, but the codecs used on modern mobiles have whittled the voice bandwidth down so narrow that understanding the person on the other side is often a ridiculous challenge. Old digital, and especially analog cellphones, had far superior sound quality! (In good signal conditions)
My old Kyocera 7135 PalmOS smartphone (still have it, though it's no longer activated as a phone) was a far superior flip-phone for voice calls compared to most modern smartphones, with its sturdy, comfortable and practical shape and dedicated phone keypad.
The old PalmOS "web clipping" apps were a far FAR more efficient way to get quick data and answers to various queries, without having to load a giant memory/bandwidth albatross around your neck just to get off the ground. Just like the old text-based Lynx web browser. Ironic and sad that back in those days you could oftentimes get answers to what you wanted quicker than today with devices that are 1,000 times more powerful and have 1,000 times faster broadband connections..
anonymous 18 November, 2011 08:47
Wayyyyy better old phones are
anonymous 18 November, 2011 10:38
Interestingly I do understand and agree to some extent with what you are suggesting
Due to the nature of my previous job, I had to gave up my galaxy s to use a NOKIA 1682 classic
I thought I would be abhor by the experience (moving from the best android at the time to an ancient Nokia), but I honestly love it!
The phone is so simple, with its straight forward functionality and minimalist look, I can understand why people might think old phones like the NOKIA 1682 classic is better. (as a phone)
anonymous 18 November, 2011 12:30
I still have a trusty Nokia 6310i in the draw at home in case my HTC goes down the pan. It does exactly what it says on the tin and more importantly, doesn't need recharging every night! I hardly use all the apps and features on my HTC, the only boon is the camera/camcorder for those 'diary moments' when you don't have a digital camera to hand.
anonymous 18 November, 2011 15:12
love this post! I've been thinking about this issue since i started using smartphones. everything was so well-discussed there i cant add anything but at least i want to express my opinion.
I always had the thought that " ye, really, all this new phones are just great but what if we all begin to use old but legendary phones a?" However they are modest and simple they can do what is main for mobiles, they're flexible, you can wear it anywhere with you and not bother about its size, you never mind that its high-class screen may be shattered. I Love My Smartphone and i'm glad that i can use office whenever i want or browse through the internet BUT it doesn't mean that i've never thought about having one of these old phones. I'm very big fan of m.phones though i don't like the tendency they've been developing recently...
anonymous 18 November, 2011 16:03
If I am still using 8210, I would likely be carrying my Palm Pilot, digital camera, and my laptop with me to do the tasks I can do today with my Samsung Galaxy S II. I have not even accounted for some sort of a widget to provide mobile 4G Internet connection yet.
The old phones are certainly better with their battery life, but the trade off in carrying all that other gear far outweighs the benefit.
anonymous 18 November, 2011 18:00
The key metric is phone.
It doesn't matter what else a "smart phone" can do if it drops calls.
These are mere status symbols in an unsecure world.
anonymous 19 November, 2011 02:40
I think there's no absolute answer it really depends on people using it.
Though i love my iphone but i have to admit "old phone" is simple, and get the job done! and i also missed its design and reliability. If i must pick one model it would be Nokia 8910.
anonymous 19 November, 2011 14:30
New phone are better at everything EXCEPT phone Calls!
Rack 20 November, 2011 14:13
My girlfriend has a newish HTC desire Z. I've stuck with my Sony Ericsson k800/810i.
We're always arguing over which phone is best.
Mine drops less calls and texts, still has a fairly decent camera and browses the mobile web speedily while hers is taking longer to download full web pages. Yes she's got more apps but who cares. Mine is smaller, more pocketable and durable and is better for calls and texting while still can surf the net and take reasonable snaps. For now I'm avoiding an upgrade
anonymous 21 November, 2011 03:49
Don't forget the Nokia 6210 too, was a real classic. But no one's taking away anything from today's smart phones!!
anonymous 22 November, 2011 13:14
The important factor for me is signal reception and strength. The older 'simple' mobiles had better reception than any of the new mobiles I use today. HTC are nice mobiles but as a phone they simply suck. The old Nokia could pick up a signal much better. I now have a Galaxy S11 and the reception on that is also poor yet it can do most things from boil an egg.
I think somewhere down the road we have all lost the plot? What exactly are we looking for in a mobile today?
anonymous 30 November, 2011 21:21
I'm glad there is a topic like this one - was starting to think Im going crazy here; with a current line-up of phones that I have - Android running HTC HD2, HD7, HTC Titan, Dell Streak 5, Nokia E7, Nokia X7 - I find myself searching seriously for a phone because I realized that what Im looking for is impossible - A phone to replace a laptop.
I just got two original units of the Nokia 8800 sirocco, and you wont believe the peace of mind I have with those. Also just got a Nokia 9500 from ebay.co.uk and I can tell you right now that you need a phone for a phone!
anonymous 21 December, 2011 19:44
I absolutely agree with you. I thought I was the only one thinking that! The 'older' phones such as Nokia 3210, N70 Nokia 6680 i and the like are far better than today's phone. They are tougher, heavier ( strong), clearer, have great features such as torch, picture messages, and composers ( very handy). They seem to be far easy to use key wise too. I have to admit I still have my old classic and they are working fine. I was given a BB as a gift but I use Nokia classic as BB keeps blacking out!! Also, the key numbers are bigger and in some ways you can do lots with them unlike some of the phones today-like adding a scrolling message across the screen. They have unique designs too- today every phone seems to be slim, have teeny keys, and have a wide body, I really don't like the designs of today's phones. Nokia classics were far more reliable indeed. Glad I still have a couple of them!
anonymous 31 January, 2012 12:22
i think new smart phones are good. but its sad that so many let it take over there lives( it a phone after all) most of us have a pc at home that works faster and easer to use so do you need a smart .i have an old Nokia it last about 5 days on one charge for my work it is unbrakeable (welder on heavy machines) i go camping with my mates and find my reception unmached .poroble my phone works 90% or the time and smarts about 50% in the hill and vailiey across the UK ( it could be alive saver in a emergance ) gps would be reaily good and helpfull if it worked proerly when i realy need it . not just in the high street of your town
i do like smart phones and not against them at all . for what i need i will not spend my £ on one antil they make it as relayable as my old phone.im not a old fart , thats just my thorghts