Despite estimating that moving away from consumer electronics will increase the company’s profit by more than 300 percent, Panasonic, it would seem, is still setting its sights on success in that segment. The company, which is not a serious player in the smartphone market, is about to launch an Android-powered 5-inch phablet in India on May 16. Invitations for the event have already reached media outlets. This will be the company’s first foray into the Indian smartphone market.
Panasonic is already running ads related to the smartphone in commercial breaks of the ongoing Indian Premier League cricket tournament. According to the ad (see video below), the latest Panasonic smartphone will be called P51 and in addition to the 5-inch IPS HD display, it will have top-of-the-line specs such as a 1.2GHz quad-core processor and an 8-megapixel rear camera. The ad also shows the actor using a stylus on the phone to mark out a portion of the text. So it looks like even Panasonic is going to target artists and the creative kind with the P51.
We don’t know any other details of the phone as of now, but considering that these specs match up to the Micromax Canvas HD, Panasonic will have to price it very shrewdly to have a chance in the over-crowded segment. If we are to go by the brief look we get at the device in the ad, we can tell the smartphone will have a plastic build, but if the other Panasonic Android smartphone, the Eluga, is anything to go by, then the fit and finish of the materials should be top quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not so interest for that. panasonic's mobile phone, will you purchase it?
yes, i already bought this phone as its price fall down to Rs.12k around and it is good phone at that price. Running good and smooth, But i would like to have someone to support this device in forums. its worth a thread.
about exynos octa and future of exynos and exynos based mobile devices.
Over the past few months there have been a lot of talks going on about the system on a chip (SoC) choices that Samsung’s Mobile division has made for their recent and upcoming products; now new information has shed more light as to how these choices came to be, their reasoning, and what the repercussions for both the company and their users are.
Back in January, during the official announcement CES 2013, and as early as several weeks earlier as the internet rumour-mill and Korean analysts predicted that the Galaxy S4 would come with the company’s own Exynos Octa SoC, most people were not be aware what is going on behind the scenes at Samsung.
Samsung’s System LSI Business, a business unit of the company’s Semiconductor division, has had several SoC projects in their pipeline. We know for certain of the 5410 (Octa), the 5450 and 5440, both quad-core A15 chips that seem to never have been released. Other rumoured projects were the 5210, a supposed big.LITTLE chip in a 2 + 2 configuration.
Something went on during last winter that panicked the mobile division to change SoC provider for many variants of the S4. Mounting evidence of this can be found in the overlapping local-specific variants in the official source code of both Qualcomm and Exynos platforms. JF based variants, which are based on the Snapdragon chips, overlapped JA based variants, based on the Exynos platform. Korean (jf_ktt, jf_lgt, jf_skt <> jaltektt, jaltelgt, jalteskt), European (jf_eur <> jalte), and Japanese (jf_dcm <> jaltedcm) variants were developed for both platforms. The Korean variants ended up being the sole ones to actually hit the market with the Exynos platform, other than the global 3G version of which there’s no evident Qualcomm counterpart.
Chaotic development for the whole phone seems to have been the norm: Many parts changed supplier in prototype revisions, such as the Amtel touchscreen controller which gave way to a Synaptics counterpart, a MagnaChip AMOLED controller which is missing in action, and Philips LED controller which was shelved for a Texas Instruments IC. All of the prior seem like last-minute changes simply for the fact that their drivers and firmwares are delivered in the shipping product, even if they’re not used. A well-planned product is certainly something you would not call the S4.
One of the early reported reasons for the processor change was the unexpected power consumption of the Exynos. While this remains partly true and undoubtedly had an impact, the other reasons are far more sinister.
As a reminder, the Exynos 5410, as a big.LITTLE chip by design, is supposed to have different kinds of operating modes, mostly something that is defined and limited only by software:
- Cluster-migration; where only either one or the other quad-core clusters works at any one time.
- Core-migration; where both clusters can work in tandem but only have up to 4 physical CPUs online, but any mix of A7 and A15 cores can be achieved.
- Heterogeneous multiprocessing: All 8 cores are online at once.
The problem is that to achieve any of the latter two operating modes, a specific piece of hardware is needed that allows efficient and useful use of those models: the Cache-Coherrent-Interconect (CCI). As per ARM’s own claims: “Hardware coherency with CoreLink CCI-400 is a fundamental part of ARM big.LITTLE processing.”
While it has been obvious for several months that the person behind the SamsungExynos twitter account is nothing but a clueless PR representative, the above claim is nothing short of a lie.
We have information from several sources that Exynos’s CCI is inherently crippled in silicon. It is not functional or even powered on in the shipping product (i9500). In fact, this has been such of an issue, that as a result, the chip was almost cancelled. It was reportedly only salvaged by having it work in the cluster migration policy and bypass the CCI entirely. While contradicting, it questions the validity of ARM’s own videos while demonstrating the Octa.
Internally at SLSI, as many as three projects were cancelled late last year. We don’t know the reasons for their cancellation, however it is said that the issues are related, and unacceptable power consumption also plays a big role.
One can argue that ARM’s Cortex A15 is partly to blame here: The inherent architecture is to power consuming to be implemented in a smart-phone. big.LITTLE provides major breathing-room, but only in scenarios where continuous load is not an issue. HD gaming is a major Achilles heel where power consumption can run rampant. Nvidia is having it much worse with their Tegra 4: With only a single tablet design win besides their own Shield gaming console, it’s a chip that needs to, and will be, quickly forgotten.
Plagued by delays, hardware bugs, and high power consumption, one could view the Exynos 5410 as nothing short of a failure. In fact, Samsung’s Mobile division was so dismayed at the whole situation that their next major products will completely forego the company’s own Exynos chips and go straight with Qualcomm’s offerings.
Reports that the Note 3 would come with the S800 match with this information, and are probably very correct.
With confirmed designs such as the Galaxy Tab 3 coming with an Intel processor, and the rest of the new Galaxy line-up shipping with various variants of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon S-series, the mobile division should be lauded for providing the user with the best possible experience – even if that involves skipping the Exynos. They have proven that they have no qualms to use a wide array of third-party suppliers (ST-Ericsson, Intel, Broadcom, Qualcomm) to base their products on, and this strategy is proven to be successful.
As for SLSI, things look very bleak for Samsung’s in-house processors. The business is failing to cater, not only in terms of support, like providing proper hardware documentation and source code to the public, but the current line-up is in shambles also in terms of hardware.
Lackluster graphics performance and outdated GPUs have become sort of a habit for the company. This reportedly is due to an unwillingness to spend the money on IP licenses from third-party companies, and the use of Mali GPUs in their SoCs is due to a free licensing agreement they receive from ARM as a lead partner. The surprise use of the SGX 544MP3 in the Exynos 5410 is due to panic caused by Mali’s own T6xx GPUs: again an issue of extremely excessive power consumption. The first generation Midgard lineup was quickly scrapped, leaving the Exynos 5250 and its T604 as something of an orphan. Products like the T658 never saw the light of day and are not even mentioned anymore on ARM’s website.
Meanwhile, while their shipping products are failing to properly compete, Samsung is spending a lot of money on developing their own GPU IP from scratch. Not much information is available as to when we will see this in actual products, but it will eventually come, if not cancelled or delayed due to its unorthodox implementation of an FPGA-like re-programmable design which might be hit-or-miss. Imagination’s Rogue architecture and years of experience as a leading GPU IP provider will be tough competition.
CPU wise, things look just as bleak. Qualcomm currently dominates the performance per Watt scale for the high-end with the newest Krait architectures. With no custom design in the works, as done by Apple or Qualcomm, and no A57 or A53 as architectural refreshes from ARM, nor a new 20nm manufacturing process coming until 2014, the Exynos A15 line-up looks incapable of competing in the near-future.
(Disclaimer- sammobile)
the most shocking thing about this article is it comes from one of the most reliable site about anything and everything related to Samsun mobile division!!!
So you did not write this yourself (from the sounds of the last line you wrote), but you don't provide a link to the original source or credit beyond a veiled reference to sammobile?
Let me guess, so Exynos Octa is a fail product? :laugh:
windozeanti said:
Let me guess, so Exynos Octa is a fail product? :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well its not exactly a fail product, cause as the article and research said, the final product has not got enough homework as it deserved.
im pretty sure samsung would fix this in Note 3 and i highly doubt that samsung would introduce Note 3 without Exynos processor. it will have Snapdragon 800 (i wish) but it will also have exynos version. samsung would not leave its own chip just like that!
windozeanti said:
Let me guess, so Exynos Octa is a fail product? :laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It runs the fastest mobile phone ever, it just never reached it's full potential, you know topping out round 2.3GHz, proper core migration for efficiency and total smoothness, stronger GPU. Then again, it's still the industry leader, but not without issues, so I guess Sammy will work on it, possibly bringing it over 20nm.
OMG !! after reading i want to sell my i9500
this device is 50-50 ... 50% updates 50% legacy !
if this will be considered a fail project i will break this into two !!!! rawr ~~~ im so dammnn dead !
gdonanthony said:
OMG !! after reading i want to sell my i9500
this device is 50-50 ... 50% updates 50% legacy !
if this will be considered a fail project i will break this into two !!!! rawr ~~~ im so dammnn dead !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
come on guys dont be like this! u should be really proud of ur S4! blunder from samsung aside, why dont u feel pride on ur S4 that being a bit not what it should have been it still is the fastest smartphone on the market right now and that will remain until Note 3 comes out...!
after reading what uve posted i feel my S4 i9500 suxxx bigtime
Wow,
I'm happy i got the I9505
This post is in compliance with the national potato safety regulation.
[Galaxy S 4 LTE]
but still i think andrie will not give up on this big.LITTLE arch though,,i hope so XD
Why is this thread 60% of whining while only 40% of problem solving? I'll quote what I said in another thread.
Tears for Fears said:
Why are you guys whining? I9500 is *THE* fastest smartphone in business. This flaw only means lesser battery but the battery is still very sufficient. GSMArena rated it 65h. To put this in perspective, Sony Xperia Z and HTC One got 48h. Galaxy S III got 50h, iPhone 5 got 51h, LG Optimus G Pro got 50h and Nokia Lumia 920 got 44h. Why are you whining when you get 65h? That's A LOT more than the flagships of other major manufacturers! Yes, if big.LITTLE would be implemented correctly, you'd get maybe 70-75h rating but in my opinion, 65h is HUGE compared to others' 45-50h.
Really, stop complaining and enjoy having the most powerful smartphone on Earth with an amazing battery life!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now can we please stop whining? It does no good to this thread.
Tears for Fears said:
Why is this thread 60% of whining while only 40% of problem solving? I'll quote what I said in another thread.
Now can we please stop whining? It does no good to this thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see your intentions
But would you let these companies screw your hard earned money?
At least let corporations work hard at providing us a product worth every cent.
Samsung did a terrible job at rushing things with the device. They have sacrificed a huge margin of time trying to implement protocols which they knew in the first place would have a risk of being feasible for the entire market.
So now they defray their failures to us by selling a partially finished product with huge non-uniform variants of the same device name then make all these crazy impulsive changes then run away with our money then denying most of the issues that are clearly present.
They even don't document their own chip pretty well neither.
So we just got screwed by samsung.
Better rick roll ourselves at most.
This post is in compliance with the national potato safety regulation.
[Galaxy S 4 LTE]
aami.aami said:
Something went on during last winter that panicked the mobile division to change SoC provider for many variants of the S4. Mounting evidence of this can be found in the overlapping local-specific variants in the official source code of both Qualcomm and Exynos platforms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or, as is typical in the development stage of many products, the s/w coding got ahead of the decisions on h/w so they coded for both eventualities. Since none of us work for Samsung any assumption of "panic" is a wild ass guess. Both Octa and S-600 don't come with an in-built baseband. S-600 already has the necessary interfaces and drivers while they'd have to be written for Octa. Maybe that work couldn't have been done in time considering all the different LTE markets that would need to be coded for. That, or it was just simpler and easier to use S-600 in LTE markets. They used Octa/LTE in Korea, their home town market, so I highly doubt they did that if it wasn't considered their "premium" offering. Last year for the SGS3, shipments were 1/3 LTE and 2/3 HSPA. This year it's the reverse. So favoring S-600 over Octa could be purely a market driven decision based on the larger availability of LTE this year. I agree something could have gone wrong that caused a last minute shift to S-600 and away from Octa but some stray code found in the kernel isn't a smoking gun.
Chaotic development for the whole phone seems to have been the norm: Many parts changed supplier in prototype revisions, such as the Amtel touchscreen controller which gave way to a Synaptics counterpart, a MagnaChip AMOLED controller which is missing in action, and Philips LED controller which was shelved for a Texas Instruments IC. All of the prior seem like last-minute changes simply for the fact that their drivers and firmwares are delivered in the shipping product, even if they’re not used. A well-planned product is certainly something you would not call the S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has anyone here run a large-scale product development group? Or worked on a h/w or s/w project that's the scope of launching a major electronic device? It's always chaos. Especially the last mile. The SGS4 could have been more chaotic than other devices Samsung's released but since none of us were on the project teams we're just guessing that last minute decisions were made because of crisis and error.
The problem is that to achieve any of the latter two operating modes, a specific piece of hardware is needed that allows efficient and useful use of those models: the Cache-Coherrent-Interconect (CCI). As per ARM’s own claims: “Hardware coherency with CoreLink CCI-400 is a fundamental part of ARM big.LITTLE processing.”
We have information from several sources that Exynos’s CCI is inherently crippled in silicon. It is not functional or even powered on in the shipping product (i9500). In fact, this has been such of an issue, that as a result, the chip was almost cancelled. It was reportedly only salvaged by having it work in the cluster migration policy and bypass the CCI entirely. While contradicting, it questions the validity of ARM’s own videos while demonstrating the Octa.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the way big.LITTLE is supposed to work. I'd like to understand what's missing and what replaced it.
As a reminder, the Exynos 5410, as a big.LITTLE chip by design, is supposed to have different kinds of operating modes, mostly something that is defined and limited only by software:
- Cluster-migration; where only either one or the other quad-core clusters works at any one time.
- Core-migration; where both clusters can work in tandem but only have up to 4 physical CPUs online, but any mix of A7 and A15 cores can be achieved.
- Heterogeneous multiprocessing: All 8 cores are online at once.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are only two operating models. Why is Samsung choosing to implement one over the other "screwing" anyone? The dev community not having a toy to play with doesn't mean Octa's a commercial failure because 99.9% of i9500 owners don't give a crap that it could be operating in two modes but instead is only operating in one.
Plagued by delays, hardware bugs, and high power consumption, one could view the Exynos 5410 as nothing short of a failure. In fact, Samsung’s Mobile division was so dismayed at the whole situation that their next major products will completely forego the company’s own Exynos chips and go straight with Qualcomm’s offerings. Reports that the Note 3 would come with the S800 match with this information, and are probably very correct. With confirmed designs such as the Galaxy Tab 3 coming with an Intel processor, and the rest of the new Galaxy line-up shipping with various variants of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon S-series, the mobile division should be lauded for providing the user with the best possible experience – even if that involves skipping the Exynos. They have proven that they have no qualms to use a wide array of third-party suppliers (ST-Ericsson, Intel, Broadcom, Qualcomm) to base their products on, and this strategy is proven to be successful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does anyone here know what the production goals are for Octa? And over what time frame? Without knowing that how could 1/3 of SGS4's shipping with Octa be considered a failure? Qualcomm licenses ARM technology as the basis for all their designs. So the chip after S-800 will be big.LITTLE also as ARM's spent two years developing it and spent several billion dollars to do so. Exynos 5410 is the first and only commercial implementation of big.LITTLE. I highly doubt it's perfect as V1 of anything rarely is. But all this speculation of failure and use of adjectives like "chaos" is based on a very narrow and shortsighted view of what's basically a long view game.
Here are the white papers on big.LITTLE; three from ARM and one from Samsung. The Samsung paper's been authored by their Principal Engineer who has a PhD. When someone here who's got a PhD that’s being paid $500K+ a year and responsible for the s/w running hundreds of millions of devices writes a similar paper with as much fact and detail in it showing why big.LITTLE's a failure I'll be all ears. Until them I'm hoping the N3 has Octa because (at least to me) the long term benefit of having a big.LITTLE equipped device outweighs the short-term gains of going with Qualcomm's interpretation of a five-year old ARM design. For a site that's supposed to be technical you guys sure have a sour view on new and emerging technologies.
http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/big_LITTLE_Final_Final.pdf
http://www.arm.com/files/pdf/Advances_in_big.LITTLE_Technology_for_Power_and_Energy_Savings.pdf
http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/Software_Techniques_for_ARM_big.LITTLE_Systems.pdf
http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/Benefits_of_the_big.LITTLE_architecture.pdf
How would we feel barry with our 9500s without you barry.
Seriously, as a consumer, all i want is to know that i have the best and fastest smartphone when i traded my hard earned cash for it. As long as i know that i can run my desired apps faster than any other device out there, i know that i have gotten my money's worth. I couldnt care less if samsung hasnt done enough homework to utilize the big little technology at its fullest.
So please lets stop with the whining and complaining about the 9500 because its not helping out those who have gotten it. All of this to me feels like all bitterness. No punn intended. Just my thoughts. Thanks!
I knew that something little will be wrong with the octa, since it is the first time release, I think that all of these issues will be corrected by Samsung surely. I will stick with my GT-I9100G (beast-of-a-smartphone BTW is giving fight nowadays) until a new octa-core with those issues fixed comes up, may be the note 3
Sent from my Galaxy S2 using xda app-developers app
So i need to sell my octa one
Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
What's the big deal guys? So big.LITTLE isn't working as expected. We're still using the A15 processor which is a beast. The only benefit of big.LITTLE is enhanced battery life and even that is on par with the other flagship devices.
crzr said:
I think that all of these issues will be corrected by Samsung surely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One of the points OP made that's spot on is how competitive the mobile SoC business is. Unless Samsung's planning to exit the business which nothing points to, they'll have to keep innovating and providing cost effective, powerful, and energy efficient solutions to power not only future Samsung devices but other manufacturer's devices as well. Designing, engineering, and producing a SoC costs several hundred million dollars. Committing to big.LITTLE wasn't a "throw it against the wall and see if it'll stick" decision.
Samsung's supposed to sell 80MM SGS4's this year which means 24MM (1/3) of them will be Octa. HTC's projecting 20MM One's. That means there will be more Octa devices produced than all of HTC's flagship S-600 device. So I'd hardly call it a failure. And it’s great that Samsung’s experimenting with Intel. The 10.1” G-Tab 3 that’s supposed to have an Intel chip will probably sell 10MM units; if it’s the only SoC used which some are speculating it’ll only be for certain markets.
Here are some excerpts from Samsung’s Q1 earning’s release talking about their semi-conductor business. It certainly doesn’t sound like the division is in trouble or Samsung’s walking away from it any time soon.
As for this year's capital expenditure, Samsung Electronics executed a combined total of 3.9 trillion won for the quarter. The Semiconductor and Display Panel segments were each accountable for 1.5 trillion won ($1.3B USD) in capex spending. Samsung is poised to increase investment beginning from the second half of the fiscal year to preempt rising demand for differentiated products and to harness its competitiveness in the high-tech industry.
Samsung's Semiconductor businesses - including Memory and System LSI - posted consolidated 8.58 trillion won in revenue ($2.8B USD), a 11-percent drop from a quarter earlier. The Memory chip unit logged 5.12 trillion won in earnings but, compared with the previous period, quarter-on-quarter revenue retreated 4 percent.Profitability for the System LSI Business was hampered by seasonally slow demand in set products that use logic chips.Considering Octa is "V1" and that it out-benchmarks S-600 and gets very close to the same battery life the way it was shipped I'd very much call it a success. S-600 is nothing more than an evolution of previous Snapdragon chips. So that Samsung/ARM's first use of big.LITTLE is so competitive against a years old architecture that OEM’s are comfortable with implementing says a lot about what Samsung/ARM have done and what the upside potential is.
AnandTech talking about S4 - At present, this is the same Krait CPU as what we've seen in MSM8960 in phones like the USA versions of the Galaxy S 3 and HTC One X. Later on, Krait v3 will emerge with higher IPC and shorter critical paths (and clocks up to 1.7 or 2 GHz) and a resulting 10-15% boost in performance. For now however we're looking at 1.5 GHz APQ8064 with a Krait v2 inside and Qualcomm's newest scalar GPU architecture with Adreno 320.AnandTech talking about S-600 - Also being announced today is the Snapdragon 600. This part integrates four Krait 300 cores running at up to 1.9GHz. Adreno 320 handles GPU duties, although with an increased clock speed. Compared to the current Snapdragon S4, the 600 is expected to improve performance by up to 40% if you combine IPC and frequency increases.
I love this phone. ( I wish they'd fix this M****R F*****G Camera Reboot issue.) But I bought it because of the lies they told me.
hoezay said:
I love this phone. ( I wish they'd fix this M****R F*****G Camera Reboot issue.) But I bought it because of the lies they told me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What lies? When did they tell anything about how the CPU will work? Can you provide a link please?
"Major" reviews appearing now that the Oct 1 embargo is being lifted:
Android Central: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 review (European version) | Android Central
Droid-Life: http://www.droid-life.com/2013/10/01/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/
The Verge: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 review | The Verge
Engadget: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 review (global edition)
Ars: Review: The Galaxy Note 3 is big
BGR: http://bgr.com/2013/10/01/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/
Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review-biggerer-and-betterer-1432786715
CNET: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Review - Watch CNET's Video Review
Phandroid: http://phandroid.com/2013/10/01/galaxy-note-3-review/
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...f8f3f2-2a91-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html
TechnoBuffalo (FI): http://www.technobuffalo.com/videos/samsung-galaxy-note-3-first-impressions/
ZDNet: http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-galaxy...droid-smartphone-gets-even-better-7000021366/
GigOm: http://gigaom.com/2013/10/01/galaxy-note-3-review-to-ink-or-not-to-ink-that-is-the-question/
Phandroid: http://phandroid.com/2013/10/01/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/
Anandtech - http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review
Maverick777 said:
Anandtech - http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As always, great job from Anand. Also it was great to see that he had the Tmous edition.
ceroglu said:
As always, great job from Anand. Also it was great to see that he had the Tmous edition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I'm eagerly awaiting picking up my Note 3 from the T-mobile store tomorrow morning.
Maverick777 said:
I agree. I'm eagerly awaiting picking up my Note 3 from the T-mobile store tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already pre-ordered, but lools like you will get your hands on it before the people who pre-ordered. I don't even know why it is called pre-order if there is no benefits to it!
ceroglu said:
I already pre-ordered, but lools like you will get your hands on it before the people who pre-ordered. I don't even know why it is called pre-order if there is no benefits to it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah. I learned my lesson from previous devices with T-mobile. It's pretty much always better to just wait at the store. Unless you're getting an iPhone. The wait at the store is not really that bad considering how many locations there are. Also because there are so many android devices to choose from, the demand for any particular launch is not nearly as crazy as an iPhone release.
Only anandtech have 1 line and dare to say in them review that this phone is Region lock. It is not the sim lock. it is region lock.
the other website is not mention it at all.
I do not know that they not aware of this problem(Maybe they get the box without the sticker.) or they just avoid to mention it.
iPhonearena has given a strange review once again.
Thank god for Engadget's review of this device
Per Engadget:
The benefit of the newer connector is that it improves the effective / usable data rate from around 280 Mbps to 4 Gbps.
Good news if you like to move big chunks of data around this way, but we're not sure if the benefit offsets the somewhat uglier connection
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/30/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/
Who in their right mind judges the functionality of something this significant based on looks?
How is this person still employed as a reviewer...
grifter9931 said:
Per Engadget:
The benefit of the newer connector is that it improves the effective / usable data rate from around 280 Mbps to 4 Gbps.
Good news if you like to move big chunks of data around this way, but we're not sure if the benefit offsets the somewhat uglier connection
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/30/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/
Who in their right mind judges the functionality of something this significant based on looks?
How is this person still employed as a reviewer...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good catch. That's moronic. A lot of the reviewers on the major sites shouldn't be employed, unfortunately.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4
You don't need any of these it's just brilliant
Maverick777 said:
Yeah. I learned my lesson from previous devices with T-mobile. It's pretty much always better to just wait at the store. Unless you're getting an iPhone. The wait at the store is not really that bad considering how many locations there are. Also because there are so many android devices to choose from, the demand for any particular launch is not nearly as crazy as an iPhone release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From all I've seen the pre-order is good for only 1 circumstance. If there are a limited number of shops expecting the phone in your area, with a very small number of phones coming to each, and a very high demand expected, then a preorder would get you a phone shipped for a slower but more certain delivery.
They never said the preorder was for early release, that was an assumption/wish on the part of impatient buyers.
I called 2 t-mobile stores last night to verify stocks. They wouldn't say how many phones they have on hand, but one clerk said "Plenty, you don't need to hurry in". At the other store the clerk said I should be there when they open. That store is known to get fewer handsets in stock, but some have suggested they just want credit for the sale on their early shift.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using xda app-developers app
Too bad some of the American tech review sites are heavily biased toward Apple products against other non-American companies. See The Verge reviews for Note 3, Xperia Z1 and LG G2 and compare them to their reviews for IPhone 5S/5C for example. They are so biased it's not even funny.
It is urgently needed a scientific degree for some of the reviewers. There are too many stupid arguments and contradictions in their reviews.
grifter9931 said:
Per Engadget:
The benefit of the newer connector is that it improves the effective / usable data rate from around 280 Mbps to 4 Gbps.
Good news if you like to move big chunks of data around this way, but we're not sure if the benefit offsets the somewhat uglier connection
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/30/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/
Who in their right mind judges the functionality of something this significant based on looks?
How is this person still employed as a reviewer...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL agreed!
finally a site that acknowledges just how much you get more value for your money when compared to a phone like the 5s (well most of that knew that already i guess)
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/01/5784310/techinsights-stacks-apple-iphone.html
Both devices are LTE based smartphones and both are available on a two year contract for $299.991 or without contract for $799.992, but that is where the similarities end.
TechInsights' cost estimates place the 32 GB version of the iPhone 5s at $200 to make vs. the 32 GB Samsung Galaxy Note 3 at $237.50. So, which device would be the better buy for the customer? Clearly Samsung is placing more money into the Galaxy Note 3, but what does the customer get for that money?
Let's compare costs by function:
Display: The iPhone 5s is an evolution of the iPhone 5 and sports a 4 inch IPS TFT display with 1136 x 640 pixels. In contrast the Galaxy Note 3 contains a 5.7 inch Super AMOLED display with 1920 x 1080 full HD display. The Galaxy Note 3 display is bigger, sports a brighter display based on AMOLED technology and is full HD. Likewise, the cost of the Galaxy Note 3 display/touch system is approximately $32 more than that of the iPhone 5s.
Battery: The battery pack in the Note 3 is over twice the capacity of the iPhone 5s. One would expect the Galaxy Note 3 would handily outperform the iPhone 5s with battery life, but based on power consumption, that may not be the case. At any rate, the cost of the battery pack is about double that of the iPhone 5s.
Camera: The Galaxy Note 3 packs more megapixels in their cameras, but the iPhone 5s has focused their attention on things like low light conditions and increasing software augmented camera features, such as slow motion. Given the different focuses, we believe the camera costs are a wash.
Processor The Galaxy Note 3 uses a 2.3 GHz quad-core, 32 bit ARMv7 processor compared to a 1.3 GHz dual-core, 64 bit ARMv8 processor in the iPhone 5s. The Galaxy Note 3 wins the race for pure horsepower and it does so while saving about $12.50 compared to the iPhone 5s.
Overall, Samsung has delivered superior value with the features that are most important to the customer – better display and a faster processor.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/10/01/5784310/techinsights-stacks-apple-iphone.html#storylink=cpy
Absolutely, some of the sites are sponsored by Apple to give a less than favorable review like The Verge. Furthermore, it's reviewed by an iPhone owning d-bag and one of the cons he listed is the device is too big. Reality is about 80% of the world think the iPhone is too small.
camera shootout .. I haven't seen this one posted here yet
http://asia.cnet.com/smartphone-cam...-galaxy-note-3-vs-sony-xperia-z1-62222509.htm
I'm planning on buying a new phone and the most important thing that I'm looking for is longevity, that is, to get a phone that will last as much as possible before I need to replace it, something like 4+ years.
The two phones that are within my price range and that I think will fulfil this criteria are: Poco F3 and Samsung Galaxy A52s
Now, I'm in a bit of a dilemma of deciding which of these two phones I should take, and the only thing that remains is to decide which of the features of these phones provide better future-proofing.
Poco F3 for example, comes with amazing specs for it's price range (SD870 CPU, Adreno 650 GPU, 8GB (DDR5) RAM, UFS 3.1 Storage speed) which seem to be flagship grade, and it does have IP53 rating. However, from what I've read, it does come with a weaker / sluggish software, that is, it's operating system MIUI, and less update support.
A52s on the other hand comes with weaker specs that are mostly aimed towards midrange phones (SD778 CPU, Adreno 642L GPU, 6GB (DDR4) RAM, UFS 2.1 Storage speed), but it does come with a bit more stable OS, more software support, and IP67 rating.
Both phones have specs that are overkill for my minimal use cases. I don't do a lot on my phone other than browse the net and watch YouTube videos, and I try to avoid dropping my phone on the ground and water so I'm not sure how much the IP ratings are relevant here. The only remaining factor in deciding which of these two phones I should get is whether or not taking a phone with better hardware (F3) has an advantage of taking a phone with better software support (A52s)?
On the one hand, if I take F3, I'll have better hardware, but less updates to push that hardware to it's maximum efficiency, and due to my use cases, I wonder if I should even bother with stronger specs, whereas if I take the A52s, I'm worried about the opposite, if it's midrange CPU (SD778) will be enough for those years ahead to push things through smoothly and without stutter, and if all these software updates will eat up more and more (of it's limited 6GB) memory.
I know that I'm probably overthinking this, but seeing how the prices are quite similar (with A52s being around ~30$ cheaper), in your opinion, which of these two would you take if you wish for a that will last you as long as possible?
IMO only the hardware specs are decisive. The OS at any time can get changed.
As a budget phone owner who’s not looking to spend more than $300 (or $400 at most) on a new device, it was with great interest that I saw the recent release of the Samsung Galaxy A23 5G. It has good specs for its price and it seems like it would be a very decent phone all around. So it was with great dismay that I noticed the overall size of the phone... 6.5 inches from top to bottom. Once again...
Is it just me, or is there a significant group of phone owners out there who want phones that actually fit into smaller pockets, don't fatigue the hands, and can be used with one hand when needed? I want a phone, not a tablet or a “phablet”!
When it comes to its S-series, Samsung releases a small version each year, along with a bigger sized “Pro” version, and an even bigger “Ultra” version. But when it comes to the A-series phones, almost every single one of them is bigger than the S22 Ultra! In the recent American A-series model lineup, this applies to the A02s, A03s, A12, A13 5G, A23 5G, A32 5G, and A42 5G, with only the A52 5G and A53 5G being slightly smaller at 6.3 inches. And the S21 FE is only slightly cheaper than the S22. Way above a budget price.
I can’t be the only one who wishes that there were some A-series budget phones whose sizes were similar to the 5.75 inch Galaxy S22, or at least under 6 inches from top to bottom. I was even considering the (6 inch) Pixel 6a until seeing the many reports of its overheating and network connectivity drop issues.
Just as a practical example, Samsung can make a Galaxy "A23s" 5G which can have the same Snapdragon 695 chip as the regular A23 5G. Just the overall phone size (and battery if necessary) will be smaller.
-----
In light of the above, I call on anyone who would also like such phones to call Samsung’s sales department at 1-855-726-8721 and politely request that they start making such devices, and explain that they will attract many compact phone buyers who can’t afford to shell out $700 or $800, but would be very interested in getting a Samsung A-series phone if only there were smaller options available, just like there is in the S-series.
If Samsung sees that there’s a big enough demand for it, they will start producing such phones so as to reap the earnings from this new customer base!
Please share this page and spread the word far and wide, so that we can get as many people as possible to effectuate this change!
P.S. Leave a comment with any additional ideas that you think may help the cause.