Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones

Samsung Unveils the Galaxy S4 619

Posted by samzenpus
from the new-stuff-is-new dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "It's been leaked, teased, accused of being a copy of its predecessor, and celebrated as the likely champion of the mobile ecosystem for 2013. Samsung has finally unveiled the next in their line of globally available smartphones, the Galaxy S4. The phone carries a 5-inch Super AMOLED display with 1080p resolution at 441ppi, weighs only 130 grams and is no more than 7.9mm thick. On the inside, the Exynos based Octo-Core processor clocked at 1.6 GHz and the Snapdragon based Quad-Core 1.9GHz processor power this machine. Galaxy S4 is also packing 2GB of RAM and a 2600mAh battery, and its microSD slot is accessible though the removable rear panel. The S4 will include several new features, such as Air Gesture, Smart Pause, and Smart Scroll. Samsung's vice president of portfolio planning said many of the software improvements in the Samsung Galaxy S4 could make their way into existing Samsung Galaxy S3 phones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Unveils the Galaxy S4

Comments Filter:
  • Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spy Handler (822350) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:31PM (#43177983) Homepage Journal

    incremental improvements and an overall nice phone, sure, but the ad I saw said it was gonna be the biggest revolution since the color TV.

  • Screen size (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sd4f (1891894) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:36PM (#43178025)
    While 1080p is impressive for a 5" screen, i think it's over the top. Can't see the additional detail so why give up battery life to drive more pixels. Also is the sub pixel layout pentile?
  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:36PM (#43178031)
    I have an S3 now and I'm planning on keeping it until it dies. Unless I can get a phone that has two days constant usage on a single battery charge, or uninterpretable signal. I don't see the point in spending $600 every year on a new phone for incremental changes. I probably would still be using my HTC HD2 if it hadn't died on me.
  • Smartphone? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:36PM (#43178033) Homepage Journal

    With a five inch screen it's a small tablet! I wouldn't mind having one, but I'd still need a phone, my pocket isn't that big.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sayfawa (1099071) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:40PM (#43178059)
    I'm surprised by how many people expected it to be so much better than the S3. When does a phone ever completely change in less than a year?

    More importantly, who buys a phone in less than a year after their last? This isn't for people with an S3, it's for everyone else. Like me. I can't think of any line of phones where I would want to have each iteration. But I'll get this, and then I'll happily skip the S5, whatever it happens to be. The S3 isn't outdated now, and the S4 won't be outdated for a couple of years when the S6 comes along.
  • by treadmarks (2528414) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:41PM (#43178071)

    What does a "phone" need 8 cores for? Is it supposed to multitask many phone calls at once?

  • Re:Screen size (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:43PM (#43178093) Journal

    What I don't understand is the IR port.

    Don't like what's on TV in the bar? Change it!

  • Re:Screen size (Score:2, Insightful)

    by viperidaenz (2515578) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:43PM (#43178095)

    Apple stopped buying Samsung LCD's and moved to the second-rate LG ones. They have to put the best LCD's in the world somewhere.

    IR port? It would be nice if I could get an app for my phone that controls my TV. Like a universal remote I don't have to look under the couch for all the time. My ancient Pocket PC can do that. Why can't current devices?

  • Where's the Mini? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MatthiasF (1853064) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @07:47PM (#43178127)
    I'm tired of huge phones. Why can't they give us a freakin' 3-3.2 inch phone for those of us that don't enjoy carrying around a small television?
  • Battery (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:00PM (#43178281)

    You're going to love that you can pop in a brand-new battery. The more the phone does, the more it will use up the power, the more recharge cycles, and the faster your battery wears out (note that battery running times become unacceptable long before the battery is actually gone).

  • by KingSkippus (799657) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:04PM (#43178325) Homepage Journal

    People used to ask why desktops would need multiple processors. Most software now takes advantage of multithreading capability, and trying to use a single core process is downright painful.

    It may not need to multitask many phone calls at once, but it most certainly may need to multitask a whole bunch of apps at once, especially on a phone that can do things like instantly translate written or spoken text, record and composite two video sources at once and audio in real time, receive notifications such as texts, keep track of calendars, locations, temperatures (?), heart rates (!), etc. while you go about whatever it is you're doing, running a pretty sophisticated operating system with a pretty sophisticated user interface, and oh yeah, take and process telephone calls. And don't forget that it might have to do some of these tasks twice, given that the phone can be configured to be running an entirely separate virtual OS for your work stuff.

    Never ask why any electronics device would need more resources, whether it's CPU cores, memory, storage capacity, network bandwidth, or anything else. It's a sure recipe for looking back in five years and say, "Wow, I sure was dumb back then. I never dreamed that devices today would be able to [insert amazing capability due directly to advancement in hardware specifications]!"

  • WTF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 7-Vodka (195504) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:06PM (#43178353) Journal
    All I care about is whether you have complete control over the hardware you buy.

    Is it like the galaxy nexus, I can do anything I want with it, or is it like most other phones: Locked and useless?

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fredprado (2569351) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:21PM (#43178487)
    Full HD screen, a 1.9GHz processor, and a 13 Megapixel camera. What exactly more did you expect from this phone? That it would cook for you and make your bed? All improvements are incremental improvements in this market, because the functions the device must perform do not change that much. That said, GS3 specs were already higher than those of the iPhone 5, now with GS4 Samsung leaves Apple far behind.
  • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:23PM (#43178495)

    The problem with the S3 Mini is that it had almost nothing to do with the S3. It was a redressed version of one of Samsung's midrange smartphones. Even the Galaxy S2 was more powerful/capable in most situations, never mind the S3.

  • Re:Smartphone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macshit (157376) <miles@ g n u.org> on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:46PM (#43178661) Homepage

    ...5" screen is too big and bloated...

    If that is your problem at least with Samsung you have the mini models.

    The problem is that the mini models aren't just smaller screens, they're lower-spec generally. I suspect that most people that don't like the current bloat-o-phone/phablet trend actually want a nice fast processor, high-resolution display, lots of memory, a good camera, etc, they just don't want the ridiculously oversized phones. I know I certainly don't.

    It isn't just Samsung, this sort of simple-minded "bigger = better, smaller = old phone for kids" mindset seems very common amongst all the smartphone manufacturers. [Samsung perhaps deserves a bit more of the blame, though, as they're an industry leader, so other makers probably tend to follow what they're doing to some extent.]

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:53PM (#43178715) Journal

    I agree though that the notion that every year needs to deliver NEW! NEW! NEW! is ridiculous.

    If you think about it, that's not really true. At least here in the US.

    Most people don't think about switching phones before their contract is up. The people who do are either (a) raving fanbois, (b) exceedingly disgruntled with their phone, (c) have lost their existing phone due to some mishap, or (d) getting some kind of deal. But I would bet that a large majority of customers don't change their phones until their contract is up.

    Now when you figure that it's a two year contract, figure that in any given year, half the people are coming out of their contract. You certainly want to sell them a phone that is the latest and greatest. That means that every year, there are people coming off a contract who are interested in NEW! NEW! NEW! and you want to have a device to sell them.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alcmena (312085) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @08:57PM (#43178741)
    To be fair, it's more like buying a new car and just replacing the software on the touchscreen computer. A custom ROM is just software whereas everything else you listed is hardware. The hardware for the S3 is fantastic. I'd love to get a S4, but I think I'll wait until Cyanogen, or someone else, manages to clear out all of Samsung's "awesome software". I know I may not be their target audience, but I would really prefer to have the option to get a vanilla Android install one of their devices. The Galaxy S3 has better hardware than the Galaxy Nexus, but the Galaxy Nexus runs just so much better than a stock S3.
  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14, 2013 @09:15PM (#43178865)

    441ppi is AWESOME, by the way! The "retina" display is only 326ppi! Your eyes will not be able to see individual pixels on that screen... it'll look as good or even better than print.

    Your eyes can't see the individual pixels at 326ppi either so all that extra ppi is just taking up processing power and battery and is worthless.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <{taiki} {at} {cox.net}> on Thursday March 14, 2013 @09:27PM (#43178957)

    Most people don't think about switching phones before their contract is up. The people who do are either (a) raving fanbois, (b) exceedingly disgruntled with their phone, (c) have lost their existing phone due to some mishap, or (d) getting some kind of deal. But I would bet that a large majority of customers don't change their phones until their contract is up.

    Yeah but those people tend to be journalists and tech bloggers who are beating on the drum that anything older than six months is boring.

    The problem that causes is that when the mainstream press digs into mobile, they turn to these guys who are complete morons.

  • by OhANameWhatName (2688401) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @10:04PM (#43179207)
    Who needs a 14MP Camera with a ditzy little lense .. what's the point? 1080p display with more pixels than the naked eye can actually see .. seriously? Who cares. Picture in picture display for front and rear cameras, NFC and optical recognition gestures? Why in the hell would I want to watch myself while recording a video, touch my phone to someone else's phone to transfer data between them or swipe in another way other than on the glass panel? It's a laundry list of features, all pretty much useless.

    If the OS is terrible to use, the battery burns out in 2 hours and the phone is loaded with endless crapware that can't be removed, well .. who would want one?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14, 2013 @10:09PM (#43179235)

    Seen the profits Apple is making from phones? Apple won the game a long time ago.

    You do realize that you're boasting about how hard Apple fleeced you, don't you?

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <[ten.3dlrow] [ta] [ojom]> on Thursday March 14, 2013 @10:29PM (#43179349) Homepage

    Somehow I doubt it will shut the pentile haters up, but for the rest of us AMOLED screens provide much deeper blacks and more vibrant colours. My GS3 and plasma TV have really spoiled me when it comes to black levels, to the point where most LCDs look grey now.

  • Re:Screen size (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <[ten.3dlrow] [ta] [ojom]> on Thursday March 14, 2013 @10:34PM (#43179373) Homepage

    That's hardly "agreeing". They just took the opportunity to buy a stake in a Japanese manufacturer and rival when they were short on cash. Sharp actually suggested the deal.

    As for who is better, Samsung concentrates on AMOLED for quality and LCD for price in the small screen market. For larger screens they make retina displays for Apple, which are considered to be better than the LG ones.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14, 2013 @10:43PM (#43179419)

    It's a 441ppi _PENTILE_ display.

    A proper display LCD has 3 subpixels per pixel, which means a 326ppi display actually has 978 dots per inch.

    A 441ppi pentile display has 2 subpixels per pixel, which is 882 dots per inch.

    So strictly speaking, the Galaxy S IV still has less pixels per inch than the last 3 revisions of the iPhone. In fact, I think even the Galaxy S II might have had a better display than this new one.

    Your math has a tragic flaw. A pentile display has 5 dots per two pixels, hence the name. Pent meaning five.

    Thus, a 441ppi pentile display has, in fact, 1102.5 dpi.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish.info ... m minus language> on Thursday March 14, 2013 @11:00PM (#43179539)

    Note to mods:

    "My baseless claim contradicts your baseless claim" != "informative".

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fredprado (2569351) on Thursday March 14, 2013 @11:02PM (#43179565)
    That is not a problem exclusive to smartphones. It is probably the most important problems mankind has at the moment. Finding an efficient way to store electric energy. While nobody finds out a revolutionary way to do that battery technology evolution can barely keep (if even that) with the increasing requirements of electronic devices.
  • Re:Found 'em (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stenvar (2789879) on Friday March 15, 2013 @12:38AM (#43179949)

    And all those cores are of little use without software to use them. iOS still has a huge quality and power lead in apps.

    Funny, the reason I gave up on iOS was the limited app selection: no keyboards, no launchers, restricted VPN, no widgets, no third party tethering, no file system apps, limited ssh and web servers, limited third party music and video stores, etc.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfish (1653411) on Friday March 15, 2013 @12:48AM (#43179979)

    I don't see the point in spending $600 every year on a new phone for incremental changes.

    That's nice, but did you ever think that not everyone has an S3 currently? Nor are S3 owners the only target market? I have an S2 and I'll be off contract next month so I'll be getting one, same goes for others I've spoken to with other older smartphones. By releasing even an incremental upgrade it keeps Samsung in front. Apple fanboys will have to wait a long 6 months (an eternity in the smartphone market)before they have something that competes, even then I doubt the next iPhone will due to their locked-in design. And if it does Samsung will have something else out a few months after it to steal its thunder.
    In summary, a quick release cycle is much better than a slow one, as market share is demonstrating.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@CHEETAHnexusuk.org minus cat> on Friday March 15, 2013 @03:09AM (#43180353) Homepage

    I've never understood the need to have a phone last weeks on a single charge. Have people evolved beyond the need for sleep? After all, it seems like it's the perfect time to charge your phone. Heck, I always charged my dumbphones every night anyways - I never even bothered trying to run it for weeks.

    Which is all well and good if you have a power socket near by. Some of us go camping, etc. where there is no such luxury. Luckilly, my smartphone _can_ last over a week on one charge, but I have to remember to turn off all the background battery suckers.

  • Re:Eh, that's it? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Killjoy_NL (719667) <slashdot@remco.p[ ]i.nl ['all' in gap]> on Friday March 15, 2013 @05:46AM (#43180885)

    And how about not being restricted to the Apple Walled Garden Appstore, the freedom Android gives me is quite a plus in my book :)

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...