Beyond the weak writing and the difficulties with facts (the EVO Design 4G is not slower than the EVO 4G, 1.2 GHz MSM8655 is assuredly faster than 1 GHz QSD8650), the premise is entirely bonkers. Arguing that because you'll pay more than the price of the phone in contract fees over the life of a 2-year contract is a true fact whether you buy the lastest and greatest or something that's discounted. It actually seems irresponsible to argue to the public in a down economy that we should wait to pay more money ($299 for the RAZR, possibly more for the Nexus) when perfectly serviceable and frankly excellent phones are available at a fraction of the price.
Even the list of phones he elects to use was odd. The EVO 4G, Palm Pre 2 and the HTC Surround are either EOL'd or effectively so. The Galaxy S phones live on in a variety of form factors, most available for $100 or less, and are frankly great phones. Anyone on Sprint that doesn't want to spend a lot of money should snap up a Nexus S 4G (a Galaxy S phone with a few Google touches) which has been offered free on contract. The Titanium is a niche device that's aimed at people that want PTT, some ruggedization, a full QWERTY and Android, not exactly someone not looking for it will accidentally buy. If the author's intention was to help buyers unfamiliar with the smartphone landscape navigate it's many offerings he would have been better served by providing a few top choices at particular price points. If his intention was just to argue that we should spend more money on nicer phones, then his logic is flawed and I'm left to wonder if he's not looking to get reimbursed for his efforts. Either way, odd article.
