This is my next (The Verge) Review is up.

[g_schrage52]

Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch review | This is my next...

Pretty weak con reasons IMO.

Score: 8 / 10

Pros
Blazingly fast
Thin and light
Gorgeous display

Cons
Low screen resolution compared to other high-end Android phones on the market
TouchWiz still less attractive than stock UI
Not a global phone (the Photon 4G is, for the same price)

UPDATE**

Whoa fellas. The guys at TIMN (This is my next) aka The Verge are NOT Engadget.

Most used to work at Engadget and left to start their next site. Engadget still exists and is still owned by AOL.

 

[skyo12]

The writers on that site are all from Engadget right? Aren't they known for their Apple Bias? If that's the case, the review isn't that bad in relative terms *shrugs*

 

[Slingbox]

Not bad yet the screen resolution keeps showing its ugly head with no detail on what it means in real world use.
A great take
Final thoughts on the screen - xda-developers

 

[xt04]

They are known for Apple bias if you ask people who are looking for a reason why their favorite phone isn't rated as high as the iPhone.

I highly doubt that every single writer on Engadget/Verge just has a vendetta against Android.

And since when is an 8 a bad score?

They simply said the screen res was low when compared to OTHER ANDROID phones. Is that not true?
Liking or disliking TouchWiz is subjective, but I've seen users in this forum express disdain for it, but if a tech writer says it, its bias?

Right.

Just saying...a little objectivity goes a long way.

 

[Slingbox]

Well in original review they gave it 9 out of 10 then a few days later rate numbers get taken away.
Samsung Epic 4G Touch review -- Engadget

I betting Apple wasn't happy let them know.

 

[JayWill]

I don't mind the WVGA resolution at all. Yes everything is bigger, but so is the screen! I think it looks absolutely beautiful. Sharp, clear and bright with truly vivid colors. I was holding my phone next to my wife's iPhone 3GS last night and this screen blows it away in my opinion. I know, the 3GS is 2 year old technology, but still, I thought it was an impressive difference. Funny enough, my wife thought so too, and now the iPhone 5 is going to have to knock her socks off to continue chomping on the forbidden fruit.

 

[skyo12]

I definitely agree that objectivity is needed in reviews.

I just mentioned the apple bias because I've listened to a few of their podcasts (pretty entertaining) and they explicitly mentioned how perfect the iOS on multiple occasions.

 

[BRIVERS73]

Sometimes I do wish the text was a tad bit smaller...qhd smaller, lol.

 

[maverick96]

No mention of Sprints 3G performance in the review was a pretty bad idea. Especially since most Sprint users will be using 3G primarily on the Eptouch.

Sent from my Sprint Eptouch 4G

 

[Slingbox]

I definitely agree that objectivity is needed in reviews.

I just mentioned the apple bias because I've listened to a few of their podcasts (pretty entertaining) and they explicitly mentioned how perfect the iOS on multiple occasions.

Yeah their defiantly apple bias no doubt.
Them giving it 9 out of 10 in original review I figured bias was on its way out.
A couple days later rate numbers disappear from original review then their (The Verge) review knocks it down.
Ive come to the conclusion that Engadget is Apple , Apple is Engadget

 

[h4ldol]

They simply said the screen res was low when compared to OTHER ANDROID phones. Is that not true?

No, obviously it is true. Whether or not that resolution increase makes a difference is the bigger question, because (also, obviously) with higher screen resolution comes greater resource usage (power consumption, processor, etc.) that affects performance and battery life.

Whenever I read about people complaining about a 4.5" screen not having 720p (1280x720) resolution or higher, I just shake my head because of the ridiculousness of it. Back in 2006 when I bought my 37" 1080p Sharp LCD TV people (especially on AVS forum) were saying how 1920x1080 resolution on a screen less than 42" would be pointless unless you really sit close to your TV. Now, obviously we use our phones at a much closer distance to our eyes, but to continually knock phones with smaller, yet sufficient, resolution screens between 3.5 and 4.5 inches, is pretty absurd. Obviously, those former engadget hacks have a real hard on for Apple and apparently have super human eyesight that can appreciate such high resolutions on those tiny 3.7" iPhone screens. (commence eye rolling)

And to compare the E4GT to that POS photon is equally deserving of ridicule. Just because it has the same price?

Liking or disliking TouchWiz is subjective, but I've seen users in this forum express disdain for it, but if a tech writer says it, its bias?

It's not necessarily bias, but it is highly subjective and therefore should play less of a role in the rating of a device. They could comment on that, but to use that as a significant determinant of the overall rating of the phone is suspect. It's like saying the build quality sucks because it's not aluminum -- the problem with that, is that reflects a bias towards certain materials over actual construction quality (good versus ****ty plastics even).

Touch Wiz, which I've never used before, is actually not bad at all. I prefer it to Sense on my Evo and it's far better than iOs that I had on my iPhone 3G years ago.

 

[Slingbox]

hehe I remember AVS 2006 well.
Their Plasma forums got hot in 2007 with Samsung-5084 1080p ver Kuro 720p

 

[brillrick]

It's not necessarily bias, but it is highly subjective and therefore should play less of a role in the rating of a device. They could comment on that, but to use that as a significant determinant of the overall rating of the phone is suspect. It's like saying the build quality sucks because it's not aluminum -- the problem with that, is that reflects a bias towards certain materials over actual construction quality (good versus ****ty plastics even).

Touch Wiz, which I've never used before, is actually not bad at all. I prefer it to Sense on my Evo and it's far better than iOs that I had on my iPhone 3G years ago.

Every review is subjective, there is no such thing as an objective review, because a review is the reviewer's opinion. It is the reviewer's opinion that aluminum build quality > plastic. It is the reviewers opinion that SAMOLED plus screen isn't as good as qHD screen Reviews should be read and understood that. If you don't like the things the reviewer values, you should probably check out another review.

 

[xt04]

No, obviously it is true. Whether or not that resolution increase makes a difference is the bigger question, because (also, obviously) with higher screen resolution comes greater resource usage (power consumption, processor, etc.) that affects performance and battery life.

Whenever I read about people complaining about a 4.5" screen not having 720p (1280x720) resolution or higher, I just shake my head because of the ridiculousness of it...

Obviously, those former engadget hacks have a real hard on for Apple and apparently have super human eyesight that can appreciate such high resolutions on those tiny 3.7" iPhone screens. (commence eye rolling)

And to compare the E4GT to that POS photon is equally deserving of ridicule. Just because it has the same price?

I agree that the hemming and hawing over specs is ridiculous sometimes.I agree that res isnt everything. There IS a middle ground here. The focus should be more on the "experience" and not just the specifications of the device. Do I love my Epic Touch screen? Without doubt. Do I wish it had a higher res screen? Yes, mostly because it would make text reading easier, which I do plenty of on the large screen.

Is the iPhone screen one of the best screens I have EVER seen on a mobile device? WIthout question. And its not just about the resolution either.

Its about the even backlighting, the color saturation, the fact that the touch layer and the display layered are manufactured in a way that leaves almost no space between them, resulting in the image appearing to "jump out" at the user. Text rendering on the iPhone screen is better than any phone I have ever seen.

With that said, I'll take the larger SuperAMOLED on my Epic Touch.

Also, I think the comparison to the Photon is valid mostly because its the only other phone on Sprint that's even in the same class.

 

[xt04]

Yeah their defiantly apple bias no doubt.
Them giving it 9 out of 10 in original review I figured bias was on its way out.
A couple days later rate numbers disappear from original review then their (The Verge) review knocks it down.
Ive come to the conclusion that Engadget is Apple , Apple is Engadget

Or maybe here is the reason they took the review score down...

Review score review -- Engadget

 

[skyo12]

I really like this guy's reviews.

Epic Touch 4G Review | Ubergizmo

 

[g_schrage52]

Whoa fellas. The guys at TIMN (This is my next) aka The Verge are NOT Engadget.

Most used to work at Engadget and left to start their next site. Engadget still exists and is still owned by AOL.

 

[Tyndall]

Sometimes I do wish the text was a tad bit smaller...qhd smaller, lol.

I agree.....and this would make it an undisputed "10" in my opinion. This phone is fantastic.

 

[Ricolando]

This review didn't seem bad or biased in my opinion, and contrary to many on this forum he got the benefit of good 4G speeds. I think people are taking issue with the 8 out of 10. Let's face it the original GS2 in many ways was ahead of its time. There still is no phone that rivals it, but we're on the cusp of the next gen uber phones and I can see why so many people complain about the screen rez. When you have the top dog you sometimes wish it was number one in every category. Personally the res doesn't bother me, and I think too far past qHD on phone screens is going to be excessive. You hit diminishing returns at some point. Quality, colors, and battery life are much more important on a mobile phone screen IMO. Tablets are a different story lol.

Sent from my Epic 4G Touch

 

[h4ldol]

Personally the res doesn't bother me, and I think too far past qHD on phone screens is going to be excessive. You hit diminishing returns at some point. Quality, colors, and battery life are much more important on a mobile phone screen IMO. Tablets are a different story lol.

Exactly. I can't imagine how people would want the resolution increase so that they can read even tinier text on those 4.5" screens. I use autofit so that the text increases on webpages so that I can actually read it without a magnifying glass or my face 3" from the screen. But I get it -- it's an uber phone and so people who buy it for that reason (read: all of us) are going to want it to have the best specs, even if it degrades performance without improving much besides reading tiny text.

And yes, for tablets increased resolution would be great. I would love for my Galaxy Tab 10.1 to have higher resolution since it would make a noticeable difference and an improvement in the user experience to an appreciable degree. Along with zippier performance (more RAM, faster processor, quad-core, etc.) that would make the Tab 10.1 a really awesome device.