Yes I know it's been announced for June/July time frame but who's in? I am.
Im in but im dissappointed. Samsung is trying to create a ecosystem like apple. Theyve created alot of new software that seems good but that wont neccesarily work on android because android is about custimization and hardware. I believe theyre trying to bring there android Galaxy Ecosystem to the mainstream users which may blow upin there face. My biggest problem with the phone is that they didnt use the super amoled plus but instead used the pentile version thats on the Galaxy Nexus. Its a good phone but Samsung made a big mistake by using the pentile display, the amoled plus is what made the galaxy s2 famous. If they keep messing around they may end up like HTC. They had all the hype and the opportunity to blow the iphone and all other phones out of the water and create a legendary phone that wouldve made Samsung untouchable but they blew it. on a positive note the Tmobile version will likely be the only s3 with the quad core equinox processor. Sprint, Atat, and verizon will all have dual core snapdragon s4 to be compatible with lte.
Im in but im dissappointed. Samsung is trying to create a ecosystem like apple. Theyve created alot of new software that seems good but that wont neccesarily work on android because android is about custimization and hardware. I believe theyre trying to bring there android Galaxy Ecosystem to the mainstream users which may blow upin there face. My biggest problem with the phone is that they didnt use the super amoled plus but instead used the pentile version thats on the Galaxy Nexus.
Well this may or may not hold true for the US versions. Could be possible that they will switch to the Amoled+ Display for the US variants. The Carriers do have some pull in this process too.
I'm less worried about a pentile screen on a 720p SAMOLED than I would be on say, a WVGA LCD. What dissapoints me is the physical keys. I was hoping for on-screen buttons and a minimal bezel. Really, they've taken a lot of the ICS out of it. There's no doubt that it's going to be a heck of a phone, though. I really like the large internal memory options, while still keeping SD support. That's one thing that disturbs me about some recent phones (HTC ONE, Galaxy Nexus), is the lack of SD slot. I guess if it has 64GB of memory, that's no problem, but 16GB? Hell no! I don't want to have to stream everything from the cloud, especially on T-Mobile's network (love you T-Mo, but I can't make it home in a big 4G city without losing signal at some point, and I get **** at work).
Another dissapointment is the camera. HTC is making huge strides in mobile photography, and what does Samsung bring to the table? What looks like last year's hardware and software gimmicks like social tagging. Come on, Sammy, step it up.
All that said, I may still get this phone. It depends on what comes out towards the holidays (as that's when I'm likely to be looking).
Not me. The Galaxy s2 is my first smart phone. I like it except for 3 things:
1. Every once in a while it takes a few seconds to gegt going when I go to use it.
2. Sometimes when I call someone, nothing happens-(Phone is frozen) or it stops dialing for no reason.
3 I got my phone in January. 4 times when I have gone to use the phone, the screen stays black after pushing the power button. I have to hold the power button down and get the dialogue box that allows me to shutdown the phone. I shut the phone off and restart it.
So when my contract is up, I will try a HTC phone next, unless ICS fixes this problem.
Sounds isolated. I think in a production line (assembly line) things don't always go as they should and you get a few products that don't act as expected. I got mine in Feburary and so far it's been flawless. Minus me disconnecting the router while using AllShare and forcing me to reset.
Well, I'm going with the International version of the Galaxy S III and maybe even going prepaid with any carrier at all... probably T-Mobile though.
I'm done being manipulated and toyed with. Not only am I paying for my "subsidized" phone several times over with my required monthly bill, but T-Mobile is obviously holding back updates and upgrades so they can sell new contracts and new phones to people who don't want to wait for software updates. And that's a pretty dangerous thing for the consumer too. Turns out vulnerabilities get identified on Android and not patched because carriers don't want to deal with it. So phones remain unpatched for LONG, LONG periods of time. (You wouldn't run a Windows computer on the internet without keeping it up-to-date would you?)
I'll buy my own phone, thanks. I'll still need service and I'll get that from whoever. But no more carrier manipulation games. It saves the consumer NOTHING and actually costs them more. Sure, it's convenient to go to the local carrier store and pick up the next new shiny, but it'll cost you a lot more in the long run... and it will keep you from making other buying decisions for the next two years!! You better be really sure you're going to be happy with the new shiny you just bought and hope that it will stay shiny for the next two years. The Vibrant didn't stay shiny... the Hercules isn't going to stay shiny either.
That is what I have been saying for a while.
Buying a phone at full cost then getting either a pre-paid plan or value plan that would fit your needs is cheaper over the same length of time.
I do though still fail how that with holding the update to a phone would help or benefit T-Mobile with new sales.
The people that have the phones that will get updates are less then one year old won't qualify for a discount and not ready to pay full price for a "new shiny" as you put it.
With the Galaxy S II for example that would also mean that all the other carriers are also withholding the update since none of them got it either?
The flaw I see in your theory is there is no benefit to holding out on an update. Not to mention that still to this date no US carrier has released an update to any Galaxy S II, or even a date for that matter.
The patterns of behavior have been demonstrated. Certain phones get updates while others do not. The phones most tightly controlled by carriers do not get updates as often or at all. There is no flaw in the argument unless you are seeing an argument I am not making. You continuously point out "no other carrier..." Fine. (Except the AT&T update to their Galaxy SII which is nearly identical to the T989) I am pointing out that any and all carrier controlled devices will suffer from this. Getting a non-carrier specific phones (international, unlocked version) have been shown to be better supported with updates. So if updates are important to you (and they appear to be important to just about everyone) then it only makes sense to point your money in a direction which reflects iy.
Also, this is not quite a "theory." It's a plan. A course of action. A response to the situation as I see it.
There has been no demonstrable benefit to holding out for an update. Why continue waiting, discussing and complaining? Doing what we've all been doing will not work and has not worked.
So, in short:
1. Updates are important. Sometimes even critical.
2. The devices which get updates are not carrier controlled.
3. Buy devices which get updates if updates are important.
Where's the flaw in that?
I guess I'm still missing something. Could you point me to the direction of the Official release that At&T put our or are you focusing on a leaked ROM? Nevertheless I'm not saying that updates are not important. But did it dawn on you that the phones you're talking about that received the updates first (the international version) were also released first in international markets. Which is rightfully so. If Samsung were in American company I'm sure that this would be the opposite.
I'm not one to sacrafice the speed of my US carrier's network for an update with a few enhancements. If there were some glaring security flaw I'd be like ok. But usually when there are some updates patches are released.
Either way I'm done with this friend. IF you feel buying International phones are the solution to your update woes so be it.
So you maintain that carriers devices won't get updates.
well that has already been proven wrong.
They (T-Mobile) said that they will be updating this and a few other phones.
Yes with carriers their updates won't be as frequent and would take longer as they need to do their own testing too and have their software added into it. The international versions don't need to worry about things like that or wifi calling which all take additional time to develop into the phone.
In short if you want something warrantied and known to work with your carrier and all feature you buy one of their phones and wait longer for updates.
If you need the next new shiny before anyone and don't want the warranty from your provider our wifi calling you just want updates first you buy international unlocked devices. Then when/if it breaks you pay send it to the manufacturers for a week or two to fix it and then send it back.
Each method has it's ups and downs,
So you essentially agree with what I stated but you feel the need to pepper it with excuses and exceptions. Nice.
I'll just add one more. The carriers get paid for bundling bloatware on phones. If they are stuck in negotiations or they haven't sold enough bloatware space, they will delay the release of the phone and/or updates to the phone. I've been in the advertising business before and it's the same with OEM PC makers as well.
The delays in shipping updates have little to do with quality testing and everything to do with bloatware bundling. If they wanted to reduce quality testing, they could put out the well tested stock software from the manufacturers and push THEIR updates when they come out... they come out much more frequently you know.
Retrieving data ...