Anandtech: Galaxy S4 doesn't use Snapdragon 600

[dmmarck]

I understand, but no posts will be deleted.



Exactly. When we DO express our opinion we've effectively eliminated our ability to Moderate in that particular thread. I'm not sure how many people would actually want to be a Moderator if that meant that they could no longer participate in any threads for the sake of discussion.

And sure, we do represent the site. But it's much, MUCH more than that. We have other responsibilities as well, and sometimes unique approaches need to be taken to situations that can't be handled any other way and still be effective.

No one would care if your opinion was the same as theirs. Disagreement breeds dissent.

Sent from my HTC One

 

[sniffs]

I'm just an occasional visitor but holy cow, what an embarrassing thread! I think I blushed from the second hand embarrassment I felt. Think of all the search engine results that threw people this way, it does not put the staff here in a good light. Volunteer or not, the perception is that Mods are representatives of the site. I don't know how big a deal it is to delete posts but it certainly should be considered in this case.

No offense, but forums aren't retail stores. The customer isn't always right in most cases. Forum mods usually got their spots by either being friends with the site admins, or they post constructively/debate constructively and are asked to take the job. Just because someone becomes a mod, doesn't mean they need to cease posting.

Contrary to popular believe, this isn't the holy grail of Android sites. These people, Phil, Jerry, etc aren't our Android saviors, they aren't movie stars. They are normal people who love these devices like we do..There are other Android sites that post just as useful info. You shouldn't be holding them on a pedestal because they run a popular site. I feel they are more than welcome to come post and debate users on their site.. What are MOST forums for? posting and debating.

If you want to run a dictatorship Android website, godaddy.com is that way -> Domain Names | The World's Largest Domain Name Registrar - GoDaddy.com

EDIT: Sorry, this thread has totally derailed.

 

[kevinadams05]

I'm just an occasional visitor but holy cow, what an embarrassing thread! I think I blushed from the second hand embarrassment I felt. Think of all the search engine results that threw people this way, it does not put the staff here in a good light. Volunteer or not, the perception is that Mods are representatives of the site. I don't know how big a deal it is to delete posts but it certainly should be considered in this case.

I'd like to chime in as one of the people who came to this forum via Google results. Jabberwock's first two sentences were on target. This thread has derailed so quickly and so far that it is pretty embarrassing and casts the forums in a very poor light.

I'm not going to go into the topic of what the role and responsibilities are of a moderator, and if they should or should not express their own opinions. That varies from site to site and I've seen it go both ways. Since I'm a first time visitor to this forum I don't know enough to comment.

However, I will say that I think it is very inappropriate to derail a meaningful thread to argue about the standards of behavior of the community. This is a good discussion to have, but this is not the place. It should have been moved to private messages or a separate thread.

 

[return_0]

This thread has derailed so quickly and so far that it is pretty embarrassing and casts the forums in a very poor light.

IMO this thread and the comments found in it do not reflect badly on the forums, its moderators, or even its users. They reflect badly on the small group of users that choose to bicker with other users and mods rather than participate in the conversation. In fact, furthering this argument will do nothing more for the discussion.

Sent from my pure Google Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[return_0]

And sure, we do represent the site.

By this I meant that (afaik) you don't represent the official stance of the site or its editors except when enforcing forum rules.

Sent from my pure Google Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[LoganK]

I'm boycotting 100% of devices that won't step up to the minimum standards set by the Nexus devices. The Nexus devices come out and trounce the Q2 releases on hardware and features and set a new bar... then a couple of manufacturers pretend it didn't happen so they can save on the R&D (I think that's the theory.. if we leave it the way it is, it's cheaper...) even though many of the "features" they're coming out with already exist in the included Android package they're given and they're actually devolving below minimum standards. And since they're duplicating effort, in my mind that suggests waste. Remember, they have to go out of their way to modify TouchWiz to circumvent the included code and recreate it to match their button configuration. It's free to choose not to do that.

I'm not sure you understand the situation. Are you boycotting devices that don't include all-virtual buttons? (TouchWiz has nothing to do with whether or not the phone includes a menu button: there is no circumvention of Android code.) Are you boycotting devices that include their own launcher?

Android decided that the menu key was too confusing because there was no visual indication that there were extra options available. Instead, they now suggest the action bar, which is like the menu key but takes up screen real estate, doesn't always look the same, and can show up anywhere (you can probably guess my opinion on this choice). (Interestingly, Google's own applications support the menu key when present and switch to the action bar when not.)

Since all of the application developers obviously weren't going to change overnight, Google went with virtual buttons, allowing them to add the menu key when the application hadn't been updated without sacrificing screen real estate.

Manufacturers of phones have mostly decided not to use virtual buttons. Samsung and others includes the menu key (so they support both the action bar and the menu key). HTC has chosen to remove the menu key so applications that haven't been updated shrink significantly (to make way for one virtual button).

It's tricky when you start talking about manufacturers duplicating functionality of Android. Originally, Android had very poor support for Facebook and Exchange, and each manufacturer released modified versions that worked better. Once Android support was up to par, they moved back to the stock versions. In a more recent example, Android released file sharing, Android Beam, but it didn't support WiFi Direct. Samsung released something similar not long after that fully supported Android Beam, but it also supported a WiFi Direct variant. Once Android Beam supports WiFi direct, I'm sure Samsung will downplay S Beam as much as possible or remove it altogether.

So, again, I'm not sure what you are intending. We shouldn't buy non-Nexus devices because they include extra hardware that the Nexus devices don't? Because they included additional functionality? Yes, sometimes the manufacturer variant is missing Android functionality, and that should be taken into account, but I wouldn't "boycott" a manufacturer that once did this.

Personally, I try to select devices that aren't locked down and are likely to get AOSP/CM support. After that, the most important consideration is the hardware and the currently available features.

 

[gollum18]

Couldn't this possibly be a snapdragon 600 modified by samsung to accept the higher clock speed and play nicer with it. As far as I know samsung is in the semiconductor business as well, they would have the knowledge to do this.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dmmarck]

Couldn't this possibly be a snapdragon 600 modified by samsung to accept the higher clock speed and play nicer with it. As far as I know samsung is in the semiconductor business as well, they would have the knowledge to do this.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Without flashing a kernel to test it, I presume the S600 in the One will get to 1.9 easily. I know much lesser processors did in the past.

 

[sniffs]

Without flashing a kernel to test it, I presume the S600 in the One will get to 1.9 easily. I know much lesser processors did in the past.

For all we know, HTC might have that in mind with a future OTA update. It's not unheard of to unlock speeds.. but I bet the reason they went with 1.7 is because the S4 has a bigger battery to offset the 1.9

 

[meyerweb#CB]

What it sounds like to me, really, is a marketing ploy. Samsung wanted to call it's chip the S600, so Qualcomm had to do some tuning so that it wouldn't be "just" an S4 Pro.

Also sounds kinda shady. Hopefully, like you said, we'll get more information.

I think you misread the article. The Galaxy S4 isn't using the S4 Pro. The S4 Pro was the APQ8064. The original SnapDragon 600 is the APQ8064T. The S4 is using the APQ8064AB, which is different than either of the above.

And I don't think it's Samsung that decides what to call the processor. Qualcom owns and builds that design, and they own the trademark. They can apply that trademark to anything they want to.

Somehow you do seem a bit biased when it comes to Samsung, at least based on this post. I think you need to apologize to Samsung for calling them "shady."

 

[dmmarck]

For all we know, HTC might have that in mind with a future OTA update. It's not unheard of to unlock speeds.. but I bet the reason they went with 1.7 is because the S4 has a bigger battery to offset the 1.9

Could very well be. And yeah, 1.9 would probably put a damper on the battery life. But remember, TW requires more horsepower and resources, so the GS4 probably needed the bump and the battery to compensate .

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I think you misread the article. The Galaxy S4 isn't using the S4 Pro. The S4 Pro was the APQ8064. The original SnapDragon 600 is the APQ8064T. The S4 is using the APQ8064AB, which is different than either of the above.

And I don't think it's Samsung that decides what to call the processor. Qualcom owns and builds that design, and they own the trademark. They can apply that trademark to anything they want to.

Somehow you do seem a bit biased when it comes to Samsung, at least based on this post. I think you need to apologize to Samsung for calling them "shady."

I definitely didn't misread the article.

 

[meyerweb#CB]

The S4 and One are great devices, but both have a list of features that are worse than the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 4. I get they're guidelines, but they're also highly suggested since the intention is obviously to make Android more gesture based and less positional relative to a antiquated physical hardware component.

You are, of course, free to boycott anything you want, but I'm curious as to what this "list of features that are worse than the...Nexus..." consists of. The physical buttons? Please.

 

[dmmarck]

You are, of course, free to boycott anything you want, but I'm curious as to what this "list of features that are worse than the...Nexus..." consists of. The physical buttons? Please.

They are regressive .

 

[meyerweb#CB]

I definitely didn't misread the article.

You implied the chip in the GS4 is just a warmed over S4 Pro, and there is nothing in the article that supports that statement. Quite the opposite, in fact. So if you didn't misread it, then you're apparently deliberately misstating what was written, which is even worse.

 

[dmmarck]

You implied the chip in the GS4 is just a warmed over S4 Pro, and there is nothing in the article that supports that statement. Quite the opposite, in fact. So if you didn't misread it, then you're apparently deliberately misstating what was written, which is even worse.

The article itself implies that possibility. It may not be correct, but it is there. I'm not exactly new to literacy, but that was my gut reaction upon reading it in full.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

You implied the chip in the GS4 is just a warmed over S4 Pro, and there is nothing in the article that supports that statement. Quite the opposite, in fact. So if you didn't misread it, then you're apparently deliberately misstating what was written, which is even worse.

Seriously? I didn't imply anything. I SAID that if Samsung isn't using an S600 but are marketing it as such then that is shady. BECAUSE IT IS. If/when we get more information than we'll know for sure.

What we know is that Samsung isn't using the same part as what's commonly known to be the S600. So yes, it's something different. It could be a "warmed over" S4 Pro, or a slightly different S600. Either way, it's not what we commonly know to be the S600. So someone needs to explain what's going on.

Anything else?

 

[madlaw1071]

Qualcomm itself has confirmed that Samsung is using the 600. However, I suppose it is possible that two huge multinational corps are conspiring to deceive the public about which chip is being used.

The Moderator of this forum called it "shady" with zero evidence and in fact evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Kevin should should have 2 screen names. One where he can be free to post his opinion and one where he is actually neutral and moderates.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Qualcomm itself has confirmed that Samsung is using the 600. However, I suppose it is possible that two huge multinational corps are conspiring to deceive the public about which chip is being used.

The Moderator of this forum called it "shady" with zero evidence and in fact evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Kevin should should have 2 screen names. One where he can be free to post his opinion and one where he is actually neutral and moderates.

Do you have a link to that article/information? Does it specifically state the reason for the different part number? That's what I'm most interested in.

And yes, advertising something and then it not being what you advertised is shady. Get over it. You're not always right. Also, quote me in full next time. I did say that we need more information to know for sure that it is/isn't the S600.

 

[madlaw1071]

Do you have a link to that article/information? Does it specifically state the reason for the different part number? That's what I'm most interested in.

And yes, advertising something and then it not being what you advertised is shady. Get over it. You're not always right. Also, quote me in full next time. I did say that we need more information to know for sure that it is/isn't the S600.

Here, right from Qualcomm's website. Like I said, perhaps it's all one big conspiracy. You took what an obscure blogger wrote as gospel and then smeared Samsung.

Samsung GALAXY S4 powered by Snapdragon processors: Presale starts today | Qualcomm