Seems a little odd for you to be laying down ground rules that you yourself can't be bothered with. Why are the ones you listed the best of the best? Why do others like Lookout fall short?
And, who, by he way, are"we?"
Not much of a discussion.
To save ppl time, I've omitted all of the background research I've done. To get to this point I've done about 3 to 5 hours of searching and reading. I've read other's independent reviews, articles, market descriptions, developer websites and in-market reviews.
I've laid down ground rules because I'm interested in having a focused, detailed discussion about the apps I've identified as the best of the best. I have no interest in rehashing information I already know and I'm hoping by eliminating discussion of other apps I'm saving other ppl time too.
Still, I've given users the opportunity to discuss other apps outside of those I've listed, but only if they have a very good reason, which I've requested they describe.
I also have no need for voting. If I want votes I can post a poll. Voting or mentioning your favorite app tells me nothing about the quality of that app. There are plenty of instances that the most used product is certainly not the best product.
Lookout was eliminated because it doesn't appear to have anywhere near as many lost/stolen recovery features as the other apps I've listed. I've looked at the description on market, the Lookout website and in reviews like the one that the user posted in the comment immediately above you. The developers of Lookout are quite verbal and like to show off their features publicly whenever they get a chance. The conspicuous lack of info about these features indicates to me that it doesn't have that many lost/stolen phone features. This makes sense because Lookout is a malware app before anything else.
The "we" I used was the proverbial we that people sometimes use to as a novelty. I'm not referring to a team of people, I'm just screwing around with the English language. In other words, it's just me.
Hope this answers your questions sufficiently.