Galaxy S5: Huge disappointment, Samsung TOTALLY dropped the ball!

[monsieurms]

It sure has some improvements that I like, but at least from my prospective, it's just not quite enough to make me want to consider upgrading to it, when it will almost undoubtedly be trumped within months by other devices .

Honestly, the point's been made before, but I don't know what people expect.

The technology is more mature now. My S4 is a brilliant phone. It is not exactly obsolete. It's less than a year old. I have it set up the way I want it, which took some time. I spent a lot of bucks on accessories too.

What can make me run to the store to upgrade as a "can't live without it" new feature set, tossing away an excellent phone and spending lots more money and time? When it comes time to upgrade, I will and I like the S5 (although I'm thinking my next phone with be the Note 4). But it just isn't as important to do every 10 seconds as it used to be. Until the next revolutionary change, that's going to continue to be true. The tech has matured. There are nice incremental advances, but the "wow" factor is gone from Samsung---and everyone else, too, I think. There just is no reason to run to the store and upgrade unless you're at the end of your cycle about ready to do it anyway.

 

[Kevin Lowery]

I agree. It's just like PCs. I remember getting a new PC every year when the advancement curve was really steep. My desktop is now 5 years old and there's no need to upgrade ( I'm not gaming on it ). Time will come when Google, Samsung, and Apple will have to find something else we can't live without. It won't be a phone feature.

 

[monsieurms]

I agree. It's just like PCs. I remember getting a new PC every year when the advancement curve was really steep. My desktop is now 5 years old and there's no need to upgrade ( I'm not gaming on it ). Time will come when Google, Samsung, and Apple will have to find something else we can't live without. It won't be a phone feature.

Yep, 5 years used to be an eternity. Truth is, I was fairly happy with my 5.5 year old XP, XPS desktop. But then I had a virus problem and figured that I may as well upgrade.

Has my life changed? No. Basically, I'm doing exactly what I was doing before--just faster. I'm not doing anything amazingly new and innovative, really. Mostly what the experience has gotten me is.....speed.

Admittedly, speed is a REALLY good thing. My new boot-up speed is just glorious. I love it! I will concede that the time and money spent to obtain it might make some go "not worth it." Still, my new 8.1 setup is SO much faster and more powerful, that I would say now that it was worth doing ultimately. Five-to-six years is about the sweet spot I suspect these days. And it helps that the components are less likely to fail, too, if you stay on that cycle. Hard drives are not forever.

But if I hadn't had the virus, I'd probably still be running XP. Inertia is a powerful factor. Upgrading is painful.

 

[Sanjay Chandra]

Re: HUGE Disappointment -- Samsung TOTALLY Dropped The Ball

I am surprised with 2 things :
-Base model still at 16GB
-RAM is still 2GB

RAM thing can be countered with kitkat but again newer Android version is about to come in few months , so its basically a disappointment imho.
Base model should be 32GB but not 16GB , there's so much bloat and also very less Internal storage for those who like to install big games.Samsung doesn't sell 32/64 models everywhere.

Even Apple is ridiculous , iPad base model should start with 32GB model because Retina Apps are huge , and bumping shouldn't cost $100 , maybe $50 .I don't know what these two companies are smoking.

Samsung really disappointed in update cycle as well , their update cycle is f***** up , Even GS2 got only 2 major updates.Flagship should get minimum 3 big updates.

 

[Sanjay Chandra]

I agree. It's just like PCs. I remember getting a new PC every year when the advancement curve was really steep. My desktop is now 5 years old and there's no need to upgrade ( I'm not gaming on it ). Time will come when Google, Samsung, and Apple will have to find something else we can't live without. It won't be a phone feature.

This^

P.S , My PC is 5 years old and newer PCs aren't compelling enough for me to upgrade tbh , I don't game much.

 

[Farish]

Re: HUGE Disappointment -- Samsung TOTALLY Dropped The Ball

Even Apple is ridiculous , iPad base model should start with 32GB model because Retina Apps are huge , and bumping shouldn't cost $100 , maybe $50 .I don't know what these two companies are smoking.

Based on the fact that both Apple and Samsung made over 40 billion dollars in profit in 2013, I would say they are smoking 100 dollar bills. Lots of 100 dollar bills.

 

[ffejjj]

Probably not smoking then but definitely able to

Sent from my HTCONE using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Farish]

Probably not smoking then but definitely able to

Sent from my HTCONE using AC Forums mobile app

They could smoke 1 million 100 dollar bills and it would not equal to .25 of 1 percent of their profit last year.

 

[garublador]

Re: HUGE Disappointment -- Samsung TOTALLY Dropped The Ball

I am surprised with 2 things :
-Base model still at 16GB
-RAM is still 2GB

Look at it from their perspective. If it costs $2.50 per unit to up the storage and/or RAM and they sell 40M units, that's $100M. And that's assuming it's only $2.50 (made for easy math). They'd have to be pretty sure that not having more internal storage and RAM would have a pretty significant effect on sales to spend $100M on those features. Considering they have very accurate data on how many units of each storage configuration were sold, it's probably safe to say that they have a very good idea of how changing the storage in their phones will affect sales.

 

[dpham00]

It costs about $9 to go from 16gb to 32gb,and $30 to go from 64gb to 128gb. Keep in mind this is strictly material cost.

dpham00, Android Central Moderator
Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 3 via Tapatalk Pro

 

[garublador]

So $360M+ rather than "just" $100M. Even if they only sold 10M units that's $90M. So any time someone wonders why phone companies only put 16GB in their phones, it's because it costs them $100M to put 32GB in there instead. With Samsung, they sell more phones than all the other Android OEM's combined, so it's amplified for them.

 

[Farish]

So $360M+ rather than "just" $100M. Even if they only sold 10M units that's $90M. So any time someone wonders why phone companies only put 16GB in their phones, it's because it costs them $100M to put 32GB in there instead. With Samsung, they sell more phones than all the other Android OEM's combined, so it's amplified for them.

Remember though that Samsung will charge between 50 to 100 dollars more per (not sure on the exact number for S5, S4 was 50 dollars more) per phone. So the cost can be justified.

This leads me to believe that the demand really isn't there.

 

[prepaidguy9081]

Remember though that Samsung will charge between 50 to 100 dollars more per (not sure on the exact number for S5, S4 was 50 dollars more) per phone. So the cost can be justified.

This leads me to believe that the demand really isn't there.

Agreed, but I think a 16gb option is still valid as long as a 32gb option is offered too, but then I guess some people would complane that it cost so much more for the added memory, maybe its that bad thought process they are trying to avoid in the consumer and offer phones at competitive prices? But somebody hast to be first I suppose as well. Might as well be Samsung.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4

 

[garublador]

Remember though that Samsung will charge between 50 to 100 dollars more per (not sure on the exact number for S5, S4 was 50 dollars more) per phone. So the cost can be justified.

This leads me to believe that the demand really isn't there.

I agree about the demand. However, I don't see how them charging more for the phone justifies throwing $360M down the toilet.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[Aquila]

I agree about the demand. However, I don't see how them charging more for the phone justifies throwing $360M down the toilet.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app

If it makes you feel better, choosing between it and the S5 I'd buy the Nexus 9 out of 10 days were it an option for me and I didn't already have the X (arguably better for some users). But I still feel the S5 is much, much better than the S4 was.

 

[Farish]

I agree about the demand. However, I don't see how them charging more for the phone justifies throwing $360M down the toilet.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AC Forums mobile app

By the same reason of demand.

If the market tells Samsung, your sales are dropping because people want 32gb phones, that is were the additional costs become justified.

 

[garublador]

If it makes you feel better, choosing between it and the S5 I'd buy the Nexus 9 out of 10 days were it an option for me and I didn't already have the X (arguably better for some users). But I still feel the S5 is much, much better than the S4 was.

I'm making more general arguments about why OEM's choose 16GB as their base rather than 32GB. The reasons are amplified with Samsung because they sell so many more units. If Motorola and LG/Google can't justify it, there's no way that Samsung can. These OEM's go through the BOM's to find tens of cents to get out of each unit. It's a no brainier to drop $9 and that's considered a gigantic savings.

The verdict is still out for me on the S5. I've been super happy with my S4 and my biggest complaint is that it's just the tiniest bit too big. That complaint would get worse with the S5. They seemed to cut out more gimmicks and add actually useful features like IP67 and battery saving features, so it's an improvement in those areas. Presumably the camera is better, so that would have a big effect on my decision (if I were in the position to actually make one, I'm keeping my S4 until my contract runs out). If I were looking to get a phone in the near future, the relatively cheap extra storage I can get with any phone with a SD slot would limit my decision to phones that have that. The HTC One is about the only one I can think of where I could get 64 GB internally without paying way too much, so it would be in the running, too.

 

[Farish]

Agreed, but I think a 16gb option is still valid as long as a 32gb option is offered too, but then I guess some people would complane that it cost so much more for the added memory, maybe its that bad thought process they are trying to avoid in the consumer and offer phones at competitive prices? But somebody hast to be first I suppose as well. Might as well be Samsung.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4

There has to be enough market pressure first. Which is why we need other phone companies to survive.

Best recent example is what happen to T-Mobile. They were doing poorly, they had a failed merger that gave them a few billion dollars plus free spectrum. CEO takes advantage of this and offers a radical new pricing structure (radical for the United States) and they are successful with it.

Now ATT and Sprint copies what TMobile is doing.

Verizon (Just like Samsung the market leader) gives a half heart change for its customers. They feel some pressure but not enough to match the other big 3 carriers.

Same thing needs to happen in the phone industry if people want reasonable pricing now. It will be a few years otherwise.

 

[garublador]

By the same reason of demand.

If the market tells Samsung, your sales are dropping because people want 32gb phones, that is were the additional costs become justified.

Didn't the HTC One show that having 32 GB of internal storage and no uSD slot show that there isn't the type of demand for that that Samsung wants? In the first month the One sold 5M units and the S4 sold 10M units. The iPhone 5 sold 5M in the first few days.

Everyone likes to theorize that more than 16GB is "needed," but there's no evidence to support that. Of course not giving people a feature they're willing to pay for will cause a drop in sales, but no one can give any evidence that's happened. In fact, almost all the evidence points to people being happy enough with 16GB internally. Even on these forums where the claim is that 32 GB is "needed" the phones that are recommended the most are the Moto X and Nexus 5, both of which have 16 GB internally and no SD slot.

So demand would be a reason if it were there. Apparently it is not.

 

[Farish]

Didn't the HTC One show that having 32 GB of internal storage and no uSD slot show that there isn't the type of demand for that that Samsung wants? In the first month the One sold 5M units and the S4 sold 10M units. The iPhone 5 sold 5M in the first few days.

Everyone likes to theorize that more than 16GB is "needed," but there's no evidence to support that. Of course not giving people a feature they're willing to pay for will cause a drop in sales, but no one can give any evidence that's happened. In fact, almost all the evidence points to people being happy enough with 16GB internally. Even on these forums where the claim is that 32 GB is "needed" the phones that are recommended the most are the Moto X and Nexus 5, both of which have 16 GB internally and no SD slot.

So demand would be a reason if it were there. Apparently it is not.

To go along with that line of thought.

If people want Samsung to start making baseline 32gb phones, then the best hope they have is Apple starts making baseline 32gb phones first.

Samsung reacts to Apple more than any other company.

And it should as those are the two main players in the market.