Orange San Francisco review

Corrections

One thing to add to the above review.It has been noted on various forums that the screen had now changed.The phones are now produced with TFT rather than the original OLED screens.Having said that at the original £99 PAYG price , I still think it's a bit of a bargain.Granted it's no Desire HD,but then it is around £300 cheaper on PAYG for a 3.5" android phone that can easily be upgraded and unlocked.See the MoDaCo web site for details.

By Jaberwocky on 27 Dec 2010

Mostly the software's fault...

Interestingly enough, the default software installed causes a lot of the problems...
Battery life and speed are both improved upon installing 2.2 (unfortunately you have to bootload/root it to do so), and the camera even gains a (limited) autofocus - it plays Angry Birds very well!

Anyone wanting a phone to develop apps for/try out Android should take a look with it being the cheapest Android phone - especially as unlike the Wildfire, it has a high resolution screen.

However, as PC Pro says - not an ideal primary phone

By all4nothing on 28 Dec 2010

Terrible review

I'm an Android developers and I've owned this phone since it was released in the UK a couple of months back, so I'm more than qualified to give me opinion on this phone. I do not agree with statements made in your review.
"The BBC homepage loaded in a slow 38 seconds". Funny, this loads in 6 seconds from a 3G connection on my phone. Slow network speed = slow webpage loading and is not an indication of device speed.
"Attempt to play action-based games on it and you may well be disappointed." well considering I have Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja, Must Eat Birds, Raging Thunder 2 on my phone and they all run smooth I find that comment hard to believe.
"It's also comparatively unresponsive in use." absolute rubbish. Yes, Orange do pre-install several applications to the phone but the performance isn't affected and the phone is quick to use. As for your comment about the camera then I would say that the camera is OK for a budget phone and certainly doesn't colour-taint photos. See this link for examples of photos taken with the phone http://bit.ly/eGm6Be

And you can't compare this phone with the Wildfire and Defy. Both cost more.

By flibblesan on 3 Jan 2011

I'm very suprised with this negative 'review'

I first learned about this phone from the write up Paul Ockenden gave in Mobile and Wireless section of Real World Computing this month
-'Specification-wise it supports a stunning touchscreen (not a rubbish resistive one you'll find on other cheap Android phones' and 'I really don't think speed will be an issue for most users...a generous ammount of RAM for a low-end smartphone' as well as 'I'm quite smitten by the Orange San Francisco...' As well as the positive comments from Dick Pountain in Idalog front piece in this months magazine.

On the strength of those comments I recently got the phone and have had none of the 'issues' your reviewer seems to have imagined. I'd suggest that you spend a bit of time conferring with your colleagues and actually reading what you have already published as this 'review' makes it look as if Jonathan Bray either knows very little or has been lent on by other phone suppliers to downgrade this budget bargain.

By Thermostat9 on 3 Jan 2011

Much better phone than you think...

I am new to Android but thought I would give this a try because for £79 SIM-free (to an existing Orange PAYG customer), it is an absolute bargain. With the Android 2.2 upgrades available at e.g. MoDaCo.com and elsewhere, it becomes an amazing device - 90% of a desire for 20% of the cost.
Long term reader of PCPro - you have let yourselves down here.

By rollsg on 3 Jan 2011

Bargin

I was going to get a HTC Desire or Samsung Galaxy S with my existing phone network, 3. I was prepared to pay no more than £25 per month. Thankfully the ZTE Blade (San Francisco) came along which I got for £80 on PAYG, unlocked for free, got 3 to let me go sim only for £10 per month for far more text, phone calls than I will ever use and 2 gigabyte internet per month. This will save me a fortune.

Get it on PAYG and go sim only! Far cheaper than £20 per month.

As others have said it is not as good as a premium Android phone but it is a fantastic phone none the less and to buy only about 25% of the cost!

I got the phone when it became the hottest deal of ALL time on hot uk deals - it still is! (5057%).

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/orange-san-francis
co-android-2-1-wv/763425

By doncasterrunner on 3 Jan 2011

5kops

The camera is auto-focus.
Most games work fine, Asphalt, Raging Thunder, Angry Birds.
Have you tried playing games on the Wildfire? Some games won't play because of the low resolution screen.
Getting this phone on 24 months contract is not worth it, but on pay as you go, well worth the money.
Price taken from this site:
San Francisco: £99
HTC Wildfire: £229
Motorola Defy:£320

By 5kops on 3 Jan 2011

For the money you simply can't beat it. It is not perfect but what phone is?

The first thing to do is get rid of all the Orange Bloatware that comes on the phone it simply slows it down.

I have Unlocked, De-Branded and Rooted the phone all for free following this guide:
http://www.chrislowthian.co.uk/how-to-unlock-de-br
and-and-root-the-zte-blade-orange-san-francisco/18
24/

Once its De-branded the performance increases greatly.

There are even 2.2 ROMs available for the device which run very smoothly.

All in all the phone is great value for money and by far the best value Android Device.

Just my opinion.

By ChrissyPoo on 3 Jan 2011

This review is completely wrong

I own a San Francisco, and have done for the past 2 months. I have a friend who has the Wildfire, a phone you claim to be "better value" than the San Francisco, yet we were both playing Doodle Jump on our phones, and where his lags, mine does not.

Purely based on the excellent screen, the San Francisco is miles ahead, and far better value than the Wildfire, even in the TFT models. The Wildfire's screen looks horribly grainy, whereas the San Francisco is crystal clear.

Although the build quality isn't the best in the world, the phone is still sturdy, and most of the hardware features are still impressive. The processor is snappy, about as fast as you would expect from an android device, and the phone also comes with 512mb of RAM - the same as top end android devices such as the Desire.

Since when do we compare the price of a phone simply based on what you can get it on contract for? This review ISN'T HERE TO DEBATE HOW WELL ORANGE PRICES ITS CONTRACTS, it's here to debate whether the phone itself is good value, and for £99, it certainly is.

PCPro, I do hope you remove this review immediately, as it tarnishes your good name. For some reason or the other, the writer has a clear bias towards this device.

By MattFerg on 3 Jan 2011

*correction

*bias against this device

By MattFerg on 3 Jan 2011

Another thing to add...

"Finally, battery life is well below par, the 1,250mAh battery recording only 40% remaining on the gauge after our 24-hour test."

Yet in another review, about the Desire Z, you've said

"Battery life is superb, too, with 70% remaining on the battery gauge after our 24-hour test - the best from an Android phone we've ever seen."

That's for a higher capacity battery (1250 vs 1300) and for a phone that costs over 4x as much, for only 30% more battery, for a screen that isn't even OLED. Mr Bray, you have NO logic.

By MattFerg on 3 Jan 2011

Lazy Review

This is simply a lazy review. To get a phone with such a great spec for £99 was always going to involve compromise - here, it's the camera and build quality. Build quality is good enough - it just can't take a battering. The camera is good enough for snaps.

Where it counts, this phone delivers - reasonable CPU, included GPU, 512MB ROM & RAM, beautiful screen, and acceptable battery life (for an Android phone).

Looks to me that the reviewer just turned it on, played with the buttons, and visited the beeb home page, and that was it.

As for the comparison t the Defy and Wildfire - the San Francisco outperforms in almost every area, and the Defy is significantly more expensive.

Shame on you PC Pro.

By Edper on 4 Jan 2011

It seems the masses would disagree with this biased review

Please check the following poll

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=8
65004

By AreYouSure on 4 Jan 2011

A response

Thanks for all the comments. To the one or two who obviously hold strong opinions on the review, I would like to respond: I’m neither biased nor lazy - I just hold a different opinion on this phone. Let me explain why:

1) At PC Pro (to keep the playing field as even as possible), we don’t review rooted, hacked or modded phones. We only review phones as they come out of the box – in other words as the majority of buyers will experience their handsets. In our tests, and in my experience using the phone in this state, I found it to be sluggish and annoying to use.

I acknowledge it would almost certainly perform better with the Orange branding removed and a different ROM in place – that’s part of the joy of owning an Android phone for many - but doing so will invalidate your warranty (a not inconsiderable risk), plus it’s no different from many other handsets in this regard.

2) Build quality compared to most phones I’ve seen and used (and believe me I’ve seen a lot) is lightweight. Come back to me in 12 months and tell me it’s fine, that the buttons still work flawlessly and the finish is still tidy and I’ll hold my hands up. As it is, it doesn’t fill me with confidence that it’ll outlast the competition.

3) The price is good, but not that much different to the competition. Pay £99 on PAYG and then £10 per month for 24 months and the San Francisco will cost you £339. On contract the phone costs £480 over 24 months.

The Wildfire, in contrast, costs £308 over 24 months (on contract). The Defy costs £360 over 18 or 24 months (on contract), and is a superior all-round handset (better build, better camera). The good old Desire is now a similar £480 over 24 months too, with no up-front cost; again a nicer phone than the Orange.

If you absolutely must have a PAYG phone, the Orange San Francisco is a better deal than these handsets, but for the majority who want a free contract phone, others are better value.

4)Finally, battery life undeniably lags behind both the Wildfire and Defy. Whether you’re prepared to put up with that is up to you.

Let me just re-iterate what I say in the final paragraph. It isn’t an awful phone, but neither is it a great one. If all you want is a bargain Android phone, the Wildfire is cheaper in the long term, and feels better made too.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other phones out there that are have superior build and better cameras (see point 3), and actually feel pleasant to use out of the box for not a lot more in real terms.

Best regards,
Jonathan Bray,
Reviews editor,
PC Pro.

By JonBray on 4 Jan 2011

Thanks for the reply Jonathan and I understand your review somewhat better but still think there are some inconstancies.

With specific reference to your points -

1. Testing 'out of the box' phones is all well and good but your review has been predated by some of your print contributors already modding it! I presume that it takes less time to get a review on the web than it does to typeset, print and distribute the magazine - so why the late (and rather contrary review) to the ones that are already in print? (Personally I didn't think the Orange software was that bad either, but like to play so it didn't stay on mine for long).

2 Build quality. It's a £99 phone. What do you want for nothing? Short of setting up a test to which you subject ALL the phones you have on test your comments about quality are entirely subjective but I don't recall anyone replying on here has been suggesting it is particularly robust either so I don't think that is something that is particularly contentious. Is it?

3. Price. You seem to be confusing contract value with a phone write up. Why are you using comparisons of contract values in your review? They have habit of changing like the wind and your your review of the San Francisco will not change in a couple of months when whatever the deals have moved on, will they?

But lets look at PAYG now. Presuming that a user uses every phone in the same way the only thing that matters is the phone cost as the calls will cost what they use. The San Francisco from Orange is (currently) £99. From CPW a PAYG WIldfire is £179 and I can't find a high street retailer advertising the Motorola Defy as a PAYG but it looks to be considerably more expensive to buy then the others (best price I've seen is @£250) so you are not really comparing like-with-like are you? The Wildfire is £80 MORE expensive than the San Francisco! That is very nearly TWICE as much. Just how is that 'not much different to the competition', exactly? Because from here it looks very different - and that is even before comparing specifications!

I'd encourage the idea of you doing a contract phone costs comparison but that is not what you were reviewing is it? You were doing a phone review and to score the phone on some arbitrary contract value is a bit duplicitous - your magazine does not review PC's and rate them on how well they connect to an ISP do they?

4. Battery life. You think it 'lags behind' but perhaps you should ask Paul Ockenden what he means by writing '.. you'll need to charge it every one or two days depending on your usage pattern, but this isn't untypical for an Android device' in the current issue of your magazine.

For anyone who is reading this review and the comments and are thinking about the San Francisco - it's (currently) a £99 phone that offers a lot more than other 'budget' Android smartphones. In a year from now I'd expect it to look dated and I hope that there is a replacement that is running an even faster processor, has a superb camera, large OLED screen, is running 2.3 and costs even less!

By Thermostat9 on 4 Jan 2011

Hello, I registered just to reply to this Review.

I have a Wildfire which cost me £130 and my fiance started to love the apps of Android phones but I was skint and was going to get her a San Francisco because it was only £99, after reading loads of reviews it sounded great and looked great on paper!

Saw this review and thought to myself *wow, just knew it, what do expect for a £99 phone?) but thought it wouldn't matter to her, so I got it, set it up for her got her apps, played around with it, then got shocked.

This San Francisco was amazing, I gave my fiance the Wildfire because the screen is much better on this, games seem to be smoother & everything in general seems MUCH better!

So, after looking through all the original reviews I was shocked and agree'd with them all, but this one is just stupid, 3 Stars? This thing is bloody amazing! beats the crap out of my old Wildfire that you rated a 5 Star and it's cheaper too.

I think this review is HEAVILY biased.

By shaunhoare on 5 Jan 2011

My Wildfire didn't cost £130 it cost £160, can't edit above post, sorry.

I just noticed almost ALL the comments in this post thinks this review is crap, how do I report it to the PC Pro admin?

By shaunhoare on 5 Jan 2011

Another point from an owner

Hi, I also registered purely so I could reply to this review. I agree with the points above, that this phone is only £99 and therefore A LOT cheaper than competitors. It is possible to have this phone unlocked for free, as I have done, so I effectively got a SIM free handset for £99. The Defy costs around £250 SIM free, and the Wildfire costs about £220. This is more than double the cost of the San Francisco. I do not agree with some points in the review (I find the phone very responsive and as other users have said, very fast at web browsing). Some of the points made are also just wrong;
1. The camera is not fixed focus, it is autofocus and takes respectable pictures in good light.
2. The video can easily be converted to a higher resolution without sacrificing much quality at all.
3. The "volume rocker on the side creaks alarmingly" is caused by fitting the back of the phone incorrectly and refitting it will solve this problem. The build quality is also fine and I personally like the rubberised soft touch feel. What the reviewer seems to forget is that he is reviewing a phone that costs less than £100!

I also do not see how you can compare it to the Wildfire fairly, as it is still almost double the price! In addition to this, the San Francisco has a better screen, a faster CPU, and more RAM. I feel this review is unfair towards what I feel to be an excellent phone, and having used both the Wildfire and the San Francisco, feel personally that this phone deserves a place on the A List! But I suppose lacking such must have features as HTC Sense is enough to knock stars off. I have bought many products based on PC Pro reviews but I am afraid I am quite happy to ignore this one.

By RabidBadger on 7 Jan 2011

bogus total cost comparisons

Hmm. I have one. Camera is slow and useless in low light. Build quality, however, is fine: fit and finish is perfect and nothing flexes or creaks. Maybe mine is the exception.

But my objection to this review hinges on the numbnutz economics.

It is as a £99 PAYG phone that the San Francisco generated enormous interest, bringing an unprecedented feature set to this price point. (No, it's not an iPhone 4, but last time I looked Vodafone wanted £480 for the cheapest iPhone 4 on PAYG.)

Total cost of ownership comparisons between PAYG and contract prices, as in the author's response to the comments, are clearly specious.

A contract represents a commitment, and it is an economic sine qua non that you can get a better deal if you commit to a continuing stream of payments for 18/24 months (that continues even if the phone is lost or broken).

Purchasing PAYG, your commitment to Orange ends there. If you want to replace the phone for any reason you just do so, without committing yourself for an additional 18/24 months. You can unlock it (for free) and get a SIM-only deal from the operator of your choice. You can, if you choose, stop paying anything to anybody and use it for internet/e-mail/apps over Wi-Fi.

(An economist would talk of the "option value" of being able to freely exit a commitment, or equivalently of not having to enter into one.)

If these points seem obvious then I apologize, but if they are obvious, how can it be reasonable to compare PAYG and contract prices based on total cost of ownership?

[Also, where do you find the Wildfire for £308? Cheapest I could easily find was Vodafone at CPW for £15.32 x 24 = £368 (and I don't think this plan included any internet access, so not equivalent to the Orange deal), but I admit I didn't spend very long looking...]

By shortshrift7 on 7 Jan 2011

As a subscriber I received issue 197 today (and I have been a subscriber for the best part of 10 years - and reading it for a little longer) and get to see the 'Smartphone' review in all it's glory.

Clearly the major problem with the review is the appalling muddle created by comparing the phone with that of contract costs. I would suggest that next time you either compare contract costs OR PAYG cost OR SIM free costs but the review is clearly comparing apples with oranges (ho-ho!).

Clearly the Orange is not as well made as the Apple but I can do the same things on my phone as an iPhone user can. There might be a little delay but it is not significant. Sure you could nitpick - such as the text software not as polished - but my phone cost £99 (unlock for £0) and the cheapest unlocked iPhone £510! Yet your review gives the iPhone an overall rating of 6 stars the San Francisco 3.

Then I read on page 98 that your magazine recommends buying a PAYG and unlocking it as a way to save money? Nice.

As I said above, PCPro is a a hardware magazine so next time concentrate on the phones and not the 'contracts' and if you do review contracts (and that would not be a bad idea) only then look at the value of the phones that are being offered.

Again, for readers of the magazine - the OSF is a veritable BARGAIN! The HTC Wildfire is a generation older and will cost you twice as much (currently). By the spring of 2011 I expect this will have all changed again!

By Thermostat9 on 8 Jan 2011

Very poor review

As an iPhone user, I bought one of these for my wife as her SE X10mini had such poor battery life.
I pay more per year to insure my iPhone, how can it be anything less than amazing value.
It's so good I might get one for myself!
To pay £20 on contract is insane, £99 for the phone and shop around for the best PAYG deal. It's so easy to unlock it's ridiculous.
The camera is OK in good light and the autofocus is slow, apart from that I have no complaints. Install one of the "Hipstamatic apps" and the quality isn't an issue any more!
Final word an iPhone 3GS 32GB is £550 PAYG, this phone is nearly as good, add a 32GB microsd = £159 and you get flash compatibility to boot.
Just get one people.

By Dre18104 on 10 Jan 2011

Excelent value for money

I agree with all those who can't understand the poor review. This is my first Android phone and I'm very happy with it. My only criticism would be the rather short battery life when you are using all the bells and whistles. It is totally unfair to compare this phone with ones costing 3 to 4 times as much, but even so it does not come out badly. My friend has an HTC Desire costing 4 times as much and in a side by side comparison we couldn't see that much difference. OK it's got the slower processor, but most of the time it's restricted by the download speed out here in the boonies.
The icing on the cake is that I transfered my old Virgin PAYG monthly billing in arrears contract / SIM to it and , as a low user, pay peanuts every month.

By pjajennings on 27 Jan 2011

David

I have had a very bad experience with this phone on two levels.
Firstly I have had four replacements now. With each phone experiencing the same problem, with the operations of the phone gradually getting slower and slower. I eventually had a member of Orange call staff admit that sometimes they get a batch of poor phones.
Secondly I have found Orange's customer care to be appalling.
- Call staff giving false names and extension numbers.
- Call staff promising to call back but never doing so.
- Hours spent having to call the support centre being passed between departments.
- Being treated like I was being difficult in expecting to have a phone that worked.
- The response from Orange is that they will keep sending me replacements until either the problems disappear (read: “disappears for long enough that I am no longer covered by a warranty”).
Clearly some people have been lucky with this phone given the good reviews. However after this experience I can only question my decision to buy the phone and mostly buying from Orange.

By David_Rattray on 1 Mar 2011

just admit your incompetence, Mr Bray

I alsoo agree, this review is very poor.
worse than worthless because its grossly misleading.

To answer Mr Brays weak responses:

1) mrbray states: 'At PC Pro (to keep the playing field as even as possible), we don’t review rooted, hacked or modded phones...'

well, even if thats the case, there isnt much improvement, if any when this phone is debranded and modded. I was playing angry birds on mine when it still had the orange branding.

As for point 2, I agree the build quality isnt terrific but its not terrible. pretty much any smartphone is going to be a bit delicate, and dont forget this is ridiculously cheap.

3 Mr Bray states: 'The price is good, but not that much different to the competition. Pay £99 on PAYG and then £10 per month for 24 months and the San Francisco will cost you £339.'

what are you waffling on about sir?

I paid £99 plus £20 top up - and the phone was mine, no contracts or bills.

your comments are grossly misleading.

And on point 4, the battery life is adequate, mine will last a day with pretty heavy use, and a couple of days idle and just answering a few calls.


For Gods sake, what do you want for £119 all included?
No other phone touches this.

I think the video camera sucks, and yes, build quality could be a bit sturdier...its not made of china, nor is it made of steel. anyway..I still got one, (Im carefull not to knock it, and carry it in a rubber casing) and saved hundreds of pounds in the process.
Another happy customer here, like virtually everyone else.

..apart from mr bray..
then again, he didnt even give accurate information, so why should anyone listen to his review.

Sorry to get on your case, but its your Job to provide an accurate review, not this misleading pap.

By Rushh on 12 Mar 2011

update about orange

I will add, my first orange san francisco was changed due to very poor wifi connection.
My second one is fine.

I agree Orange can have poor service and phone support.

But even with this added to the equasion, This phone is phenonmenoly good value compared to All the other smartphones out there.

By Rushh on 12 Mar 2011

Got mine and have been using it for a little while.Fantastic value for money.The phone actually came with 2.1 update 1 software and ran everything smoothly.As others have said.
1) Screen - very good
2) build quality - surprisingly ok once you make sure the back is snapped into place correctly.
3) Camera - Still quality .Ok but not great
4) Video quality - forget it.
5)Battery life.1-2 days between recharges depending on use.
6) Games playing.Ran everything smoothly that i could test.The battery does get hot though playing Angry Birds for an hour :-)
Orange have probably sold a shed load of these phones by now.An absolutely fantastic phone for the money provided you are aware of the camera quality and slightly below capacity battery.

By Jaberwocky on 23 Mar 2011