All Things Android - Apps, Phones, Tablets - Discussion

HTC One review (2013)

Well amidst the negativity with delays, at least the handset performs as expected. The UltraPixel camera doesn't really seem to work out as well as they anticipated though; the new camera does much better in low light condition but there is a noticeable loss in picture quality regarding fine details. Battery life on Verge and Engadget's review seems to be contradicting, the former criticized the battery life and Engadget seems content on it. Definitely waiting for GSMArena's review before deciding if this phone is worth the wait.

 

The guy on The Verge did note he had been given a pre-production unit.
That said, he must've had battery life because he wanted to have it's kids, so there's no way he would've said it was poor unless it really was.

The Engadget review said they only got 9 hours, which doesn't seem great to me.

 

That's why I'm waiting on GSMArena's results, because "...nine hours of constant use, which consisted of emailing, social media, taking pictures, making a few calls and an assortment of other random activities" is not a valid quantitative measurement when trying to do a direct comparison with other handsets. There's no standard controlled testing and it's too subjective.

 

That's the thing, it sounds like Engadget have tried to do standardised testing - they talk about 6.5 hours of video playback on a loop, which sounds very similar to a) one of the tests GSMArena does and b) the test Engadget perform on laptops.
So I can't for the life of me work out why there's no table allowing us to compare handsets

 

Agreed. GSMArena seems to be the only one that has some standard for reporting battery life, I'd be curious to see if they would build a table akin to CPU-World's website for this. I'd be okay if the battery lasts somewhere between the Droid DNA and Xperia Z:






In other news, HTC still doesn't get it.

Introducing the HTC One Developer Edition — HTC Blog

What's the point of having a Developer's Edition if the thing's still got S-ON? At least Motorola has this figured out. Well, at least we have an idea of what the 64 GB model will cost off-contract.

 

Andy Rubin steps down as head of Android at Google, will be succeeded by Chrome OS boss | The Verge

Erm, okay. Convergence of Chrome OS and Android?

 

Chromoid? Androme?

 

Anyone from the US care to try and explain this... 'logic'?

Given that LTE is hardly exclusive to the US and the S4 will likely support it in all regions, why would there be any difference?

 

I thought the Exynos 5410 does not support LTE? I know that was the reason for the North American Galaxy S II/III; the Note II variants are using a Qualcomm modem as well.

 

At this point there is no good reason or explanation for giving the US customers the S-600/800 and the rest of the world Exynos 5410. Any SoC can be paired with any baseband. It's just up to how much money you want to spend on the final solution. Seems to me that Exynos 5410 paired with an MDM9615 would make a beautiful combination.

 

Perhaps they are concerned with the potential power draw in a full load scenario? IIRC, the Exynos 4 didn't get paired with a LTE modem until the die shrink with the 4412.

 

...in a phone device. The Tab 7.7 was LTE with 4210.

We've all seen the wonderful battery life of the Nexus 10 (not), and how efficient it is under load (/s). I'm fairly surprised that 5410 is going into a phone. 4 A15's... that's a tall order for a phone's thermal constraints.

Qualcomm's newer MDM models are extremely power efficient, so I wouldn't think that would be it.

 

Meh, either the Snapdragon 600 or Exynos 5410 is plenty for a phone form factor. This is not 2011 when the performance difference between the Exynos 4210 and Snapdragon S3 was night and day.

 

True, but for the same price I feel I'm being jip'd with a Snapdragon device. Plus, 5410 is MUCH more likely to have a better DAC than the Snapdragon crap.

 

Could be due to volume issues; Samsung may want to ensure that it is does not have supply issues for the U.S. market (or any other markets, for that matter).

 

How very logical! Didn't even think of that... but you have a point. I still don't like it though. If Qualcomm would outsource their damn audio I'd have absolutely no qualms with their SoC's because they've REALLY stepped up their game since S4/Pro. Awesome CPU performance and they can truly give even Apple a run for their money in the GPU dept with Adreno 320 and newer (and that's saying something since Apple has the most powerful GPU implementations in current shipping mobile devices).

 

Then why announce it in the US if the model they intend to sell there will lack one of the headline features?

If they're worried about volume, they could do what they did with the S and S2 and produce a cheaper version with reduced specs aimed at emerging markets but there's no reason to arbitrarily change the specs for the US.

 

Unless I missed something, the Exynos processor wasn't a "headline" feature. Most consumers could care less.

 

LG in troll mode...

 

Apple should sue... they used '4' first.

 

PhoneArena's review of the HTC One, they gave it 9.1/10, making it their highest rating for a phone.

HTC One Review

Battery life reported from them seems to be merely average as well, lasting roughly a day.

 

The Exynos SoCs are always a big differentiating point for Samsung.
It's been a selling point of the S3, Note2 and Note 10.1.

They'd still be able to tell the difference between a quad-core processor and an eight-core one.

 

Not trollin' if it's true.

 

Only for techies and geeks. Consumers don't even know what an Exynos is.

Only 4 cores run at any given time. It's not a true eight-core processor that has 8 cores running simultaneously.

The only noticeable difference should be battery life(during regular usage) if what Samsung claims about the efficiency is correct.

 

I don't think the vast majority of those who have an S3 would know what specific processor is in their phone. At most, they might be able to tell you how many GHz it is or that it's quad or duo core.

That's true, but it sure didn't hurt the S3 in the US: not in sales to the general public or to reviews. Few if any reviews complained that the quad core Exynos in the international variant was replaced by Qualcomm's dual core Snapdragon. On the other hand, lack of availability is something anyone can understand.

 

It's a big differentiating point when training staff in stores, it adds another string to Samsung's bow and ensures that staff are more likely to recommend the product.

Thank you for telling me something I already know.
Not that that matter, like the megapixel race, some customers will hear 8 cores and assume that it's better.

And ARM's claims.

See above.

That was because the dual-core Snapdragon provided similar performance to the quad-core Exynos.
But in this case the Exynos should be more powerful and I doubt reviewers would be so forgiving - there was a lot of complaints about the US S2s using Qualcomm chips because they simply weren't as good as the Exynos in the i9100.

 

That's absurd and illogical. Why would Samsung staff be less likely to recommend a Snapdragon S4?

If you already knew that, why, just a few posts above, did you argue that the octa-core Exynos is faster? Don't forget the S3. There was a dual and quad core, and I didn't see much consumer outrage.

Let me refresh your memory:

So, which is it?

Agreed

 

Samsung's Unpacked Event for the Galaxy S IV is happening right now. Live stream: Samsung Mobile - YouTube

 

Yes, that is absurd and illogical and in no way what I said.

Using your own model of SoC creates a USP whereas using the same chip as everyone else does not.
When Samsung train staff that work in stores (NB not Samsung stores, network stores and third-party retailers), they can use Exynos as a differentiating point compared to other handsets, this will help to sway those staff to recommend the S4 over competitors' models.

It is faster, 4 A15 cores trump 4 Kraits - leaked benchmarks suggest that even Tegra4 will be more powerful than the Snapdragon 800.

I already addressed that.

There are two separate points here which you're confusing.

Firstly, the Exynos5 Octa will be superior to the Snapdragon 600 (and the 800, I'd wager).
Secondly, whilst customers are not generally not aware of technical details, in the same way that people equate more megapixels to a better photo, they will likely equate more cores to a better processor.

 

I'm amazed they made it thinner and less wide with a bigger screen and bigger battery.

Not to mention that 1080p display... PIXEL DENSITY ROCKS!

 

Read the part of your argument I was responding to. You clearly stated that Samsung staff would be more likely to recommend it if it had the Exynos processor.

Ah, you change this argument again. First, it was that consumers would notice a difference in performance because it had 8 cores. Then, you argued that customers would assume that 8 cores would be faster. Now, it's that some leaked benched marks show one to be faster than the other. Which is it this time?

That you did. Sort of. You're basing this argument on the assumption that the Snapdragon quad will be noticably slower than the Exynos quad

I'm not confusion argument, you, again, changed your position mid argument.

 

The S4 looks like a solid device, with good improvements over the S3. But then again, we expected that out of Samsung. Will probably be a perfect device to upgrade to for those of you finishing up your 2-year contracts on an S2...

True, it's not radically new, but Samsung would be silly to radically change what is beginning to be a brand identity.

 

Well since we know the leaked dual SIM Galaxy S 4 is real now, that individual ran some benchmarks. Keep in mind this is pre-release software, so performance may improve once the device hits retail:

 

I like the comment about how all the family videos looks like children with a single mother because the dad is behind the camera. Struck a wee bit close to home there

I'm not sure I'd like their solution of stitching the photographer in in a postage-stamp-styled insert, but it's creative, different, and could be fun.

Also, bigger screen, bigger battery, yet thinner and lighter than the S III, which already is remarkably thin and light for a 4.8" device? WOW.

 

No, I didn't.
I said it was a big differentiating point when training staff in stores, which would mean that staff (the same aforementioned store staff) would be more likely to recommend it to customers. I didn't say anything about Samsung staff being more or less likely to recommend the S4.

That's not quite right. I initially said 'a difference', I didn't say anything about performance nor was that what I meant.
It was a poor choice of words, granted but my intended point was the same both times - the 'more cores is better' placebo effect will favour the Exynos.

Separate to that, all indications are that the Exynos 5 Octa will comfortably out-perform the Snapdragon, meaning that not only is the Exynos likely to be favoured by people with a poor grasp of technology, it's also likely to be favoured by those that do understand the technology.
Using Exynos is win-win.

It is confusion, there are two separate points that have become entwined.
That was my fault due to a poor choice of words but as I've said above, they are indeed two separate points.

Far from conclusive, I know but if this is correct then it would stand to reason that the S4 will out-perform the One quite comfortably as it's processing power should be very similar to that of Tegra4.

 

Processing power was never Tegra's issue. T2/3/4 are all perfectly competent in their respective generations. It's NVIDIA and their warped view of what a mobile GPU is that has brought every single SoC of theirs down... that, and memory bandwidth. They've fixed the memory bandwidth with T4, but they still have this vision of stuffing a laptop GPU in a phone. Even Qualcomm realized that wasn't going to work and licensed IMGTEC's TB-DR technology.

OTOH, Samsung has never had any of those issues. In synthetic benchmarks, Tegra 4 could keep up with Exynos quite well in some respects, but Exynos will nail them with power efficiency. Tegra 4 is simply a power hog.

 

Wireless charging too... nice (although carrier dependent).

Hmm... makes me kind of wonder if I should have waited instead of getting the Note II (although I like the pen support).

 

All of which would seem to support my assumption that if Tegra4 can out-perform Snapdragon 800, then so can Exynos5 - or am I missing something?

Yeah, just saw that.
It's all coming together nicely.

The unlocked international model should come with all the bells and whistles, so now I just need LTE where I live/work.

 

I didn't know this event was today..i kept thinking it was tomorrow for some reason.

Oh well, watching the recorded livestream now.

 

I think I read what you said wrong. lol.

 

I'm pretty lost too.

I'm just trying to get a feel for how Exynos5 should perform vs Snapdragon.

 

Meh...the Note II and Galaxy S III is still more than relevant for the apps out today. I'd expect either handsets will eventually get the next version of Android and have plenty of processing power to get things done. Samsung did good with the Exynos 4, it's still putting up good number even against the latest bleeding edge.

Actual benchmarks from the Snapdragon 800 or even the Tegra 4? Everything regarding those two SoCs are nothing but heresay. As of today, we have benchmarks from production Snapdragon 600 devices and just today, the Exynos 5410 from a pre-release device.

Yes sir, the I9505 model seems to be very interesting. Unless Samsung put some sort of placeholder data/icons on the preview phones, it looks like the model all of these journalists are previewing at the event has somebody's LTE connection.

 

I think the claim was prompted by Tegra4 benchmarks but they seem to be extrapolating how the 800 should perform from the 600.
I found it interesting though as Tegra4 seemed to get a bit of a slating in here, so the suggestion that it's genuinely very competitive piqued my curiosity.

I think I'll need to switch to Three - unlimited data with tethering and LTE at no extra cost.

 

oh man. I really like the look of the s4. can I wait a month or two more to upgrade? I'll have to see...

 

I say this every year:

Wish there was a GS *insert latest number here* "pro" with a sliding qwerty. :/

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

I used to say that too until SwiftKey 4 with Flow blew my mind.

Sent from my Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2.

 

CE-Oh no he didn't!: HTC's CMO Ben Ho says the Galaxy S 4 is just 'more of the same' - Engadget

So do we think that means more of massively out-selling HTC?



HTC tags the Samsung Galaxy S4 announcement as TheNextBigFlop - GSMArena Blog

This is just nuts though.

 

^ Quite conceited for a company that is continuously losing market share and facing its own set of issues with their product.

So Samsung apparently wants in on the gaming controller as well, perhaps a good alternative for the MOGA?

LOL that's awfully specific.

 

If the Note III is 6.3", I give up.

 

I understand what he means though. The S4 is a very good-looking device but, except for gimmicky hand gesture stuff, there was nothing about it that felt like a "great leap forward." Instead, it felt like an Apple-esque incremental improvement in a device that basically looks and functions the same.

With the HTC One, I say "holy cow that looks sexy" and "wow, that's really different" (from its approach to the camera, to its speaker placement, to its metro-esque newsfeed). I don't say either about the Galaxy S4, even though it looks to be an extremely good phone by any objective measure.