Sure, if I can only borrow the iPhone from somewhere. But as some reviewers pointed out, the iPhone browser may APPEAR to be faster in some cases because of simply ignoring a lot of content that the N900 browser processes and renders, like e.g. Javascript, Flash etc. It simply has much less to do to show a webpage. Another difference is the resolution of the display, 2.5 times higher on the N900, hence fitting 2.5 times more content at once, i.e. once again more data to process/render.

And even if the resulting difference is like one second or maybe two, in exchange for over twice more content fitting on the screen and Flash/Javascript etc. fully working, who would worry about it? I don't :-)

I didn't do any comparative tests, but Nokia saying that the browser is the fastest actually may be true, if we measure it with relation to the amount of data/content it processes and not just how much seconds it takes to show a page. If a site with lots of Flash shows up in the N900 browser e.g. five seconds later than on the iPhone but WITH the Flash content as opposed to the iPhone showing it without Flash, then it's not OK to just say that the iPhone did it faster... And the same goes for the screen resolution. If the N900 shows a page several seconds later than the iPhone but you can see 250% more of it at once (i.e. full width and 30% more vertically) then just comparing the loading times isn't correct. It's all very RELATIVE.

YES, setting the AWB to one of the pre-sets can eliminate the "flickering". With the AWB active and the lighting/colours changing like in the 1st clip, it is normal (even on camcorders) to have such a sudden changes as the AWB kicks in and tries to adjust itself to the changed conditions.