In December 2008, a smartphone ranking circulated that looks surprising through an iPhone-shaped view of mobile history. PhonesReview reported that the Samsung BlackJack II led choices attributed to the January 2009 issue of Consumer Reports, with the iPhone 3G appearing farther down the list.
The December 18 PhonesReview article cited MobileGadgetNews and questioned both the iPhone’s position and the absence of BlackBerry. It is a surviving account of the discussion, not the underlying test report. It does not provide the scoring tables or enough methodology to reproduce the comparison.
Why the distinction matters
A ranking can become much more definite as it passes from a magazine table to a news item and then a forum argument. A short list may omit the boundaries of the comparison: which phones were tested, which carrier versions were included, when testing ended and how different tasks were weighted.
Without those details, an ordering cannot tell you why one device finished above another. It also cannot tell you whether a missing model performed badly or simply was not included. The surviving item contains unusual model designations, another reason not to treat its transcription as a verified complete scorecard.
A phone could be strong at one task and weaker at another
Consumer Reports’ own December 2009 discussion of the Droid and iPhone illustrates the more useful reading. It described closely scored devices with different strengths in displays, voice quality and talk time, while noting that another handset could be better at messaging.
That does not verify the earlier list. It does explain why a single overall rank can conceal the reason a buyer prefers a different device. Someone who spends the day writing messages has a different practical priority from someone who mostly browses pages or takes calls.
Reading the story today
Treat the 2008 item as a snapshot of an unsettled market, when several approaches to smartphone input and software still competed visibly. Do not turn it into a claim that a particular old phone would now be a better purchase. The services, networks and applications that supported those devices were part of the original experience.
The interesting question is not whether history chose the same winner as a table. It is what the table measured for a person buying a phone at the time. When the underlying measurements are unavailable, the honest answer leaves the precise ranking unconfirmed rather than filling in missing scores.