09-14-2017 09:00 AM
38 12
tools
  1. dlalonde's Avatar
    Well... you do realize that Google is the one spearheading the Android One project, right? It's their baby... and they've been making several changes to Android for the past few versions to allow the OS to run better on lower-spec'd hardware. Google's hardly out of touch here.
    Yes I know. All I'm saying is that their Pixel has nothing spectacular for such a steep price for the general public who are going to see two similar phones with a $450 difference. If the salesperson tells them "it's got a better camera" when they ask the difference, I doubt they'll go with the Pixel.
    09-12-2017 04:04 PM
  2. LeoRex's Avatar
    Yes I know. All I'm saying is that their Pixel has nothing spectacular for such a steep price for the general public who are going to see two similar phones with a $450 difference. If the salesperson tells them "it's got a better camera" when they ask the difference, I doubt they'll go with the Pixel.
    You underestimate the importance of that camera. These lower range phones are no where near the quality of the Pixel. For someone like me, picture and video quality is extremely important and the quality I'd get on something like the A1 would be a non-starter.

    If I could buy a $200 phone that took pictures on par with a Pixel, I'd get one in a hot minute. But there is still a rather substantial quality gap there.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    09-12-2017 05:41 PM
  3. dlalonde's Avatar
    You underestimate the importance of that camera. These lower range phones are no where near the quality of the Pixel. For someone like me, picture and video quality is extremely important and the quality I'd get on something like the A1 would be a non-starter.

    If I could buy a $200 phone that took pictures on par with a Pixel, I'd get one in a hot minute. But there is still a rather substantial quality gap there.
    Yeah but I'm not talking about a user like you or me but an average consumer. That's my own personal opinion based on the people around me, my clients and people I work with so, of course, it's nothing scientific, but these people won't pay that much just for a good camera. Even I as an enthusiast wouldn't pay that much just for the camera. I got the Pixel because having the latest software was important to me and I waited a year to do so to get it cheaper.
    09-12-2017 06:52 PM
  4. LeoRex's Avatar
    but these people won't pay that much just for a good camera.
    Oh, I beg to differ. That's where these OEMs are dumping their R&D and also where consumers are getting picky. Even the mid and low range models... Camera quality is one of the primary setting points across the board.
    09-12-2017 07:10 PM
  5. dlalonde's Avatar
    Oh, I beg to differ. That's where these OEMs are dumping their R&D and also where consumers are getting picky. Even the mid and low range models... Camera quality is one of the primary setting points across the board.
    Mmm yeah that's a good point. Like I said it's nothing scientific, just the impression I have.

    But offering something shiny even if people don't actually need or use it is good marketing. So that could also play into it. Samsung and Apple are amazingly good at it too.
    09-12-2017 07:30 PM
  6. LeoRex's Avatar
    offering something shiny even if people don't actually need or use it is good marketing.
    *cough*Bixby*cough*
    dlalonde likes this.
    09-13-2017 12:24 AM
  7. chanchan05's Avatar
    Well I did say 'close' not 'the same'

    That being said $200 vs $650, is the camera and quick updates worth $450? I get the feeling the average consumer will go in a store and look at both those phones and go with the cheaper one.

    Flagship phones are getting more and more expensive whereas lower and mid-range phones are getting better and better. The OEMs and Google with its Pixel will have to offer something more and more spectacular to justify their prices, for the average customers.
    It's not only the camera. That device also had inferior chipset and other components compared to flagships. Those things count for a lot. Many buyers of mid range devices also belong to younger age group due to finances, or even kids. A lot of these guys will see incompatibilities with games, or performance hiccups, as game devs of A games tend to develop for higher tier models. Good for those who use layers on their graphics to allow lower end devices, but not all do so.

    The phone market has become a lot like the PC market. Younl gotta spend more to do more on it. But all of them are capable enough of the basic things their type of device can do.
    09-13-2017 02:29 AM
  8. dlalonde's Avatar
    *cough*Bixby*cough*
    Ha ha ha ha!!!!

    It's not only the camera. That device also had inferior chipset and other components compared to flagships. Those things count for a lot. Many buyers of mid range devices also belong to younger age group due to finances, or even kids. A lot of these guys will see incompatibilities with games, or performance hiccups, as game devs of A games tend to develop for higher tier models. Good for those who use layers on their graphics to allow lower end devices, but not all do so.

    The phone market has become a lot like the PC market. Younl gotta spend more to do more on it. But all of them are capable enough of the basic things their type of device can do.
    Good point! I didn't think of that.

    Of course that phone was just an example though. I didn't mean that it was a Pixel replacement or something. I just wanted to illustrate that budget and mid-range phones were getting better and that flagship are going to have to have something spectacular (IE not an emoji generating machine Apple) to justify their price point.
    09-13-2017 05:42 AM
  9. chanchan05's Avatar
    Ha ha ha ha!!!!



    Good point! I didn't think of that.

    Of course that phone was just an example though. I didn't mean that it was a Pixel replacement or something. I just wanted to illustrate that budget and mid-range phones were getting better and that flagship are going to have to have something spectacular (IE not an emoji generating machine Apple) to justify their price point.
    From the available options I've seen, the best mid range phone is the Galaxy A7 (2017). It's basically a flat S6 Edge+ with AOD, bigger battery, and ip68 resistance. No LED notification though. It does cut corners in things like OIS, screen resolution and video recording but mid rangers often do. It's sold at 20k in my country, whereas the OnePlus 5 is sold at about 27k, that's a price difference of 150USD. I consider the price of OnePlus as flagship territory. The good thing here is A series from Samsungs get up to 2 major OS updates.

    http://m.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?i...&idPhone2=7467

    The only problem with this model I fear is that this was launched late 2016 after the Note 7. Hence it launched with Marshmallow and would get Oreo as the second major update so no more major updates after that.

    Options from Huawei in my country are the P10 which are priced at 27k.

    All other phones prices competitively to the A7 are using mediatek or Snapdragon 6 series.

    The advantage of the A7 over other mid rangers is that it uses a flagship grade Exynos (although 2 year old flagship). Hence it doesn't suffer from mid range chipset drawbacks of good CPU but bad GPU or vice versa. In most points that matter to a mid range buyer, this is a refreshed S6 Edge+.

    Honestly the only competition I see to this is getting an older flagship model (If you can find one, a brand new S7 or G5 should be same price), or a used model (a used S7E would be around the same price, S6 used variants even cheaper). But there would the the argument of used vs new.

    Honestly mid range stuff are good enough for almost everyone. However anybody with spending power knows there are better albeit more expensive options, so they will go for that. Then there is the 'status' of owning a flagship to consider among certain people.

    Personally I would be fine with a mid ranger. However my carrier's subsidies allow me to acquire a flagship for the price of a mid ranger, so there is that. Lol. Plus they make it easier to get flagships than mid rangers. Lol. However, if I was buying outright, I'd probably go for a mid ranger on the Galaxy A level. The Galaxy A series gets 2 major OS updates. But the competitor like LG's K10 series didn't even get an update AFAIK.
    dlalonde likes this.
    09-13-2017 06:12 AM
  10. dlalonde's Avatar
    From the available options I've seen, the best mid range phone is the Galaxy A7 (2017). It's basically a flat S6 Edge+ with AOD, bigger battery, and ip68 resistance. No LED notification though. It does cut corners in things like OIS, screen resolution and video recording but mid rangers often do. It's sold at 20k in my country, whereas the OnePlus 5 is sold at about 27k, that's a price difference of 150USD. I consider the price of OnePlus as flagship territory. The good thing here is A series from Samsungs get up to 2 major OS updates.

    Samsung Galaxy A7 (2017) vs. Samsung Galaxy S6 edge+ - GSMArena.com

    The only problem with this model I fear is that this was launched late 2016 after the Note 7. Hence it launched with Marshmallow and would get Oreo as the second major update so no more major updates after that.

    Options from Huawei in my country are the P10 which are priced at 27k.

    All other phones prices competitively to the A7 are using mediatek or Snapdragon 6 series.

    The advantage of the A7 over other mid rangers is that it uses a flagship grade Exynos (although 2 year old flagship). Hence it doesn't suffer from mid range chipset drawbacks of good CPU but bad GPU or vice versa. In most points that matter to a mid range buyer, this is a refreshed S6 Edge+.

    Honestly the only competition I see to this is getting an older flagship model (If you can find one, a brand new S7 or G5 should be same price), or a used model (a used S7E would be around the same price, S6 used variants even cheaper). But there would the the argument of used vs new.

    Honestly mid range stuff are good enough for almost everyone. However anybody with spending power knows there are better albeit more expensive options, so they will go for that. Then there is the 'status' of owning a flagship to consider among certain people.

    Personally I would be fine with a mid ranger. However my carrier's subsidies allow me to acquire a flagship for the price of a mid ranger, so there is that. Lol. Plus they make it easier to get flagships than mid rangers. Lol. However, if I was buying outright, I'd probably go for a mid ranger on the Galaxy A level. The Galaxy A series gets 2 major OS updates. But the competitor like LG's K10 series didn't even get an update AFAIK.
    That's the only reason I got a Pixel. I was going for the Moto Z2 Play but it was the same price once subsidized. No regrets yet!
    09-13-2017 07:17 AM
  11. Golfdriver97's Avatar
    Ha ha ha ha!!!!



    Good point! I didn't think of that.

    Of course that phone was just an example though. I didn't mean that it was a Pixel replacement or something. I just wanted to illustrate that budget and mid-range phones were getting better and that flagship are going to have to have something spectacular (IE not an emoji generating machine Apple) to justify their price point.
    Mid range phones have hit a plateau in my opinion. There are still some good ones coming out, but look back about 9 months after the 2013 Moto X. Very good devices were coming out of the woodwork. Now, they still are coming out, but not at that break neck pace.

    The mid range ones can do this. Sure something has to give, be it battery, RAM SoC... something. But as long as you know what to look for, a lot of those downfalls can be mitigated.


    I think people are starting to get the idea that this is PC shopping all over again. They just need to be nudged into researching their choices a bit more.
    dlalonde likes this.
    09-13-2017 07:47 PM
  12. dlalonde's Avatar
    Mid range phones have hit a plateau in my opinion. There are still some good ones coming out, but look back about 9 months after the 2013 Moto X. Very good devices were coming out of the woodwork. Now, they still are coming out, but not at that break neck pace.

    The mid range ones can do this. Sure something has to give, be it battery, RAM SoC... something. But as long as you know what to look for, a lot of those downfalls can be mitigated.


    I think people are starting to get the idea that this is PC shopping all over again. They just need to be nudged into researching their choices a bit more.
    Maybe, we'll see what the future holds. When a new innovation is added to a flagship the older technology become mid-range material and people with less money can take advantage of those. I don't think smartphones will ever have anything mind blowing anymore though.

    You answer brings me back to my original post though. It is PC shopping and with PC prices. Yet we accept that those phones are no longer supported after 2 years. This shouldn't be the case.
    09-14-2017 05:39 AM
  13. Golfdriver97's Avatar
    those phones are no longer supported after 2 years.
    That fault lies ,mostly with the SoC manufacturer. If they don't release updates for the chip, a new OS can't be developed for it.
    09-14-2017 09:00 AM
38 12

Similar Threads

  1. How do i stop autoplay for videos on my galaxy S7 gallery
    By Gartinater in forum Samsung Galaxy S7
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-04-2017, 09:22 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 09:04 PM
  3. my mobile charging but not increace percentage
    By Jacob rabinson in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 11:34 AM
  4. Silk Innovations - Base Grip Slim Case for the Samsung Galaxy S8/8+
    By DecAway in forum Samsung Galaxy S8 & S8+
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 11:06 AM
  5. where has the M gone on my screen?
    By Dafila14 in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2017, 10:45 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD