People just don't seem to get it whether it's phones, iPods, iPads or laptops that the space saved by not having the 'removable battery' capability allows not only for a thinner design but also a larger battery and therefore more battery life....not to mention it's move earth friendly.
What I don't get about this whole battery thing is the fact that very people use extra batteries and the few that do can more easily just plus one into the iPhone that suits your specific needs than the rigamarole of having to play musical-battery-bay with your extra battery bay with your phone, which cuts the power every time to change it, you can lose or break the cover, and you have to do it all over again just to charge them up. It's silliness.
In the number of megapixels, sure, it has more, but that doesn't mean much if it takes worse pictures.
Let's get over the MP myth. The lens and sensor is more important for good picture. If you can't balance the sensor, lens, software you eat up storage and get a picture with a bunch of noise. I'm more interested in real world side by side picture comparison in different lighting conditions.
Speaking of... Jobs mentioned the Phone 4 as having larger pixels at 1.75μm (compared to the EVO 4G's 1.1μm pixels) to grab more photons and a back-illuminated sensor (which the EVO 4G also has) for low light photos.
While these specific features for camera phone sensors were demoed from Micron Technologies back in 2007, Jobs played it up to appear as if the iPhone 4 was the first to have these features. That's fine, because the other handset vendors had long since dropped the ball by only marketing the number of pixels to consumers and now that the biggest competition are moving to the smaller pixel size it was a prime opportunity for Apple.
1.75μm is 59% larger pixles than 1.1μm, yet 8Mpx is 60% larger than 5Mpx so this is just marketing without actually being a bigger active-pixel sensor.