Print vs. Monitor. Actually, a great deal of money is spent to insure that the monitor colors and brightness correspond to the print output. That way, when working in Photoshop, the output matches the monitor and vice versa. As was mentioned, monitors look different (not better or worse) because of the native back-lighting that results from most LCD monitors. Even more money is spent to insure that the print output approximates the actual object being photographed. That is why some printers costs $4,800 when many inkjet reproductions are perfectly acceptable to most people. Any high quality printer will have better resolution than any high-end monitor.
I would assert that pixels are important to the photographic process simply because, all things being equal, the more you have, the more accurate the approximation of what you are attempting to capture. Pixels are relatively unimportant to snapshots unless you lack an optic zoom. They are useful for enlarging snapshots when your camera is natively a wide angle (like the Evo). Pixels are important to the professional photographic process because they permit the photographer to enlarge photographs to a minimum gallery size of 16 x 20.
Sensors and in-camera imaging software are essential to professional results because, along with the camera lens, they produce results that replicate the true colors and contrasts that the human eye captures. Expecting a multi-use phone like the Evo or even the infamous iPhone to have a high quality sensor is silly. A single-purpose camera will be the only option for many years. At the least, until a phone manufacturer places a lens larger than 3 mm on the back of a phone, true quality photos from a phone will be a fantasy. (BTW, I am aware that Samsung, I think, produces a few "camera quality" phones that produce acceptable photos.)
