Many people think that all Androids are equal and it’s a race to the bottom where the cheapest vendor wins. This could not be farther from the truth. For me, it all began half-a-year ago, when I bought the Samsung Galaxy S III and was absolutely stunned by it, then exploring and comparing it with other Androids. Now that Google has fired a shot across the bow with its low pricing for the unlocked Nexus 4, where does that leave Samsung and its flagship handset?
For Samsung, it all began years ago when, like many Android hardware vendors, Samsung started to build custom icon sets & themes on top of Android, and over time it expanded into other areas. It turns out that Samsung took Google’s Android code and applied a ton of patches on top, creating a new variant. Something I’ll call the “Samsung Android” operating system.
Differences between Samsung Android 4.0 (i9300 Galaxy S-III) and vanilla Google Android 4.0 (as found on the Galaxy Nexus or many Chinese phones) are many and varied. There’s also a difference between the improvements that Samsung has made to Android and the poorly-implemented improvements that other vendors have made, which have indeed given vendor-modified Android variants a bad reputation. In this article, I’ll focus on the Samsung variant specifically.
[Each feature will also receive a number of bonus points reflecting the effect of a particular feature on total handset value]NOTE: Each feature’s value is subjective, so a huge feature of tremendous value for you may have little value for me and vice-versa, so feel free to come up with a similar list and put your value on each and share which features you like (or dislike) the most.
Software killer features:
Samsung Smart Stay – phone looks at you, and does not shutdown screen as long as it detects your face, and it basically saves battery power. I bet it may be useful on future laptops too. Genius ! Killer feature ! Worth at least +10 of the total handset cost. [+10]
Video Pop up play – lets me browse the web + see video clips at the same time. (A limited form of multi-tasking)
In video clips, the main focus is music, not the video, so I focus on the Internet, while putting only half-eye on the video clip.
This is available on PCs since Windows 98, yet missing on every other smartphone ! Killer feature ! [+5]
Two-Window-Multi-tasking – Two applications run side-by-side (on Samsung Android 4.1.2+) ! [+5]
…and a long-long list of smaller “nice-to-have” software features:
Each feature by itself doesn’t change the picture, but combined together, they significantly increase the value of Samsung Android products.
- Shortcut to screen brightness in 2 clicks (this is simple to implement, very small, yet super-useful feature, as I tend to change screen brightness very often, and this is super-easy with the S III)vWhy hasn’t Google done it? Because Samsung UI team does a better job of human User eXperience (UX) testing. This is why I value it so highly, and can easily justify another $20 or so on this feature alone. [+4]
- Better icons (TouchWiz UI theme) [+3]
- Launcher: Samsung clearly divides between applications and widgets. Much easier to navigate and start applications (than vanilla Google Android 4.0). [+3]
- Samsung gestures (screen-shot, double tap, …) [+3]
- I can swipe my hand over Galaxy S III screen, like a scanner, and it will take a screenshot. This is very cool!
- Extra codecs : *. wma, *. wmv (Microsoft Windows Media Audio/Video; I’m surprised, that Samsung intervened so deeply in the OS. Sadly none of the Androids support the older MPEG2 format, *.mpeg ) [+3]
Why doesn’t Google include every codec imaginable?
This is simple: Google tries to avoid patent payments, especially to Microsoft. Each codec costs about $1 per device, so for high-end devices it’s not a hardship for Samsung, but encumbering the freely-distributed OS with royalties would be unworkable for Google.
(Same patent reason probably applies to their avoidance of the exFAT patent and MicroSD slot on any recent Nexus series.)
It makes sense for Google to lower the overall “patent tax” on the Android ecosystem, but for hardware vendors, it makes sense to differentiate by adding value.
Surely advanced users can re-code audio/video into any format, but this is not an option for the majority, or on the go.
I do recode the majority of my personal media collection to free codecs at home, such as Ogg Vorbis audio and WebM video, which Android happily plays, but I still stumble across wma/wmv often-times, and am grateful to Samsung for providing me this extra option. I really don’t want to recode anything when travelling.
Note, that Google still pays patent royalties for other non-free codecs, including MP3, AAC, MPEG4, H.264 (AVC), etc…
Camera: Burst shot — this is super-useful for shaky hands… the phone makes 8 shots quickly in one second and selects the best-focused shot automatically, based on clever math and Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), then asks user for confirmation and saves the choice, after which it deletes the other 7 candidates. This is the “smart” part of the smart-phone. With shaky hands, what would result in blurry pictures on other phones magically becomes laser-focused and crystal-clear image on the S III. [+2]
(There are more camera niceties in the S III, but this one is my favorite)
S Beam – I call it “The Kiss of the Galaxy!” It allows transferring pictures, videos and music between Galaxy S III phones simply by touching them, in several seconds. It starts sync via NFC, then transfers the actual data over WiFi direct (peer-to-peer). I would value this feature much higher, if it were an open-standard and would work with non-Samsung phones, but sadly it is not. I personally believe that software ecosystems and networking protocols should be open. For most Androids (including the S III), you can use standards-based Bluetooth File Transfer to achieve the same goal, but the S Beam is so much easier to use and a lot faster. This idea is so useful and revolutionary that I value it positively until an open standard emerges to replace it. [+2]
Long-term, for Samsung it is beneficial to use open network protocols, because if it does not, an open alternative will be developed (either by Google or by the Open-Source community) and the whole ecosystem will migrate to it. Better to develop an open protocol and sell the first implementation of it. Either way, Samsung wins time vs. the competition. Better to create user value, than user lock-in. Freedom and Open-platform is the primary reason for many users choosing Android vs. the competition.
Better Music Player app – can list all music, or take music from directory/folder filesystem. [+1]
Assistive Flashlight widget — this is much easier to use as than other flashlight applications, via single-click. Typical flashlight applications may require 3 or 4 clicks. I often use it at night when returning home. [+1]
Much improved lock-screen with water effects, and ability to slide-unlock in any direction [+1]
(Stock Google Android 4.0 and some other OSes unlock only across)
Better Clock app: has smart alarm, which slowly increasing volume in the morning, so I don’t need a hammer to silence my phone, plus has timer, stopper, and world clock (multi-timezone). Everything integrated with one GUI. [+1]
S-Voice (cloud service) Similar to the iPhone’s “Siri,” this allows the user to speak to the phone itself. “Hi Galaxy!”. Because of voice recognition accuracy is not always top and limited “intelligence,” this is just a “nice to have” feature now, but as the technology improves it will surely become a necessity. [+1]
Dropbox 50 GB for free for 2 years (cloud service; Note: this is carrier dependent.) [+1]
Android Updates – All of the Nexus series have an advantage here: faster Android updates, which account for maybe +5 value for me. And -5 for the S III. [-5]
Samsung does update its flagship Androids, with a few months of delay from the Nexus, which is necessary to port its massive patch-set and test it. Samsung also provides security, bugfix and feature updates in minor releases, without changing the Android version.
By comparison, many vendors lack Android updates at all, so I would value them at -20 on this test. (Meaning, that most Chinese hardware starts at substantial deficit for me vs compared to Google’s offering. Basically I would pay less for their phones, due to lack of support.)
[Not yet valued features:]- S Memo/S Note
- S Planner
- -ChatON
AllShare Cast/AllShare Play (remote desktop/video streaming) – with Samsung Smart TV. (Note to those of us, who chosen Android because it is open, that the Galaxy S III also supports standards-based DLNA, but I haven’t tried either. Samsung adds some proprietary features, but also keeps open foundations of Google)
Security: Samsung anti-theft protection
Printing – unlike vanilla Android 4.0, that lacks a printing API, Samsung Android allows printing from the Android browser and from image gallery, but only to Samsung Printers.
The weak point in software (in both Google and Samsung is the Android keyboard; I had to buy the “SwiftKey” keyboard to hugely improve my input experience)
After adding up all the points, I believe, that Samsung Android is worth a substantial premium vs. vanilla Google Android on the same hardware. By my own measurement, that would mean that I’d be willing to pay 40-50% more for a Samsung device over stock Android, and even more over an Android handset from another vendor. You can judge the value of the added functionality for yourself.
My recommendation: If you don’t believe me, just use the Samsung Galaxy S III for a month, then try the vanilla Google Android for a few days. You will understand the difference very quickly. You will not want to go vanilla.
Now that we’ve looked at the software, let’s take a look at the hardware:
(Keep in mind that I’m referencing the Galaxy Nexus here, and not the newer Nexus 4, which still isn’t widely available)
MicroSD slot +20 (I put 64 GB of extra storage, used for full-length HD videos — my use case is to convert the S III into an HDTV in my pocket and watch it in bus or parks). A secondary use case for MicroSD is to transfer files between phones.
If the Nexus had 64 GB of internal memory, my use case of MicroSD would reduce to a small advantage, like +5 for the S III.
Bigger Battery +5 (2100 vs 1750 mAh) (again, for traveling reasons, I take 3 batteries when on long travels. Would have to take 4, if I were using a Nexus.
Replacing the battery is just a 1 min inconvenience on my Galaxy S III. For normal workdays the S III battery is good enough, and I still have ~20% at the end of the day.) When actively browsing the Internet over 3G, it lasts about 6 to 7 hours, depending on screen brightness.
Note that the Galaxy S III has 3rd party replaceable batteries, such as Hyperion-4200 and Mugen-4600, that doubles your work time and replaces the back cover, but also doubles the thickness of the smartphone and adds some weight. It adds up to about 12 hours of active usage or 2 days of normal usage with a single battery charge. Also make sure to check for NFC, because some cheaper 3rd party batteries do not support NFC, so no S-Beam for you.
CPU Quad-core +1 (potential of HEVC/WebM2 decoding, future-proof)
Both Nexus and the Galaxy S III are fast in day to day tasks.
Camera (8 mp vs. 5 mp) +0 (I don’t care too much, because 5 MP is “good enough” for me, and sensor quality matters more than pixel density anyway. Do any camera experts care to weigh in on the relative quality of the camera hardware?)
Screen:
The screen is amazing at 4.8″ with Super AMOLED technology at 306 PPI and HD 720p quality, and easily one of the killer features of the Galaxy S III. G-Nexus sports a similar screen at 4.65″ also at 720p so I won’t add points here. My eyes absolutely cannot distinguish between individual pixels at that pixel density, making for ideal picture quality.
Screen Glass:
One thing to mention is that Galaxy S III screen uses Corning Gorilla Glass which makes it *hugely* better than cheap Chinese plastic screens. The feeling is much more sleek and very touch-friendly and it is (mostly) scratch resistant. After 6 months of heavy use, I have only 3 scratches on my Galaxy S III (unprotected) Corning Gorilla Glass screen vs. 100+ scratches in two-weeks time during my use of Chinese phones. Chinese phone screens are not nice to touch. And I can tell a cheap plastic screen even during a blind test.
I won’t add points for it vs the Galaxy Nexus, because the Nexus has pretty good glass too (not Gorilla), but it is a killer feature compared to cheap phones that easily justifies another +20 premium of the total handset costs vs. cheap Chinese plastic screens.
Here is a great video on the Corning Gorilla Glass, explaining it’s manufacturing process: Why Glass Breaks? (by Corning)
Ideas for hardware vendors:
Which other hardware features might users be interested in paying for?
- For me, being a water traveler in a hot country, a waterproof phone will definitely add value. I wish I could buy a waterproof Galaxy S III, but it doesn’t exist. So I bought a water-proof case for the S III. But I would gladly pay for +20% more for a water-proof version of the S III or another high-end Android, because a case is sort of a compromise.
- For others (in cold countries) a gloves-friendly touch-oriented smart-phone may prove to be a killer feature in winter (like the Nokia Lumia 920 with its super-sensitive touch screen, that works with normal, non-touch-capacitive gloves, according to their marketing).
- Alternative for the Android users would be buying “capacitive gloves” (aka “gloves for smartphone”).
- Dual SIM phones are popular in some countries (like China), but not here.
- Some people want a vandal-proof phone, with extra strength, so you can throw it on walls or drop it with no effects. “Extra durable”.
- Other possible differentiating factor would be a physical QWERTY keyboard, like on BlackBerry and older Nokia phones, as some users seems to prefer it (Not me. I type very quickly on a quality virtual keyboard, such as the latest “SwiftKey Flow” and I love it).
Software alone, as mentioned earlier, worth a substantial premium for the S III. Total S III value (hardware + software combined) is worth even more.
A word to Google: Please please please – either allow MicroSD on your Nexus series (4, 7, 10) -or- offer 64 GB variants for heavy multimedia users.
Economics:
The actual hardware costs, material usage, bill-of-materials (BOM), and manufacturing complexity is probably close.
Producing the Galaxy S III hardware costs Samsung a little more over producing the Galaxy Nexus (my rough estimate is around $220 vs $210 per handset), plus a few bucks more for MS patents, such as the exFAT filesystem (required for the MicroSD slot), Windows Media Video (VC-1) codec, etc, that Samsung buys for the S III. But they can easily charge +50% extra for it. Easy profit.
Nearly every component of the S III is made by Samsung itself, ranging from the CPU (Samsung Exynos) to display to flash memory to battery to headset (earphones). This enables Samsung to keep manufacturing costs down.
How much does the actual development of Samsung Android cost (above the Google Android code, that they get for free)? I don’t really know, but anything from tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of millions would be my wild guess. Good engineers aren’t cheap.
Bottom line:
Google is pricing the Nexus 4 very aggressively, at $299 for the 8GB and $349 for the 16GB (if you can get one, since supply isn’t keeping up with demand) but they’ve set a very difficult threshold for handset vendors who aren’t subsidized by a search advertising business model. So the big question is, how can Samsung compete with that? I think that Samsung has a superior product, and I expect Samsung to keep on improving software in Galaxy S4 into the future, and keep charging a premium over the other Android vendors.
The Galaxy S3 (Unlocked) has a street value of $560-600, a 55-60% premium over the cost of a Nexus 4 in the US. However, the Samsung Galaxy S III is one of those rare gems, that even after huge marketing spending, still delivers a great bang-for-the-buck, and I can easily justify the premium. And I rarely buy marketed computers. (and yes, the Galaxy S III feels like a pocket laptop with regards to its feature set, not like a phone.)
The other vendors will have a hard time competing with Samsung, unless they start working on the *software* part, improving Android too, because 40-50% price difference is bigger than the typical profit margin of the average hardware vendor.
The verdict is:
Google Android (Nexus) is good, but Samsung Android (S III) is excellent.
P.S.: Arguably Samsung Android 4.0 is better not only than Google Android 4.0, but also wins vs. Google Android 4.2 in most areas, and on tablets Samsung’s advantage is even greater, due to the introduction of world’s first window manager for Android, allowing you to have multiple windows floating around, just like on MS Windows desktops. Just look at Samsung Galaxy Tabs and you will understand what I mean.
I want to read that. My eyes won’t let me. Formatting?
Alternative formatting for you:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KFzxBiq9Ro5UY0U_M0JBQ4Aj1dfcksEy…
LG does the same with their version of Android 4.1.2:
– QSlide apps are multi-window (browser, video, memo, calculator, calendar)
– Wise Screen: screen stays on as long as the front camera can see your face
– QMemo: allows you to take a screenshot and draw on it directly, without leaving the app
– Keyboard: includes handwriting recognition
There’s probably others. But, this isn’t an issue, really.
The way Android works, is that the OEMs do all the testing, tweaking, and implementing new features. Then Google takes the best implementations and incorporates them into AOSP so that everyone gets access to them.
You’re saying that Samsung, LG, HTC, etc. give Google their proprietary source? Really?
Differentiating features – no. Common improvements – yes.
No, Google takes the best ideas and implements them in AOSP.
So Google steals their ideas then?
It’s not stealing per se, it’s copying or imitating. And besides, is that wrong? Is it really wrong to implement some feature that someone else has also done? We would still be in the stone ages if imitating other people or their work was denied. Also, take a look at all the other manufacturers, too: name a SINGLE manufacturer that has never done that, can you do it?
Tell it to the judge.
Edited 2013-02-05 17:39 UTC
The N4 is thicker, doesn’t have an SD card slot, no removable battery, and has less memory (I have the 32Gb S3).
Yet… I’m still going to sell my S3 because I prefer CM and CM is horrible on the S3.
I love Smart Stay but that is the only feature of the S3 that I care about and I’d be willing to let it go for PhotoSphere, and the fact that I’ll likely be able to go to Key Lime Pie (and whatever new apps come with it) the day it comes out.
Who knows… perhaps it’ll even have something similar to Smart Stay.
Samsung promised to support CM with aosp compatible binaries etc. but didn’t come through.
Not that impressive once you see it in action.
Yup, timely updates, and no BS reasons for deprecating hardware are clear winners…
Ok, as an new Android user here’s what I don’t get: why should I use CM?
I’ve looked at this at quite some depth but I can’t find a single compelling reason. Heck, I can’t find a reason to even root my device.
(No, in this case “for the fun of it” does not qualify as compelling)
Well, CM generally gets rid of the carrier-applied crap and the crap the manufacturer has added. In case of Samsung’s TouchWiz getting rid of that is already enough of a reason to go for CM. Aside from that, well, the answer depends. CM is often faster and more stable than official ROMs and gets security-updates faster.
You obviously don’t do anything with it that’d require rooting, then. And if you don’t do anything like that then why do you care? It’s not like you’re expected to root your device even if you have no use for that.
I, personally, use several apps that require rooting, and originally my phone came with Gingerbread — it was buggy, slow and outdated — so I rooted my phone and installed a leaked ICS ROM on it to get better battery-life, speed and stability. That’s a useful use of the root – capabilities. On the other hand, if I didn’t have any apps that require root or didn’t need the ability to use custom ROMs then I wouldn’t bother rooting, either.
Ah well, it’s not a carrier phone so it came with blissfully little crap. Maybe there’s one or two apps I can see getting rid off but not enough to bother with the process of rooting and installing CM.
I do’t think Gingerbread gets any more updates
Yes, I guess not. I read somewhere that you needed root for BT tethering, wifi hotspot and stuff like that but I have that without being root. Maybe that’s the bliss of non-carrier, cheapo phones.
Edited 2013-02-05 08:47 UTC
AFAIK it’s a standard feature of Android atleast ever since ICS came around. I haven’t been paying much attention so I am not certain, but it probably wasn’t a standard feature on earlier versions.
Out of curiosity, what are the apps you use that require root?
StickyMount and any app transparently mounting stuff into the filesystem. Uninstaller that allows to uninstall all apps including pre-installed ones. Autostart-Manager to edit app-events. User-manager to share/deshare apps between users. 3th party device-encryption. Update the device to latest CM nighly requiring open bootloader via shutdown-dialog with one click. Extend device administration and a dozend others manipulating the system in more or lesser offensive ways.
Point is you can do everything. No limits. Just like with my PC. Its finally my device.
Edited 2013-02-05 13:42 UTC
CM was compelling when it had built in controls over app permissions to revoke things like internet access to a simple off-line app.
After CM 7.2 (Gingerbread) they removed this key feature and I no longer see the point of installing.
Quiet hours is one of a few nice touches but no deal breaker.
7.2 has a fairly big security hole in it which could do with patching but the CM team have moved on. Wonder how many users they have to lose before smelling the coffee.
Some apps can provide additional desirable features after you root. Change Hostname if you are frequently on wifi networks (android-jklfadk2qlk3212 sucks as a default hostname). Avast AV can provide better remote control and wipe with root access. Busybox shell environment needs root for full functionality.
There are a number of benefits. One has to decide for themselves if those benefits outweigh the negligable risk.
As for reasons to use CM; if it gets updates more promptly than your vendor-Android distribution fork then it should be a no-brainer. My personal bias towards Nexus devices is specifically because updates come in promptly after Google ships them not when a vendors decides to maybe update there Vendor-Android distro fork.
Granted, I’d drop Android in a heartbeat for a proper general purpose *nix distro.. We’ll see how Ubuntu Phone works out though a Debian based firmware i could run against Nexus bare metal … without a second though.
bombastic user experience claims aside, there have been power toggles since froyo, or the market, since forever…
I find them hideous. Too colourful and don’t fit well with most third party icon palettes.
Has this guy even used vanilla? There IS a tab separating them….
Most people don’t need to take screenshots that often. However all sorts of roms have incorporated this and JB has the capability.
Who even uses wmv,wma these days?
how about non galaxy-sIII? wifi-direct?
I don’t, because I have done so, and feel completely the opposite way
Seeing as even quad core ARM cpus choke on 1080p h.264, HEVC is definitely not going to happen (not to mention the battery drain)
Edited 2013-02-04 19:55 UTC
I think it’s pretty clear the author did not actually have a N4 to compare it against, the article is full of inaccuracies.
He says the N4 doesn’t have corning Gorilla glass, but it does, it has Corning Gorilla Glass 2.
He talks about the N4 running ‘vanilla Android 4.0’ when it’s actually running 4.2. I don’t know why he’s calling it ‘Samsung Android 4.0’ instead of TouchWiz, it’s actual name.
He counts 50GB of storage from dropbox as a plus and ignores the 50gb of storage N4 users get from box.
Having a quad core processor is a +1 for the S3 but not for the N4.
No bias here.
BTW, can someone explain how leaving the screen ON (Smart Stay?) save battery power?
This is simple, Watson.
On Google Android, to have comfortable reading you *HAVE* to put screen timeout to 5 min, while on Samsung 1 min does the trick. It auto-refreshes as long as you look at it.
If you put on Google 1 min screen timeout, you will get nowhere, because it will just power off in the middle of reading.
Thanks. That makes some sense. How you worded it in your article didn’t.
I seriously doubt this saves battery. Having the camera on all the time, and constantly doing some DSP on the image to detect a face just to save a minute the odd time when someone leaves their phone lying around but doesn’t turn off the screen? No way in hell that gives you a net power saving.
I find this explanation a bit of a stretch. Unless you are reading very, very slowly, one minute should be more than enough to read a pageful of text. And when you scroll down to see the rest of the text, the timer is reset.
Also, there is a permission in Android called “prevent phone from sleeping”. If an app, e.g. the one you use for reading has that, the screen won’t turn off. Finally, there’s always the power button. I set my screen timeout to 30 seconds, but usually don’t wait that long, just turn off the screen manually.
And I agree with one of the replies to your comment in that I can hardly believe that having a camera and a face recognition program turned on constantly (or on-off once every few seconds) saves any power.
Look at the battery-stats. Display is something like 90% of all. A camera-shot and app doing some progressing every now and then can help getting that down and so it can pay out. Same for ambient dimming.
Edited 2013-02-05 13:48 UTC
On my Galaxy S1 with CM 10.1 I set screen timeout to 30 seconds and still manage to read just fine. In most cases I read a screenful of text in less than 30 seconds, or I just touch a screen periodically. Samsung’s feature is nice to have, but definitely not must.
I think I made it pretty clear, that the comparison was vs. Galaxy Nexus (with Google Android 4.0), not the Nexus 4.
I don’t think it’s clear at all, you mention the Nexus 4 at least 3 times by my count, including in your lead paragraph. Furthermore you often refer to ‘the nexus’ without specifying whether you mean the galaxy nexus or the nexus 4 in that specific instance.
You seem to be comparing the S3 against the Galaxy Nexus, the Nexus 4 and some nebulous group of ‘chinese phones’. You pick and chose which phone to compare the S3 against for each point to give the best arbitrary score to the S3. Comparing the S2 to the Galaxy Nexus and the S3 to the Nexus 4 are probably more fair comparisons, and undisclosed ‘chinese phones’ should probably be left out entirely.
No. You did not. Your references to the $350 Nexus 4 make it all muddy. You do know that Galaxy Nexus was also $350 before Nexus 4 became available, right?
Also, implying that Galaxy Nexus glass is unfortified. It’s the same as Gorilla Glass, but generic.
Sorry, it was an error in editing that’s responsible for the confusion. I’ll try to clear it up in the article. The author did the comparison with the Galaxy Nexus, and I wanted to bring the article up-to-date with the newly released Nexus 4, and that difference is where the confusion lies.
Yes, and the separation in Google Android is not complete. You still can cycle between Apps and Widgets on Google, which is confusing, but not on Samsung. Sammy made this right.
Yes, and the separation in Google Android is not complete. You still can cycle between Apps and Widgets on Google, which is confusing, but not on Samsung. Sammy made this right. [/q]
you can turn it off. But either way it really isn’t that big a deal. Not something that can make you proclaim that one launcher is so much better…
Edited 2013-02-04 21:08 UTC
Completely agree! I have a Nexus 7 and a Galaxy Note 2 and I like plain Jellybean a lot better.
It seems to me that a lot of these S3 plus points can be replicated with free or cheap apps added to a vanilla Android 4 phone. Or if you’re technical, a rooted phone with a custom ROM actually provides a lot of these and a *lot* more configurability than the S3 does.
For me, the perfect phone or tablet is:
* Rooted running CM 10.1. The configuration options blow every other mobile OS away. If you’re using CM on a tablet, the Paranoid Android variant goes even more berserk with custom phone/phablet/tablet modes not only globally, but also per app if you want. +50 points for the flexibility of CM over anything else.
* NOT running any manafacturer’s custom launcher/skin. None of these custom layers provide an enhanced experience, so I’d give -50 points immediately to any device not running vanilla Android.
* Not costing hundreds of dollars more than rival top-end phones. S3 may be top of the hill in terms of hardware specs, but the Nexus 4’s introduction with only slightly worse specs has shown it up to be overpriced for those specs.
There you go – the stock S3 now scores 100 points less than a rooted vanilla Android 4 phone 🙂 Guess what? Samsung have been *awful* with the CM devs for the S3 phone, showing that the S2 giveaway to devs was a pure publicity stunt. Things are so bad with CM on the S3, that devs are now telling people not to use it on the S3 (too many things broken because of Samsung’s lack of co-operation)!
Exactly. For me, a fully-loaded custom ROM gives a lot more value than NonSense, Bloat-o-blur, etc. Plus, when Keylime Pie is announced in May and starts rolling out to Nexus devices, those of us who own these devices can upgrade to it immediately, or whenever we want. If you’re using a FrankenAndroid device like the S3, you’re going to be stuck with 4.x until at least January 2014, and you’ll probably be lucky to ever get anything greater than 4.2. I really wouldn’t mind much of vendors would give people the OPTION of sticking with stock and quick upgrade paths, but most don’t.
So, yeah… you can have your shitty vendor bloatware. I’ll stick with unlocked vanilla, thank you very much
One thing I WILL agree with him on is the gimped hardware on the Nexus devices. (No SD card slot, no removable battery, no LTE, etc) Google really needs to step it up and give people more options in the hardware department. Can I get a Nexus 7 with HDMI out, PLEASE??
-Blame MS for lack of SD
-Blame the consumer for lack of removable battery
-Blame the carriers, and economics for lack of LTE
Seriously, if you want these things you’re welcome to go to those phones whose manufacturers have paid the respective extorsion fees. I’m quite happy with the cheap Nexus 4, thank you very much.
Seriously what is it with people and LTE? It is only a way to eat more battery and hit your download limits more quickly. The other points I can understand griping about…
Well, that’s my point… if you want the stock Android experience and updates as they come out, you do not have an option, other than what Google sells. Thus, they need more variety in their catalog.
It does not hit your download limit more quickly… it makes your data connection faster. If you download a 40MB podcast, it’s still the same amount of data, whether it took 1 minute or 15 to download it. And the cool thing is, you can toggle back to 3g when you don’t need it, saving battery life. Even still, the battery drain isn’t quite as severe on newer devices/LTE chipsets.
As for the necessity of it, that depends on how fast your HSPA connection is. a 2mbps, HSPA connection (what I was initially getting) can b quite miserable, vs 15mbps+ on LTE. Obviously, the difference isn’t always that dramatic… just depends on where you are, and how well you have tuned your APN settings
Personally? I’d rather have the option of turning it on when I wanted to, vs not having it.
Just last week, I was happy when I tweaked my APN settings and got 13mbps outsie. A friend of mine, who has an unlimited plan on Verizon, put up a screenshot of his 28mbps speed test. Between the two? I would rather have the latter
Edited 2013-02-05 04:19 UTC
What download limits? Where? I must have missed them entirely!
What!? This I HAVE to hear.
Yeah, highly unsubstantiated, but I suspect google does not want to pay the extortion fees for the FAT patents that ms is “licensing” hence no FAT based storage, which then means no reason to bother with SD support (FAT is a pile of crap anyway).
Nice try. Nexus devices have native FAT/FAT32 support. (At least the Nexus 7 and 10 which I’ve used with USB OTG.)
Edited 2013-02-05 19:49 UTC
Well then, I’m wrong…
My next theory then is that google wants people to use the cloud? Judging from the demand for Nexus ( 4 in particular) devices most people don’t seem to mind.
There is something to be said about not using FAT for permanent storage. I had a device with an sd card and the fat got corrupted (as it does) and I lost all sorts of stuff…
Edited 2013-02-05 20:38 UTC
If only the fat got corrupted, then the files themselves were likely still intact and recoverable (even by something like the free Recuva).
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to be rude.
First the author notes that Samsung has taken Google’s Android and expanded upon it, and then proceeds with a pointless enumeration of said extensions, decrying why Google doesn’t have them at almost every step. Newsflash dude, you just said it yourself: Google gives away their system. If Samsung were to open-source their variant and allow others to build upon it (like Google does), then you’d have a valid comparison. Until then, you’re just crying over one company giving away their crown jewels for free, while the other builds upon it and is charges you hefty bucks for the result.
Some of your criticisms are simply childish, such as:
Drag down quick settings panel, tap on “Brightness”, done.
They have, you just haven’t used a non-TouchWiz-infected device in a long time. Also, your jumping to conclusions about Samsung doing better UX research based on your personal experience, well, that’s just rich.
A matter of taste (TouchWiz icons make me puke).
WTF kind of a complaint is this?
Because, kiddo, you apparently have never heard of a thing called codec licensing fees…
… oh wait, you did, but you just wanted to an excuse to bash Google.
What substance there is in the article is completely drowned out by a sea of childish imaginative hypothesizing about why his favorite cell phone company is “teh greatestz”.
… that there are actually people who like Samsung’s TurdPiss. Seriously, wtf are they smoking?
Dude, I hate to say this but you come across sounding like a serious fanboy. The customizations only serve to fragment the Android universe and give Samsung free reign to orphan devices more quickly. It also keeps the fanboys upgrading to the next Galaxy XXXXI or whatever.
I think you missed the point of Android. Why not use Windows Phone 8 or Bada devices if you don’t like vanilla Jelly Bean?
And Touchjizz? Really?
Your rough estimates based on what exactly? It’s okay to say you just pulled those numbers out of thin air and don’t actually have any clue what it costs Samsung to make the phones.
Not only are there an awful lot of inaccuracies (as has already been pointed out), not only is it ridiculous to make a comparison between S3 and “Android 4.0” (when S3 is already on 4.1, the Galaxy Nexus was always 4.1 and has been upgraded to 4.2, and the Nexus 4 was always 4.2)…
But in the MicroSD comparison (which, yes, is an advantage as the Nexus doesn’t have one), it’s stated that he would *still* give a small advantage to the S3 even if the Nexus had a MicroSD slot. WTF? That would make them *identical*.
Yes, there are things that separate the S3 from a Nexus, and for some people they may warrant purchasing an S3. We all have different requirements. But this article smacks of desperation.
fanboi logic: Oh they’re identical? That means mine’s better!
Galaxy nexus was in fact on 4.0 when it was released, similar to the S3.
With this article full of opinions and wild claims, OSnews now approaches a new market: tabloid journalism.
Sadly, this means it loses old readers.
Edited 2013-02-05 08:16 UTC
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.
I wouldn’t dare to write an article that applauds the horrible things Samsung has done to vanilla Android and then put the article full of things that are simply not true.
Respect.
Except, that everything *is* True. Tested and verified.
I don’t really see any out-right lies there, but as I don’t own any device with vanilla Android I may have missed something. Would you please point the lies out for me? I’d say it’s just mostly a misguided opinion piece, not an attempt at spreading lies. I certainly don’t agree with the article myself.
Edited 2013-02-05 11:55 UTC
Inaccuracies count as not truth. I doubt the OP implied that the author intended to lie.
One reason people prefer vanilla Android over Samsung’s (or any other manufacturer’s) version is that you can get upgrades easily. I had a Samsung Galaxy S and Samsung refused to upgrade that to ICS, let alone Jelly Bean, because its additions *and* the new OS would take up too much memory to be viable. Yet, JB on its own (Cyanogen Mod 10) worked a treat and was much smoother and more responsive than Gingerbread (possibly because apps were coming out that were optimised for the new OS). Let’s see how long Samsung keeps supplying OS upgrades for the GS2 or GS3, or do they just want us to get new phones every couple of years?
(I posted a longer response at http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2013/02/05/google-versus-sam… .)
Edited 2013-02-05 11:14 UTC
Do you think the Nexus series is supported forever ? Think again. The answer is: Nope. Two years max. And “Nexus S” (from 2010, two generations ago, before Nexus 4 and before the Galaxy Nexus) will not get official Google Android 4.2 either.
And the Galaxy S2 recently got official Samsung Android 4.1.2 upgrade, which probably completes it’s 2 year support cycle. I don’t expect to see official 4.2 ROMs on it. Custom ROMs via manual install surely can enlong the useful life of the devices in question.
In the real life, 3rd party web browsers (such as “Firefox for Android”) may allow to use even outdated Android 2.x devices for way longer than originally intended. (due to supporting new web standards and fixing critical security issues at the browser level)
-Alexey
Yeah but at least the updates aren’t horribly delayed. Only recently got 4.1 not 4.2….
The difference is that all firmware is made available for Nexus and so Nexus is usually very good supported with CyanogenMod but also runs eg WebOS as parallel-boot install. Such flexibiliy makes it way more actractive and hacker-friendly what leads to nice community-support far beyond Android. Its also a hacker-device and not only a consumer-device like Samsung’s are.
Edited 2013-02-05 13:58 UTC
I don’t have a S3 but my tablet is a Note 10.1 with TouchWiz running on Jelly Bean. I was ok with the UI until I tried vanilla Android on a nexus tablet. It’s a lot nicer and more consistent than TouchWiz and I’m currently following the development of CyanogenMod for my tablet mostly to be able to switch to a more vanilla UI.
I don’t see how you can say that samsung does more UX studies. What’s that claim based on? Various apps that samsung bundles on the same have different UX styles, some of which are horribly ugly (just look at the skeuomorphism in S planner or S note: http://www.pocketables.com/images/2012/08/s-note-1-608×357.jpg) and integrates badly with the other.
The integration of a window manager is nice but it’s hackish and often doesn’t work properly. For ex. in facebook the multi window-button is placed right over the send button in a chat window and the UI doesn’t respond properly unless you run the app full screen. Other apps have various issues.
The article is a love letter to TouchWiz.
Which is fine, but don’t try and make out that it’s a comparison.
I agree.
It could have been an simple overview of interesting SIII features, or a comparison against a direct competitor, but instead it is a nebulous comparison against a combination of:
– cheap chinese phones (what this has to do with a comparison of software features is beyond me)
– older versions of the nexus
– the current version of the nexus
– CM, or AOSP in general
depending on what makes Samsung look good in that particular aspect.