The video seems to show that visibly similar (if not actually identical) testing was done on all the phones involved in the test. No, it doesn't meet the strictest scientific repeatability standards, but somehow I doubt the guy has access to a multi-million dollar lab with the equipment necessary to reach that standard. Then again, if having that equipment were actually necessary to perform reasonably good science, we'd still be living in caves. The man demonstrated his methodology. If you disagree with it, run your own tests and show where his methodology went wrong *and* poisoned the results. Until then, your complaining about his methodology is *less* scientific than his methodology is.
Pointing out his lack of scientific method is hardly less scientific than his methodology. That criticism reeks of fanboyism. Would you be so quick to defend his tests if they had shown the iPhone to be the worst of the pack? If you're going to challenge my criticisms of the (lack of) method used, perhaps you should do your own tests to confirm his are valid before criticizing me, but that would just be silly.
Several others have posted that their own tests show their Android phones to draw just as straight lines as the iPhone, even straighter perhaps, and we've even got a picture or two floating around.
In my opinion the guy's finger clearly is less stable, for whatever reason (fatigue, hidden agenda, camera angle, etc) on the Droid test than it is on the others. He could easily have addressed this without a multimillion dollar lab: use a straight edge, do multiple runs, and use multiple testing personnel. Do you really think that's unreasonable to expect.