I would just like to add that this phone looks amazing.
To those asking about the battery and why some report 2020mah and some report 2500mah, it's because the HTC J Butterfly in Japan has a 2020mah battery, and is 9.1mm thick. This is fact. There is a rumor that the Japanese carrier wanted a thin phone and chose to make it 9.1mm for the smaller battery, and that the US version will be thicker with a 2500mah battery. This is all rumor however. Right now, no one knows for sure what size battery this phone will have. If it does get 2500mah, it will likely be considerably thicker than the J butterfly. Also while I doubt it is true, some have rumored that removing the micro sd card slot in the J butterfly could allow enough space for the 2500mah battery. However that would be an even bigger fail on HTC's part in my opinion.
As for 2500mah being small, this is simply not true. When Super AMOLED came out years ago it was touted as saving power over LCD, but in my use of a few phones with those screens, I can say that Super AMOLED in normal use, draws more power than LCD, and LCD has only been getting more efficient, and the Super LCD3 in this Droid DNA will be even better than the Super LCD2 in the One X, when it comes to power consumption. As a result, I fully expect these power savings to balance the extra pixels the gpu will have to push, and then some. With a 2500mah battery, this phone could easily get better battery life than the Droid RAZR HD, which also has a 2500mah battery, and also will cost $199.99 on contract. However unlike the RAZR HD, this phone will have 2x the number of cpu cores, 2x the RAM, and 2x the gpu power with an adreno 320. For me, all of those specs make this phone much more viable than the RAZR HD. The Galaxy S3 does also pose a bit of a threat, but it still has half the power in regards to CPU and GPU, and I have seen weaker signal on the ones in my local verizon store. I'm just not sure how much I trust them.
Also for those touting the note II.
1) The note 2 has a 1.6ghz quad core arm cortex a9 cpu, the Droid DNA has a 1.5ghz quad core krait core cpu, this is a modified arm cortex a9 architecture which is closer to cortex a15, the cpu in the dna will beat the note 2, the same goes for the adreno 320 against the mali gpu in the note 2.
2) The note 2 is 10mm wider than the droid dna, and is simply too big for most people, this is why samsung made a one handed typing mode, but you have to go through settings to get to it, so you either would always use a tiny 1 handed typing mode that will render a keyboard smaller than the one on the droid dna, or be unable to type one handed on the note 2.
3) With its extra size the note 2 likely won't fit comfortably in most pockets, except in loose baggy jeans, and the added size is how they fit a 3100mah battery in it. If the droid dna was that big, it would no doubt also have a comparable battery.
4) The Note 2 uses the Exynos 4412 SoC, which does not support LTE, the Verizon Note 2 will need a second power draining chipset inside to support LTE, and depending on which chipset it is, the phone could have an LTE connection as unstable as the Galaxy Nexus, or one as awesome as the Samsung Stratosphere. However there is a gamble here, and people should wait to see how it does in real world performance as this can be considered a major risk of the Note 2 on Verizon.
I'm not saying the note 2 is bad, it is an awesome superphone just like the droid dna, and it will sell more units, being available to a larger consumer base. However the droid dna really is as big as most people can go with phones. It is only .6mm wider than the Galaxy S3, and so overall it won't seem bigger to hold. It is the true size limit for the average consumer. The Note 2 maybe not be a niche item anymore, but it certainly is losing a decent number of consumers simply for being too big, the same way the LG intuition/vu is (Though admittedly the Vu is just stupid, the Note 2 is awesome but huge).
Also just to compare the Note 2 and Droid DNA in battery life a bit prematurely, I'd like to add that screens consume power mostly in their backlight, and how much power the backlight consumes relates directly to screen size. The Droid DNA has a noticeably smaller screen, which will mean less power consumption than the Note 2. If we calculate the area of the 2 phone screens we get the number below
Droid DNA 10.682 in sq
Galaxy Note 2 12.933 in sq
12.933/10.682 = 1.2107
2500mah * 1.2107 (factor the screen is bigger by, calculating increased battery size relative to screen power consumption) = 3027mah
So if we assume the Note 2 screen consumes the same amount of power at the same screen size, and we calculate battery size relative to screen size, we see that the Droid DNA would have approximately a 3027mah battery inside in order to maintain the same battery life. Now, the screen does not use all the power in a phone, but it does use a significant amount, and as far as I have been able to tell, super amoled screens do use more power than LCD, and the SLCD3 in the DNA is the most power efficient yet. Having more pixels will require more power for the gpu, but overall I suspect battery life on these 2 devices will be comparable if the dna gets a 2500mah battery.
If it gets a 2020mah battery, that would be the equivalent of giving the Note 2 a 2445mah battery, and that would likely result in depressing battery life numbers.
