So glad I didn't get the HTC One X

[kkapoorr]

I could've finished a tub of popcorn reading this...lol!

And this thread is about a guy who is glad he didn't get the One x. Good for him.
I'm glad I didn't get the S3 and went with the One x.
Personal choice.
Period.

Author of NoobTech:
http://wp.me/2uu9r

 

[dmmarck]

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that they are holding the platform back by including such things.

And yes, whatever Google does with the Nexus means that's exactly what they want other companies to do. It's the flagship phone and runs exactly the way Google wants, with the specific hardware they specified. It's Google's way of saying "look, this is our idea of what an Android phone should be." But do we really want to get into Android vs. Android-based?

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

I don't think anyone wants that .

 

[s14tat]

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that they are holding the platform back by including such things.

And yes, whatever Google does with the Nexus means that's exactly what they want other companies to do. It's the flagship phone and runs exactly the way Google wants, with the specific hardware they specified. It's Google's way of saying "look, this is our idea of what an Android phone should be." But do we really want to get into Android vs. Android-based?

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

This is why it blew my mind when they announced the Galaxy Nexus with such lack luster specs. The camera was nothing to write home about, the gpu and cpu was lacking. I mean on ICS the phone never ran smooth, and I mean NEVER. It hiccuped and stuttered all the time.

There was also better camera lens available during development of that phone as well. How do you explain those short comings if its suppose the Google's "ideal" phone.

 

[dmmarck]

This is why it blew my mind when they announced the Galaxy Nexus with such lack luster specs. The camera was nothing to write home about, the gpu and cpu was lacking. I mean on ICS the phone never ran smooth, and I mean NEVER. It hiccuped and stuttered all the time.

There was also better camera lens available during development of that phone as well. How do you explain those short comings if its suppose the Google's "ideal" phone.

The CPU was underclocked, the GPU was ok (it works, and with overclocking available, it's more than adequate now), and the camera sucks. Mine never really stuttered; it had some lag here and there, but it never felt slow at all.

Nexii have never been about hardware specs, which makes the Nexus 7 kind of an interesting proposition. While it doesn't have mobile data, an external SDcard (that's because that's what Google wants, so fighting over it is useless at this point), a rear camera, and it is only 7 inches, the internals of that thing are absolutely mind-blowing. Makes me very eager to what the next Nexus phone will have if they've finally started to "care" about internals.

 

[tohio]

I guess you missed the part where it's in the owners manual, which is written by Samsung and not a third party.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Guess you missed providing any proof what so ever that the owners manual says anything about burn in or warranty return for burn in. Have you seen it? I looked at the Verizon S III owners manual (the latest manual) and there is no mention of burn in screen image retention or anything similar. The warranty information says nothing about the above and has no information about returning the device for a burned in screen. Your fail trail is getting longer.

 

[dmmarck]

Guess you missed providing any proof what so ever that the owners manual says anything about burn in or warranty return for burn in. Have you seen it? I looked at the Verizon S III owners manual (the latest manual) and there is no mention of burn in screen image retention or anything similar. The warranty information says nothing about the above and has no information about returning the device for a burned in screen. Your fail trail is getting longer.

While warranties/contracts like to get specific, I highly doubt it would include specific stuff like burn-in (aside from liquid damage, obviously). More than likely that's presumed/implied by general terms.

Of course, having not seen it, I could be wrong. But I do know a thing or 6 about reading contracts .

 

[tohio]

While warranties/contracts like to get specific, I highly doubt it would include specific stuff like burn-in (aside from liquid damage, obviously). More than likely that's presumed/implied by general terms.

Of course, having not seen it, I could be wrong. But I do know a thing or 6 about reading contracts .

Kevin O'Quinn cited screen burn in as a Galaxy S III flaw. He provided a site that claimed Samsung acknowledged their responsibility for screen burn in and would replace devices that had it at no cost. The article was published on July 12, 2011. I asked him to provide an actual Samsung statement or document (not a third party reference) that stated the above. He hasn't. That's what generated the message you reference.

 

[iN8ter]

This is why it blew my mind when they announced the Galaxy Nexus with such lack luster specs. The camera was nothing to write home about, the gpu and cpu was lacking. I mean on ICS the phone never ran smooth, and I mean NEVER. It hiccuped and stuttered all the time.

There was also better camera lens available during development of that phone as well. How do you explain those short comings if its suppose the Google's "ideal" phone.

It's not an ideal phone. It's a reference device. There's a difference.

Keep in mind, the Nexus S shipped with a worse camera than the Galaxy S phones had, with laughable video recording by comparison. IIRC it has no SD Card Slot (correct me if I'm wrong). Aside from NFC, it was worse in almost every way compared to the Galaxy S. The Galaxy Nexus is no different. Aside from Screen Resolution/Size, even an AT&T GS2 is better than that device.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Kevin O'Quinn cited screen burn in as a Galaxy S3 flaw. He provided a site that claimed Samsung acknowledged their responsibility for screen burn in and would replace devices that had it at no cost. The article was published on July 12, 2011. I asked him to provide an actual Samsung statement or document (not a third party reference) that stated the above. He hasn't. That's what generated the message you reference.

The owner's manual (which is quoted in the article I linked) is a Samsung document. If yours is from Verizon (and remember, this is the general SGSIII section, not Verizon specific) it could have been edited by Verizon. Not saying that for sure, but it's possible. I mean they did lock your bootloader, right?

The article was also written July 11, 2012, not July 11, 2011. If you're going to reply, at least make sure it's accurate. I wouldn't want you spreading misinformation.

 

[cgardnervt]

You know one thing that this post DOES show us?...

We can all have an adult discussion with out jumping down each others throats. This is one of the reasons its still alive. Different people from all over disagreeing....BUT we are not willing to kill each other! I do like that. Now if all of our threads could be like this....Or hell just in real life! Life would be sweet!

Either way I am for one enjoying the thread for what its worth personally. So I do want to give a shout out to the forums mods seeing that also. Even if we may disagree on things.

Thank you everyone for being calm about that.

 

[sniffs]

By that logic if you do have issues you shouldn't do anything about it. Since a larger sampling size had no issues.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

I have to agree with Kevin on this.. when people go car shopping, they don't instantly buy the first one they test drive do they? MOST people shop around and get the one that fits them best. Smartphones are no different.

I happen to have BOTH the SG3 and One X with active service(1X has my main SIM in it ATM) on both and I use them both daily. I got the 1X first, had that for a few weeks, noticed it's data drop problems and slight lag in the UI problem. I ordered the SG3 and used that until HTC sent out the 4.0.4 update to the One X which fixes almost every problem it had, so I put my main SIM back in the 1X and couldn't be happier.

When the SG3 gets JB, I'll probably put my main SIM back inside that device.. it's a cat/mouse game.

 

[tohio]

The owner's manual (which is quoted in the article I linked) is a Samsung document. If yours is from Verizon (and remember, this is the general SGSIII section, not Verizon specific) it could have been edited by Verizon. Not saying that for sure, but it's possible. I mean they did lock your bootloader, right?

The article was also written July 11, 2012, not July 11, 2011. If you're going to reply, at least make sure it's accurate. I wouldn't want you spreading misinformation.

"The article was also written July 11, 2012, not July 11, 2011." What the heck does that mean??? Misinformation much? July 11, 2012, not July 11, 2011 When you are on the fail trail you just can't turn back can you. The article that you cited as proof that Samsung will admit it's responsibility for burn in and pledged to provide free repairs was published July 12, 2011, The article stating that Samsung would not take responsibility for burn in was written on July 11 and doesn't back up anything you said.. The update at the bottom of the page had to be written on the July 12 because it references a news item published on the 12 th. Is that really what this discussion has sunk to? Where are the direct cites form Samsung that I have repeatedly asked for? You pull information out of thin air and then revert to side issues when confronted with facts. Either back up your statements or admit you are wrong.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

"The article was also written July 11, 2012, not July 11, 2011." What the heck does that mean??? Misinformation much? July 11, 2012, not July 11, 2011 When you are on the fail trail you just can't turn back can you. The article that you cited as proof that Samsung will admit it's responsibility for burn in and pledged to provide free repairs was published July 12, 2011, The article stating that Samsung would not take responsibility for burn in was written on July 11 and doesn't back up anything you said.. The update at the bottom of the page had to be written on the July 12 because it references a news item published on the 12 th. Is that really what this discussion has sunk to? Where are the direct cites form Samsung that I have repeatedly asked for? You pull information out of thin air and then revert to side issues when confronted with facts. Either back up your statements or admit you are wrong.

Before anyone jumps on me for the headline, please read the update at the bottom of the article. Here's the link again.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

You know one thing that this post DOES show us?...

We can all have an adult discussion with out jumping down each others throats. This is one of the reasons its still alive. Different people from all over disagreeing....BUT we are not willing to kill each other! I do like that. Now if all of our threads could be like this....Or hell just in real life! Life would be sweet!

Either way I am for one enjoying the thread for what its worth personally. So I do want to give a shout out to the forums mods seeing that also. Even if we may disagree on things.

Thank you everyone for being calm about that.

I do like to use threads like this as prime examples of how we can have an adult discussion without resorting to childish behavior. These types of threads are what really makes me enjoy the forums and my role as a Super Moderator.

 

[Johnly]

What is going on here lol. Seriously

I am glad I passed on HTC ware too

 

[tohio]

Click to view quoted image


Before anyone jumps on me for the headline, please read the update at the bottom of the article. Here's the link again.

Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums

Wow. This is harder than I thought. The update that you used to back up your claim that Samsung admitted burn in responsibility was written July 12, 2011. GET IT? Look at the bottom of the page it is an UPDATE. It was not included in the original article. Now, where is the actual Samsung document(s) saying they will accept responsibility for burn in?

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Wow. This is harder than I thought. The update that you used to back up your claim that Samsung admitted burn in responsibility was written July 12, 2011. GET IT? Look at the bottom of the page it is an UPDATE. It was not included in the original article. Now, where is the actual Samsung document(s) saying they will accept responsibility for burn in?

Explain to me how an article written about the S3 was written in 2011, when the phone didn't even exist.

Yes, it must be hard to admit that you're wrong and are grasping for straws.

Samsung warns its users in the S3 product manual 'Do not operate your device with a paused screen for a long time." Further the manual states flatly "We are not responsible for any problem arising from the said cause." This effectively shifts the responsibility of screen burn-in to the consumer, disregarding any manufacturing or technology problem with the new screens, allowing Samsung to avoid any warranty replacements of the screens.

Read more: Samsung denies responsibility for Galaxy S3 screen burn-in by VR-Zone.com

That part of the article explains it perfectly, using text from the owner's manual. What could operating your device with a paused screen for a long time cause? Burn-in. This is also the line they are removing from the manual. Which means they WILL cover burn-in if/when it happens.


Honestly I thought the picture of the date by the article settled the "date" argument.

 

[sniffs]

tohio, what are you talking about? The article from vr-zone.com was written July 11th, 2012.

The update that was posted from Chosun.com was written the next day.

The only mention on 2011 on that entire page is the copyright.

I remember my first web clicks on the internets...

 

[Vacmfuzzy]

Finally found That Guy.

 

[dmmarck]

Wow. This is harder than I thought. The update that you used to back up your claim that Samsung admitted burn in responsibility was written July 12, 2011. GET IT? Look at the bottom of the page it is an UPDATE. It was not included in the original article. Now, where is the actual Samsung document(s) saying they will accept responsibility for burn in?

Can you please:

(1) Post the link clearly showing that this article was written in 2011.

(2) And quote the post in which Mr. O'Quinn uses and cites this 2011 article.

Thanks