From your latest gadgets to your expensive big TV and even your car, here's a complete guide about how to protect all your precious material things from thieves:

At Apple's last event, Steve Jobs called the iPod touch the company's "most popular iPod," and it's easy to understand why. In just a few short years, the iPhone-with-no-phone has kept in lockstep with Cupertino's halo device, benefitting from the same kind of constant hardware and software updating that has helped turned the iPhone into an iconic gadget. The touch has been right alongside the iPhone's meteoric rise in popularity, becoming the go-to second-pocket slab for millions. There are good reasons, too. Apple boasts about gaming on the device -- claiming it beats out both Nintendo's and Sony's offerings in sales... combined. While we can't concede that the device is a dedicated game console, it most definitelygames. And it's still an iPod, an internet device, and a thousand other things thanks to Apple's vastly populous App Store. Now the player has once again reaped the rewards of iPhone updates, boasting a new Retina Display, the A4 CPU, two cameras which allow for FaceTime calling and 720p video recording, and all the new features of the company's latest mobile operating system, iOS 4.1. But despite all of the plusses, we still have to ask: is the little do-everything box still worth the premium price tag? We took a deep dive on the latest model and have the verdict, so read on to find out.

Hardware

If you own the last version of the iPod touch, the design of the latest version shouldn't come as a major surprise. Instead of aping the iPhone's new glass-sandwich looks, the touch hews close to its roots with a super thin profile made up of one part glass screen and one part all-metal back. The device still bears the smudge inviting chrome rear panel, and continues the trend of shrinking the thickness as far down as possible. We thought the iPhone 4 was crazy thin, but the new touch looks like a toothpick by comparison. In our large hands, we might even argue that it's a little too small -- but it should be just right for the legion of teens and tweens that will clamor for this come holiday time.

As with earlier version, hard buttons come in the form of a single home key, a power / sleep button (finally moved to match the iPhone's placement at the top-right of the device, as opposed to the opposite side on previous versions), and two volume buttons on the left. Around back there's now a small camera lens in the upper corner of the device, while a single, VGA shooter peers out from behind the glass on the front of the player. A quick note: we had a little trouble consistently finding the sleep button when using the device -- it's a bit buried in the housing. 

All told, we think it's break even in the looks department. The thinness is certainly welcome, but not a game changer. While we like the iPod touch design overall, there's nothing present in the new version that makes it significantly more lust-worthy than previous generations.

Internals

Inside the new iPod touch is Apple's A4 CPU, the same engine used to power the iPhone 4 and iPad (and that new Apple TV as well). We assume the device is sporting the same 512MB of RAM that the iPhone has, but we won't know for sure until someone like iFixit gets their hands on it. The 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen is called a Retina Display, which means it had equal resolution (960 x 640) and pixel density (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4, but it's not the same IPS panel that you're used to on the touch's big brother. What does that mean in real world terms? Well in our testing we could see noticeable difference in viewing angles, but only at pretty extreme positions. We also felt like the touch's display was slightly darker than the iPhone 4 screen. In general, we don't see this as a major detractor for the device, but there's no question that the iPhone 4 is sporting a qualitatively better display. It may be an "iPhone with no contract" in many regards, but not when it comes to the screen.

Aside from that you've got WiFi (802.11b/g/n to be exact), Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, and Nike + support built in. No GPS here, and obviously no cell radios.

We're a little confused by Apple's reluctance to add a GPS chip to these devices. Since the App Store is litered with navigation software, and this could easily take the place of a TomTom or Garmin device, it seems like a short walk to paradise for the company. The touch checks a lot of boxes on the list, but true navigation is still blank, and we can't really understand why.

Cameras

Just like Apple wanted, much has been made about the touch's camera capability. It seems like the idea of a touch with cameras has been a long time coming (and based on what we've seen from case manufacturers since the last fall Apple event, we're actually about a year behind schedule). But the cameras on this device aren't quite the same pair that you get on the iPhone 4, and there should be no mistaking one for the other. The rear camera on the device is capable of 720p video, but that means that its maximum resolution is 1280 x 720 -- and when it's used for still photos, that resolution becomes 960 x 720 (that's a 720p at a 4:3 ratio). Obviously this is not the same lens or sensor as the iPhone 4, and when we asked Apple about it, they said it was more a consideration of size rather than cost. According to Greg Jozwiak, using something closer to the iPhone 4's sensor would have made the casing for the touch considerably larger. The camera is also fixed-focus rather than auto-focus, which means that tapping on the screen has no discernible result except for altering the white balance and exposure. Oh, and there's no flash to be found. Around front, the phone sports a VGA camera (similar to that of the iPhone), but again this is a fixed-focus lens.


We really would have liked to see a higher quality shooter on the back of this device -- maybe the iPhone 4 has spoiled us, but even something like 3 megapixels wouldn't have felt out of place here. And we're pretty sure Apple could figure out a way to keep this thing thin and light in spite of it.

In our side by side shots with the iPhone 4, it's obvious that the touch's performance for still images is far below that of its big brother. For taking quick shots (which don't require tight focus), you'll be fine, but if you want to grab printer-ready pics, the touch definitely will not be a reasonable stand-in. However, when it comes to video, the 720p performance was actually quite surprising, and the device seemed to have no problem capturing smooth HD content. See the clip below (and check the raw file here) for a look at what kind of results it can produce.

Sound quality

As with the new nano, the touch did seem to sound a little better than previous versions, but it's not such an astounding difference that you should toss your last gen model in the garbage. Overall, playback seemed solid to us -- at least it didn't leave us wanting for quality. If you're planning on using the external speaker for listening, however, you might want to reconsider. We can't remember the last time we heard something so tinny. Of course, it's not surprising considering the size of this housing. Even though it's located in a similar spot as the iPhone 4's speaker, the volume and quality of audio it produces is not even in the same vicinity. Still, how often will you use this?

Software

If you've used an iPhone or iPod touch with iOS 4, there will be few (if any) surprises here. The touch performs exactly like any other iOS device, though admittedly you'll probably notice faster performance if you're upgrading from an earlier model of touch. Our review unit was loaded up with 4.1, which means we had access to a non-beta Game Center, as well as some of those proximity and performance fixes Apple told us would be coming -- though without seeing 4.0 on this device, it's hard to spot the differences.

Overall, performance was silky smooth on the touch -- games didn't lag, and getting around in the OS was as painless as it is on the iPhone 4. Multitasking worked flawlessly, and for those of you using the device heavily as a media player, it makes juggling playback functions along with the other "stuff" the touch does dead simple.

The new touch does come equipped with FaceTime, though now instead of using your phone number (and SMS) to connect, it asks for your email address as an identifier. Unfortunately, only other 4.1 devices can make a connection with the touch, so we were only able to make a handful of calls. In general, the application worked as effortlessly as it does on the iPhone, though we still had some freezes and breakups even on our strong WiFi connection. Ultimately, we still see this as a side dish and not the main course for these devices. With the iPhone 4, we complained that without 3G options for FaceTime calls, the feature remains limited in use, and that's now doubly true with the touch -- unless you're carting around a MiFi, you're stuck mostly indoors (and probably at home) for these calls. One thing to note about FaceTime on the touch -- on our device the volume seemed extremely low even when cranked up (in keeping with our experience for music playback), though the New York Times' David Pogue told us his device sounded loud and clear. "Like an iPhone," he said.

As we said, Game Center is installed on the device, but no games seem to take advantage of the feature just yet. We did field a few friend requests, but all we could do was look at our list of contacts. We'll likely take a longer look at this feature when it's accessible to all iOS 4 users, but for now the most notable thing about the app is that Game Center looks nothing like any Apple product you've ever seen. That font!

Wrap-up

Reading through this review, it should be clear that there isn't actually a whole lot to say about this device that hasn't already been said. The new touch isn't magical or revolutionary, or even unfamiliar. What it is, however, is a product without a peer; a media player that does far more than media playing. Besides the smaller screen real estate, the touch might be better compared to a tablet or netbook -- it has many of the same functions (more, in some cases). So you're not just dropping $229 (8GB), $299 (32GB), or $399 (64GB, also, ouch) on a music and video player -- you're buying into a mini-computer, a video camera, and a game system all with a massive ecosystem.

If you're already carrying around a smartphone with the above functions, maybe the iPod touch doesn't make sense, but for the legions of buyers out there who have yet to make the jump (or are stuck with an outdated handset), this device's appeal is hard to deny. Don't get us wrong, the touch isn't without faults -- the lack of GPS and a fairly low-quality still camera come to mind -- but there's nothing major here that gives us pause (and frankly, nothing else like it on the market). With the addition of HD video shooting, the new Retina Display, and a faster A4 processor, the touch has just gone from "nice to have" to nearly irresistible.

Apple's sixth generation of the iPod nano is essentially the first complete rethinking the product has had since its debut in 2005. The previous form factor -- slim and light with a decently sized display and clickwheel -- has been all but abandoned. The new design is a complete departure; a full touchscreen device that brings to mind something more like a large, living postage stamp than a portable music player. Along with the radical hardware redesign, Apple has infused the media player with a brand new operating system as well -- an interface that looks and plays more like iOS than iPod. We've spent the past week or so knocking the nano around to see if it's worth your hard-earned dollars, and we've got the answers inside -- so read on for our full review.

Hardware

Size-wise, the iPod nano has never been smaller. The new hardware is slightly wider than the previous nano, but this time it's a tiny square, with a miniature, 1.54-inch 240 x 240 capacitive multitouch LCD display. Around back is a built-in clip, and the whole affair is encased in the same kind of anodized, colored aluminum you've come to expect from an iPod nano. In case you're wondering, this particular model can be had in seven different colors -- which weirdly makes us think that Apple believes someone out there will get one for every day of the week. Though the previous generation device sported a video camera, that's been ditched in the new model along with the physical controls. Anyone who's spent a lot of time on the go with the nano will probably be happy about these changes -- the clickwheel could be a bit hard to navigate with accuracy, say, when jogging. 

Other than that, the new nano is considerably lighter than the previous model, weighing in at roughly 21 grams, whereas the older version clocked in at about 36g. In fact, it's so light that when using the clip to attach it to a shirt (or in our case, the strap of a bag), you barely notice it hanging there at all.

The nano boasts just three hardware buttons -- one larger button on the top right for power / sleep, and two smaller, circular ones on the top left for volume controls, another change we appreciate. In the previous nano, in order to adjust the volume you had to unlock the device then navigate with the wheel. Now with actual hardware buttons, you can turn the volume up or down without ever actually looking at the player. It's a minor but welcome improvement. If these buttons are a byproduct of Steve Jobs hating buttons, we like it.

While that screen is small, it's not hard to get around in, and the touch response seemed about as tight as it is on the new touch or iPhone. Multitouch rotation worked just fine, and in general use, moving from place to place with the new nano was considerably faster than on previous models.

Overall, we think the design is a big step forward for this line of players. Eschewing the staid clickwheel for a simple touchscreen interface is a big plus in our book, and the high-end feel to the materials and build quality makes this seem right at home next to something like the new iPhone. Of course, at this size, you're far more likely to lose this thing -- and the price tag will make that sting a bit more than if you misplaced a shuffle.

Software

The iPod nano's strongest suit has always been its simplicity of purpose, and that's never been more evident than in this newest device. If there was ever confusion for buyers about whether to get a nano or something more full-featured, such as the touch -- that argument is dead. Apple's ditched the video camera and the ability to play back video here, along with lots of other "extra" stuff (contacts, calendars, notes, games). With the new nano, you can listen to audio and look at photos -- and that's it.

The new interface is far more intuitive than the classic iPod interface, in our estimation. Though you have just as many playback and sorting options as before, the multitouch, iOS-ness of the experience strips away the feeling of endlessly scrolling through menus (often without context) to get to what you're looking for. The new UI looks and acts just like iOS, but according to Apple the nano is not actually running a build of iOS. We know that previous iPod UIs were built using a handful of components from OS X, so it's safe to assume that this new interface is made up of a hodgepodge of tried and tested frameworks. The results are great -- the nano feels like iOS in all the ways that matter (so much so that we mistakenly call it a "phone" in the video below), including inertial scrolling, the ability to rearrange your homescreens, and general navigation throughout the device.

Getting around the UI is similar, though not exact, to iOS. To navigate you flip through a couple of pages of iPhone-style icons. It's like a micro Springboard. You can hold down on an icon to put it into "jiggly mode," and then move the icons as you would in iOS. When you're using one of the functions of the device, you can long press on the center of the screen to return to your homescreen; swiping to the right when you're listening to music or viewing photos will take you back through your previous screens until you land on home. Lists are scrollable and multi-tiered just like in iOS. There is the occasional hidden dialog in some places that we found odd, like where Apple placed the "add" and "edit" buttons for playlists -- they're unexposed at the top of your playlist screen, and require a scroll up to discover.



Long lists of songs, artists and albums are still present here, but the new interface has streamlined a lot of actions in a way that makes the nano feel much neater than previous models. Dedicated icons for podcasts, the FM radio (a feature we're glad was held over from the last generation), voice recorder (as long as you've got earbuds with a mic plugged in), and the fitness functions make getting to what you need to easy even when you're not fully paying attention -- which is a great advantage of graphic, rather than text-based, menus. There are also tasteful little tweaks too, like being able to set the default lock screen of the nano to an analog clock. We're sure there will be a slew of aftermarket armbands for this -- and honestly, it does make kind of a cool looking watch.

Oh, and you can use multitouch to rotate the screen to whatever orientation you like, but there's no multitouch in the photos application. You can double tap to zoom in, however.

Sound quality / playback

Sound quality seems to have improved a bit over the last generation, as well -- though we can't be scientifically positive, it sounds to us like Apple's made some iterative improvements here. Bass felt full and deep, and highs were less cutting than on most players we've used, though the Zune and Walkman sound quality are tough to beat in this category. Still, for a player of this size and price point, the nano performs excellently.

Wrap-up

Ultimately, if you've had the same iPod nano for the past few years, this new device will probably make you feel like you need a replacement. While there isn't slew of fresh additions (in fact, there are notable subtractions), the re-think about what the nano is supposed to be feels right to us. It's still not exactly your cheapest option if you're looking for pure MP3 playback, but something tells us that if you're looking at the nano, you're living in Apple's ecosystem, and that makes this a pretty attractive choice. We ultimately would like to see the capacities on these guys grow a bit, and those prices drop, but there's no sticker shock here. The new nano is a smart, fast, capable player that should please a lot of people looking for something new this holiday season.

By now you've probably seen the reviews of the other Galaxy S phones -- the Epic 4G, Captivate, or Vibrant -- or at least gotten an idea of what Samsung's push into the Android market is all about in 2010. After hitting every other major US carrier with like-minded devices, the company has finally seen fit to unleash the Fascinate on Verizon. Up until this point, the Android offerings on Big Red's network have been varied, but not all particularly attractive beyond the Droid lineup. The Fascinate is arguably the first handset that gives something like the Droid X or the Incredible a proper run for its money. Of course, those are pretty high stakes in game that changes on an almost daily basis, and Samsung's options are not without their... idiosyncrasies. That truth is nowhere more pronounced than on its latest handset. So is the company poised to hit the market where it hurts with this final puzzle piece, or is this an incomplete picture? Read on to find out in our full review of the Samsung Fascinate!

Hardware

Like its brethren the Captivate and Vibrant, the Fascinate is a candybar device which relies mainly on its touchscreen and four dedicated Android navigation buttons to get things done. The design of the phone is basic enough; a simple slab with rounded edges, a slight silver band that runs around the sides of the device, and little detail save for a gray and black patterned back. The phone is manufactured out of plastic, and feels like and somewhat hollow to the touch. It's not cheaply made, but it doesn't have the heft of some other devices in this class (such as the Droid 2). Even the Captivate has a metal back, which gives it a slightly higher-end feel.

On the back of the device is a five megapixel camera and LED flash, and there are hard buttons for the power / sleep and volume control on either side of the phone.

The design of the phone is simple enough to be inoffensive, but not daring or notable in any real way. In our hands, 4-inches feels like the perfect size for this type of phone; the device feels considerably smaller than something like the Evo, but is more comfortable to type on than the Incredible or iPhone. The general size and thickness will keep it competitive (the phone is nearly as thin as the iPhone 4), though in a sea of like-minded devices, the Fascinate could easily be overlooked.

Specs

In terms of raw specs, the Fascinate looks lustworthy no matter how you slice it. Like the other Galaxy S phones, the device houses a 1GHz Hummingbird CPU, 4-inch 800 x 480 Super AMOLED display (capacitive touch of course), 512MB of RAM, a microSD slot expandable to 32GB (it comes with a 16GB card), along with proximity and light sensors, and an accelerometer. Additionally, the device packs in WiFi (802.11b/g/n), Bluetooth 2.1, and an AGPS radio. Of course there's a 3.5mm headphone jack and Micro USB port, but other than that, the phone is fairly no-frills. You won't find a hidden HDMI jack somewhere on this device.

As we've noted on the other Galaxy S devices, that Super AMOLED display does look pretty stunning. It seems to produce truer, richer colors than standard AMOLED screens we've seen, and its sunlight performance wasn't completely useless (though it was notably harder to see than the iPhone 4's IPS display when held side-by-side).

It's a healthy package, but absolutely contemporary with the Nexus Ones, Droid Xs, and iPhone 4s of the world. Nothing here is really groundbreaking (and obviously we've seen pretty much the same phone in three other slightly tweaked designs), but it's keeping up with the Joneses just fine when it comes to specifications.

Cameras

The camera on the Fascinate seemed just about identical to its brethren the Captivate and Vibrant, save for the fact that it's actually got a flash. We're not sure why Samsung chose to leave the GSM models flashless, but we're happy to see the LED here. In terms of photo quality, we thought that the Fascinate performed admirably in most settings, though like our previous experiences with the other Galaxy S phones, photos the devices produce have a certain quality of, well... phone pictures. Still, the whole line is capable of pretty handsome shots in the right setting, and on the Fascinate, night shots and low light settings were obviously easier to work with now that we have some artificial help.

On the video front, we were particularly impressed with the 720p video quality of the device. Even indoors, the camera produced smooth, stable images that looked good when we blew them up on our TV. We don't think anyone should consider the fascinate for the next Citizen Kane, but for family outings (or just general partying with friends), the phone stands in nicely for a dedicated video camera.

Phone / Speakerphone

Phone quality on the Fascinate was really very good, and speakerphone volumes and tone were loud and clear without becoming distorted or piercing (tones lots of modern phones seem to prefer). Our callers voiced no concern with the outgoing sounds of the phone, and our incoming calls sounded pretty crisp to our ears. Since this is a Verizon handset, call stability was excellent -- in fact, while testing we didn't have a single dropped call.

We do have some reservations about the phone software, however (more on software in a moment). More than once we had a call just stall out when we tried to hang up, leaving the phone frozen and us pounding buttons and feeling pretty frustrated. There seemed to be some disconnect (ha ha) between when you tell the phone to hang up and when the phone actually hangs up. It could have been the area that we're in, a symptom of a larger software issue, or just a fluke, but it was extremely annoying when it occurred.

Battery life

As with most devices these days, battery life is subject to the wants of many aspects of that particular device's OS. In the case of Android, the changes or additions made by a manufacturer or carrier can have significant repercussions on the device's battery life. That's certainly the case for the Fascinate, where the kind of battery life you'll wind up with depends largely on how hard you want to push your auto-updating widgets and backgrounding IRC apps (for us, that's a lot). In typical use, the 1500mAh battery kept things chugging along for a full day of work and then some. Hammering on the device harder (and making lots of calls) can definitely put you into the red far faster than you'd like, however. The combo of lots of data and lots of voice on any modern smartphone is going to be a drain, but the Fascinate didn't seem especially susceptible to the damage, which is a very good thing.

Software

As you should know by now, the Galaxy S phones are all running Android 2.1 with a super-special TouchWiz skin. If you want a deep dive on the modern TouchWiz and what it means for your Android experience, you should take a look at our Epic 4G and Captivate / Vibrant reviews for extra background.

That said, there are a number of decisions made with the Fascinate's particular brand of the TouchWiz / Android mashup that bear mentioning.

First -- we had a fairly extreme shock when we booted up this device for the first time. After some experiences with the "new" Android (that is, devices which have a much heavier carrier influence than Android's first wave), we've come to expect just about anything. However, what we found with the Fascinate still seems notable. The phone does not use Google as its default search. And it doesn't utilize Yahoo! either. No, the Fascinate search engine defaults to Bing. Bing is used for the homescreen widget. It is defaulted to in the browser. It is present across the device... and there's no way to choose a different search engine. Like, you know -- Google. When we pressed Verizon reps about this, they let us know in no uncertain terms that the stock engine is Bing without a second choice.

This was maddening to us. We don't have a personal issue with Bing, but it's not our engine of choice, and we'd be willing to bet that it's not yours either. Now, imagine buying an Android phone -- a Google phone -- only to discover that not only was Google not defaulted to as a search engine, it's not even an option! For us, this is actually a deal breaker. It's fine to throw a new choice a user's way, but to force them into using nothing but that choice seems pretty low. Even on the original iPhone you were given a choice between Google and Yahoo!. Here, you've got Bing unless you want to get hacking -- and most people actually don't want to get hacking. They just want to use their phones. Again, it's not that Bing is a bad search engine, but Google is the standard. If it's not even offered, what does that say?

Beyond this, Verizon also has tweaked the device so that it defaults to Verizon Navigator instead of Google Navigation in any area of the phone which calls for navigation (including the context menu in contacts). This can actually be changed, but only through a fairly arcane combination of settings -- another annoying alteration that seems unnecessary here. As with the Dell Aero and other unfortunate devices which carriers have attempted to warp to a more profitable variation of Google's operating system, the result is not flattering.

Besides the bloatware and carrier changes (you'll find plenty of both here), TouchWiz itself is still a poor substitute for a solid, stock Android experience (or even a more advanced skin, such as HTC's Sense). On the Fascinate, as with the other devices in this series, it comes off as a pale and often buggy imitation of iOS -- not something a lot of Android users likely embrace. There are some solid ideas here, such as the tweaks Samsung has made to the dialer (being able to tap out someone's digits and have it automatically find your contact is very welcome), but overall the skin felt extremely... unsure of itself.

More than once the phone locked up doing what we considered to be basic tasks, such as switching between apps or back to the homescreen. The Fascinate just seemed to stall out, often at the most inconvenient times, and we were left to simply wait until it sorted out whatever memory or processor issues it seemed to be having. Comparatively, a device like the Incredible rarely if ever stalled out on us, even during heavy use. The Fascinate (as well as the other Galaxy S phones) just don't feel like they've been left in the oven long enough -- there are good ideas, but they needed to get to golden brown. This dough is still uncooked from what we can tell.

We also noticed a weird delay when using the hard buttons along the bottom of the phone. Between pressing, feeling the haptic feedback, and actually seeing a result there was an almost (emphasis onalmost) imperceptible pause for each action. Hitting the home button on the Captivate yields nearly instant results for us, but on the Fascinate there's a slight hesitation that makes the phone feel more sluggish than it actually is. We're not sure why there would be a difference between these two identical phones, but it's another frustrating detractor for Verizon's offering. And another thing about those buttons -- their lights dim before the screen (and often when you're navigating the phone), making getting around the device unnecessarily challenging. Here's a thought Samsung: just keep those illuminated until the screen goes to sleep.

Otherwise, you may be bummed to know that the company doesn't seem to have worked out all those typos we found in the other versions of these phones. We still saw a handful of English errors that have no place on a top-tier device like this.

As with the rest of the Galaxy S family, you get two keyboard options here -- Swype and the stock 2.1 keyboard. Neither of those really cut the mustard for us, and we found ourselves re-downloading Better Keyboard for the umpteenth time on an Android phone.

At the end of the day, it's not all bad. In fact, Samsung has made some thoughtful choices and attempted to pull together what can seem like a disparate collection of odds and ends at times. Still, there are some problem areas here that never should have made it out of bug testing, and if this is supposed to be a high-end experience for an end user, we hate to think of what the other end of the spectrum would look like. The issues are even more pronounced having used stock Froyo (and even 2.1) on a Nexus One -- the experiences couldn't be more night and day (that's to say, the Nexus blazes). A smartphone should help you along, not hinder you, and all too often while using the Fascinate, we felt like we were hitting red lights.

Wrap-up

When it comes to Android on Verizon, there are some seriously excellent choices, and what it has to come down to is: is the Fascinate at the top of that heap? From where we stand, the answer is an obvious "no." It's not that the device isn't a solid phone or a reasonably capable Android representative -- it's just that Samsung and Verizon have made far too many compromises on this device to class it with something like the Droid Incredible or the Droid X (though we have complaints about the latter device's software as well). Unfortunately, the Fascinate (and perhaps the entire line of Galaxy S phones) are a byproduct of Google's ongoing fragmentation issues and seeming lack of focus for the Android platform. As partners scramble over each other to differentiate their products through often meaningless software tweaks, the end user suffers by being served with rushed, incomplete devices made more complex and less stable by companies that should be concentrating on making great hardware instead of "fixing" Android. We want to like what third-parties -- and Samsung -- are doing with the OS, but as in the case of the Galaxy S phones, the alterations feel more like barriers than passage ways.