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.
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+.