A rant: My problem with Samsung

[Tsepz_GP]

I don't know when you started following phones, but I've been actually a Mobile Guru at the Nokia Support Forums (user based like this but with actual employees lurking) back since 2006, and Nokia has beeb releasing a new flagship every 6mos since 2005ish. In 2007 alone they released 3 N9x phones. This today is just a continuing thread of new flagships every 6mos. And as of speaking, Samsung flagships still get 2 year updates and security updates for at least 3 years. The S5 is still getting security updates.

Further, it is actually unfair to compare Apple's update pattern when compared to Samsung for a few reasons.
1. Apple's overhead per device is bigger than Samsung's. Part of the overhead for each device sold is for costs of future OS updates. This can best be seen in the Samsung J series where exceptionally good selling ones with decent specs (usually J7 or J5 line) get updates, while others don't.
2. Unlike Apple who builds the entire OS themselves, they don't, and simply add stuff on top of Android. Apple has the capability to custom build iOS for each device wherein they can limit performance or features that device receives, whether or not that device has possibly capable hardware. This is the source of that nasty rumor about planned obsolecense. Apple phones do slow down after certain updates simply because the hardware isn't fully capable.
Samsung's move in these cases were just to not send the update. For example, US Galaxy S3's got the Lollipop update because it had 2GB RAM. International S3's didn't because it had 1GB RAM. That was their reason. The international S3 couldn't handle Android + TouchWiz in a fashion that they found acceptable. Basically instead of paring down TouchWiz or sending an update that would remove certain features to their skin which users may actually be using, they don't send it out at all.
Apple phones on the other hand don't have anything on top of the actual OS they built which they have to worry about in updates, so they don't need to worry about breaking old features. They just don't send some of the new features. This is why growth of the Pixel phone line is important, because it's the only one in the Android world which has the capability to match Apple in terms of software updates.



Considering that the CPU of the S7 (Exynos version) can run around those of the Snapdragon trio (S7 North America version, LG G5, HTC 10), I'm pretty sure it will get the update. Here in Asia we typically get the updates 3-4mos after Google releases it.

Yep my Note4 also continues to get Security updates.

Heck, I booted up my Note4 today and even the Samsung web browser got an update.

 

[dlalonde]

This why Samsung, Google and other out of price OEMs are going to have to get their act together. Eventually, people are going to realize that you don't have to pay tonloads of money to get a great phone. I'm looking at this review and I'm thinking "This is pretty close to my Pixel" for $200!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDkvEXFQoLY

 

[LeoRex]

Well... it is close... But there are some feature differentiation here. The camera in the Mi A1 is most likely going to be vastly inferior to either those out of touch OEMs' best offerings.

If an OEM could put put a $200 phone that performed on par, camera et al, with something like the Pixel, then yes, they need to start worrying. But that phone doesn't exist.

 

[dlalonde]

Well... it is close... But there are some feature differentiation here. The camera in the Mi A1 is most likely going to be vastly inferior to either those out of touch OEMs' best offerings.

If an OEM could put put a $200 phone that performed on par, camera et al, with something like the Pixel, then yes, they need to start worrying. But that phone doesn't exist.

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.

 

[LeoRex]

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.

 

[dlalonde]

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.

 

[LeoRex]

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.

 

[dlalonde]

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.

 

[LeoRex]

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.

 

[dlalonde]

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.

 

[LeoRex]

offering something shiny even if people don't actually need or use it is good marketing.

*cough*Bixby*cough*

 

[chanchan05]

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.

 

[dlalonde]

*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.

 

[chanchan05]

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?idPhone1=8335&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]

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!

 

[Golfdriver97]

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]

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.

 

[Golfdriver97]

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.