Suggestions on An Android Phone

[Murph]

But they clearly each have their "flagship" device. He didn't say it's the only phone they release, of course they also each release budget, lower-end models.

And sometimes the same phone will hit two carriers and have a different name on each carrier. Are your numbers taking that into account? (There was no snark there, legitimate question.)

[stusser]

Obviously one phone has to be the best. That's all flagship means.

My list included multiple versions, since each one is certified and scheduled for updates separately.

The previous samsung "flagship", the galaxy S2, was released in september 2011 and 4.0 updates started trickling out just last month, in the beginning of june 2012. ICS came out in October 2011, so it took them 8 months. Sadly, this 9-month old phone will never be updated to 4.1.

When will the galaxy S3 get 4.1? Who knows? 8 months is a safe bet.

This is why you only want to buy nexus phones.

[mkozlows]

Still bullshit. They all release a new phone every couple of weeks. Samsung released 13 android phones in 2011. Thirteen. Motorola "only" released 6, LG "only" released 5, Sony "only" 7. HTC released twenty-two.

Why do you think this is responsive to me? Samsung may have released 13 phones in 2011, but only one of them was their flagship, and it was the Galaxy S II. Before the Galaxy S II, their flagship was the Galaxy S. Now it's the Galaxy S III. If they release a bunch of phones in 2012, it won't change this. For this to change, they'd have to release a phone that was BETTER than the Galaxy S III, which they won't do until summer 2013, when they come out with a new flagship phone.

I mean, your contention is that they release "a new flagship" every two weeks. Obviously the two weeks is exaggeration, but even so: Which of those 13 phones were not the Galaxy S II, and were a new flagship for Samsung? What did they release in January, in April, in August, in October, in December, that was their new high-end phone and replaced the Galaxy S or Galaxy S II as the Samsung that all the geeks recommend? Obviously none of them -- the GS2 was the only flagship phone they released in 2011, and if you've pulled this much info, I'm not sure why you're still arguing that point.

I'm particularly unsure why you're arguing this point so vociferously, because you don't even need it -- all you have to do is argue that being current on software is more important than being current on hardware, and that it's better to have last year's hardware and this year's software than vice versa. I tend to disagree -- I think people who have a GS2 right now are happier with their phone than people who have a Nexus S, even though the Nexus S has ICS and the GS2 doesn't -- but it's a totally debateable point that doesn't require you to deny the undeniable existence of a yearly product cycle for flagship phones.

[stusser]

Their marketing has proven quite effective, because you think that means something.

At any rate, don't buy a gingerbread phone no matter what, and if you can do so, wait for the next nexus or at least the next high-end phone to come with 4.1.

[Thierry Nguyen]

If you're a hardcore pc gamer on this forum familiar with mucking around your hardware to increase performance, then rooting equalizes the whole "will Samsung update your phone" thing. I rooted my Galaxy SII months ago and am running a more current (4.04 vs 4.03), stable, and safe (seems like the official ICS update still had the potential to soft brick the phone, while I'm on a safe ROM) build of ICS.

[Becoming]

Still bullshit. They all release a new phone every couple of weeks. Samsung released 13 android phones in 2011. Thirteen. Motorola "only" released 6, LG "only" released 5, Sony "only" 7. HTC released twenty-two.

I think you're missing the idea of what Flagship means or you're being intentionally thick.

[stusser]

No. That's just not a meaningful distinction. Last year's Samsung "flagship" won't be getting 4.1, even though it's under a year old. "Flagship" is content-free marketing flim-flam. These devices aren't treated any differently.

"Nexus" is a marketing term too, of course, but it has meaning attached.

4.0 was a ridiculously huge upgrade over 2.3.7. It was a whole new OS, and the first one to really compete with iOS. Gingerbread really was crappy.

4.1 is a more incremental upgrade, but you really, really want it. It's much faster and google now is awesome. If you don't buy a nexus, and won't jailbreak your phone, you'll have to wait for a really long time, if you're lucky enough to get it at all.

[malkav11]

If you're a hardcore pc gamer on this forum familiar with mucking around your hardware to increase performance, then rooting equalizes the whole "will Samsung update your phone" thing. I rooted my Galaxy SII months ago and am running a more current (4.04 vs 4.03), stable, and safe (seems like the official ICS update still had the potential to soft brick the phone, while I'm on a safe ROM) build of ICS.

That's what I was going to say. Samsung and Sprint took absolutely forever to move my originally 2.1-based Epic 4G (a Galaxy S model) to Froyo and then Gingerbread (I think the latter just hit a couple months ago), but once I accepted the idea of flashing my phone to a custom ROM, that became completely irrelevant. I'm running 4.04 myself, a version of Android I doubt very much my phone will ever see officially, and 4.1 is undoubtedly being worked on, or will be as soon as it's possible. And it's really pretty simple. A couple of downloads, a couple of clicks and button presses, and away you go. The hard part is finding the right ROM.

[mkozlows]

No. That's just not a meaningful distinction. Last year's Samsung "flagship" won't be getting 4.1, even though it's under a year old. "Flagship" is content-free marketing flim-flam.

No, it's not. It means the phone that has THE BEST HARDWARE.

Let me repeat that for you: HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE.

You keep going on about software, and I keep saying, "yes, if you want the latest software, get a Nexus, but if you want the latest HARDWARE get the current flagship phones" and you keep arguing with me, and you seem to have missed my entire point which is that they have BETTER HARDWARE.

[Canuck]

GM and Toyota both release multiple models of cars every year so obviously they don't have a flagship either. Someone either doesn't understand what flagship means or, more likely is understandably bitter over not getting an OS upgrade. Let's move on.

[stusser]

No, it's not. It means the phone that has THE BEST HARDWARE.

Yeah. I don't care about that. If it's running gingerbread, I don't want it.

[rei]

Yeah. I don't care about that. If it's running gingerbread, I don't want it.

not sure why the best hardware matters if the software is ass. see the nokia pureview.

[stusser]

If they sat down and said "we will support this phone with software updates day and date with Nexus devices for 24 months from release" (and then actually followed through with it) that would be another thing entirely. That right there is what android truly needs.

It might be impossible, though, since everybody wants to brand android with their own cheesy UI, apps, and pack-ins, and none of them have the balls (or, to be fair, the leverage) to stand up to the carriers.

[mkozlows]

not sure why the best hardware matters if the software is ass. see the nokia pureview.

If the software were "ass," it wouldn't. The software isn't. Even if we grant irrational Gingerbread-hate for argument's sake, and say that ICS is the first awesome version of Android, then let's look at the GS3: It has ICS, therefore non-"ass" software.

Now, you can buy the Galaxy Nexus, or you can buy the GS3. If you buy the Galaxy Nexus, you will have Jelly Bean today, which has certain advantages. And it's likely that you'll get Key Lime Pie, too, whenever that comes out.

If you buy the GS3, you get ICS today, probably Jelly Bean within six months (ICS upgrades took a long time, but ICS was a major-change revision, and Jelly Bean is a tweak revision), and I wouldn't count on Key Lime Pie without rooting it (which we'll also exclude as an option for argument's sake).

So, the Galaxy Nexus is better, right? Well, it's better from a software side, for sure.

But from a hardware side, the GS3 has a much-faster processor, one that's an architectural generation better plus clocked higher; it has a MUCH better GPU, one that gets twice the framerate on most benchmarks; it has twice the RAM; it has a slightly better screen; it has a bigger battery; and it has LTE support that you can use without hurting the battery life (most GN variants don't have LTE at all, and the one that does has last year's "only use it when plugged in" LTE).

The upshot to THAT is that the GS3's hardware is hugely better than the Galaxy Nexus in just about every way -- it's going to play games better, it's going to be faster in use, it'll multitask better, it's going to last longer on a charge, and it's going to be WAY better at networking on the go with LTE. And while the GS3 may or may not get software updates, we know for sure the GN won't get hardware updates.

So, if ICS is plenty good as it stands -- and it is -- then would you rather have a phone that will more quickly get OS updates in the future, or a phone that's much faster and more advanced today and will remain that way forever? I can honestly see some people picking the software updates, but I think for most people the correct answer is to get the hardware.

[mkozlows]

If they sat down and said "we will support this phone with software updates day and date with Nexus devices for 24 months from release" (and then actually followed through with it) that would be another thing entirely.

Nobody can do that. This isn't a matter of just recompiling things for a different phone, it needs to be ported. Read about what Google had to do to ICS to get it to run on the Galaxy S, for instance.

When a Nexus device comes out with a new version of Android, it is running code that has been written to support that device, and that device only. In order to get it running on other devices, it needs to be ported. That doesn't even mean just putting the UI mods on it, it means actually porting it to another device. It's a non-trivial engineering effort, and it can't START for non-launch partners until Google releases the code to AOSP.

[Fishbreath]

GM and Toyota both release multiple models of cars every year so obviously they don't have a flagship either. Someone either doesn't understand what flagship means or, more likely is understandably bitter over not getting an OS upgrade. Let's move on.

A car analogy! You must be from Slashdot. :P

[magnet]

Which of those 13 phones were not the Galaxy S II, and were a new flagship for Samsung?

Well, AT&T released the SII in October 2011. The next month, they released the SII Skyrocket, which added LTE. Then they announced the Skyrocket HD, which they never released. In February 2012, they released the Galaxy Note, with LTE and a higher resolution screen (but controversial ergonomics). Now the SIII is available, just 8 months after the original SII release. If I had upgraded last October, I would be mighty pissed.

[mkozlows]

Yeah. I don't care about that. If it's running gingerbread, I don't want it.

I have seen the Nexus S running ICS and my old Evo 3D (basically similar hardware to the GS2) running Gingerbread. The Nexus S was the current Nexus phone last June when I bought that Evo 3D. ICS is nicer than Gingerbread, but there is no way in hell I would ever, ever, ever want the Nexus S over the Evo 3D. It's a slow-ass phone that's hideously resource-constrained and has a teensy, low-res screen. It sucks ass compared to the Evo 3D. And the Evo 3D should have ICS soon; the Nexus S will never have a good screen or a fast CPU.

And keep in mind, too, that a lot of upgrades for Android aren't tied to the OS. Even for a phone running Gingerbread, it's running the latest version of Maps, GMail, Voice, Google Play, Drive, etc. All that stuff updates whether or not the OS does. So even if your phone never gets the next version of Android, it's going to be constantly improving all the same (in a way that doesn't happen on iOS, where all "first-party" apps are tied to the OS).

[mkozlows]

Well, AT&T released the SII in October 2011. The next month, they released the SII Skyrocket, which added LTE. Then they announced the Skyrocket HD, which they never released. In February 2012, they released the Galaxy Note, with LTE and a higher resolution screen (but controversial ergonomics). Now the SIII is available, just 8 months after the original SII release. If I had upgraded last October, I would be mighty pissed.

I'll grant you the Skyrocket on ATAT, and merely note that it's a weird situation, and only one of four carriers did that. The Galaxy Note, though, I'm going to say is just a totally different thing -- it's not a new flagship phone, it's a different class of device intended to appeal to a niche audience.

[rei]

The larger Note II is rumoured to be announced soon--after the Olympics finish featuring the Note I.

[rei]

http://lifehacker.com/5924547/frustr...-nexus-already

[Chris Johnson]

The reason I purchased my relatively old Galaxy Nexus recently is pretty accurately described in rei's link. Coming from iPhone-land, I cannot fathom dealing with the wait that many phones have for the most current OS. I probably won't purchase anything but Nexus products on the Android side. I don't want to have to root my phone to get the latest updates all of the time.

[Armando Penblade]

It's entirely possible I'll sell my SGS3 to finance whatever the next Nexus device is assuming that one actually manages to have decent hardware. On the other hand, Google's war on LED notifications, USB storage, microSD, and keyboards makes the idea a lot less appealing -.-. If the SGS3's hackability ends up being decent, I can stick with that for awhile longer, though.

[Murph]

Android Central agrees.

[Qmanol]

On the other hand, Google's war on LED notifications, USB storage, microSD, and keyboards makes the idea a lot less appealing -.-.

This. I like having microSD storage. I like the idea of a customizable LED notification light. I don't like that not being an option which is why I bought a Galaxy S instead of a Nexus S when they were current. (except of course the Galaxy S also has no LED notification light, dammit)

[rei]

The internal vs external storage and not being able to run some apps is a throwback to Palm/CLIE though.

[rei]

Looks like the Gnexus thing is now a trending topic: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/9/314...ng-counterping

[Qmanol]

I did just find out that you can buy the HSPA+ GNex for $350 on Play, completely unlocked. That's damn tempting.

[Armiger]

If you use Verizon, the GNex is $50 for upgrade or a penny for new lines on Amazon. I just bought the GSM version myself off of ebay to save on the tax/shipping when ordering direct from the Google Play store.

[Qmanol]

I'm in Australia, so I can't even get the GNex from the Play store - but being able to upgrade mid-stream for only $350 without attracting more contract or resetting some sort of upgrade counter would be attractive.