Linked by Alexey Eromenko on Fri 1st Feb 2013 21:52 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 551546
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
1997-10-01
I can understand why you might disagree with the author's conclusions. I expected that many people might. However, I'm curious as to why giving a Samsung fan a platform to make his case is "tabloid journalism."
Personally, I would only buy an Android device that ran vanilla Android, and I always considered carrier-modified Android versions to be something that "low-information consumers" had foisted on them. I was intrigued to learn that there are some consumers who think that Samsung's version, at least, is an actual improvement. It seemed like a worthy topic of debate for OSNews. I'd like to hear why you disagree.