Android invasion! Galaxy S variants coming to T-Mo, Sprint, VZW, ATT, and US Cellular

[CTrain]

I ask again - why is this one feature so unimportant, and ok is good enough, whereas in every other facet smartphones are supposed to be fantastic, infallible all-in-one devices? Why CAN'T they improve the quality of the camera? They could. It would not cost that much. They choose not to, because they get "ooh"s and "aaah"s from the crowd just by inflating the megapixel rating.
.

Sure they can make the camera much better but do you want your cell phone to be as FAT as the thinnest camera available right now ??
Think about it for a second...whats the thinnest point and shoot camera out right now ??
Probably twice as thick as a HD2.
When you have to cram so much into a small device, theres sacrifice to be made.
They actually have made cell phones with good camera before...
http://www.cellular4.com/samsung/sph2300.htm
Its actually a camera that has calls functions VS a cell phone that has camera functions.
Yeah, its a big fat piece of metal(26mm thick vs 11mm for HD2).
Obviously, people don't want camera that has calls functions cause companies don't make those anymore.

The cameras included in smartphones these days are more than capable for the quick snapshots.
Would I buy a phone that has better cameras but much thicker ?? NO.
Because I would be using the camera functions like 1% of the time so why do I need to sacrifice the size of the phone ??
If I know I'm going somewhere and I'll be taking alot of pictures, I'll bring a camera.

 

[Deeko]

So because Samsung made a pretty crappy attempt at this, that was not powerful as a smartphone, and was released only in Korea, you assume the entire concept can't go anywhere? That's an odd stance to take. And LOL at your attempt to compare the dimensions of a phone from 2006 to 2010. The Nokia N95, released in 2006 & the best smartphone at the time, was 21mm thick. The difference between that Samsung and the N95 is more like the difference between the Droid and the HD2. Oh, and the N95 actually had a pretty solid camera lens on it. A lot better than the utter garbage HTC and Motorola use.

I will ask for the third time - why is it smartphones are all in one devices, and for every other function, they are supposed to be as competent as the devices they're replacing - but for cameras, its ok for them to have the quality of a $10 disposable?

I don't know if you've walked down the camera aisle recently, not every camera is a fat brick. There are in fact small form factor cameras. No, they don't take as good pictures as big point and shoots or DSLRS - but they're still leaps and bounds ahead of the Droid, HD2, etc.

Anyway, this discussion is digressing from the Galaxy line, so I will take my leave of it.

 

[Bateluer]

I will ask for the third time - why is it smartphones are all in one devices, and for every other function, they are supposed to be as competent as the devices they're replacing - but for cameras, its ok for them to have the quality of a $10 disposable?

Uh, I don't think anyone expects their smart phone to replace their laptop or television. They are supposed to give you as much functionality as possible in as small a package as is feasible with a high level of integration. You could get that 10 dollar disposable camera, but could you snap a picture at the park and upload it to the web a second later? Nope. Could you edit the picture taken from the disposable camera right after you take it to remove red eye, sharpen the image, etc? Nope.

If you don't want to use the flash, or camera, in a smart phone, then don't. Its your device, and unless you own an iPhone, its your choice.

It makes no sense for Samsung to put LED flashes in the Galaxy models for Verizon and Sprint, but with hold them from the AT&T and T-Mobile versions, especially since all the devices cost the same.

 

[Deeko]

Smartphones are expected to make phone calls as well as a regular phone, browse the internet as well as a netbook, play media as well as an iPod/Zune/etc. Why is it they're expected to be fully competent in all these other areas

Uh, I don't think anyone expects their smart phone to replace their laptop or television. They are supposed to give you as much functionality as possible in as small a package as is feasible with a high level of integration. You could get that 10 dollar disposable camera, but could you snap a picture at the park and upload it to the web a second later? Nope. Could you edit the picture taken from the disposable camera right after you take it to remove red eye, sharpen the image, etc? Nope.

If you don't want to use the flash, or camera, in a smart phone, then don't. Its your device, and unless you own an iPhone, its your choice.

It makes no sense for Samsung to put LED flashes in the Galaxy models for Verizon and Sprint, but with hold them from the AT&T and T-Mobile versions, especially since all the devices cost the same.

Yea, they do expect them to replace other portable devices like netbooks and iPods. The iPhone was, in fact, advertised as such when it first came out.

You're right, it is odd to include flashes on half of them. But what they really should do is include a regular xenon flash on all of them.

 

[foghorn67]

I'm wondering if you can un-Bing the Verizon version. Bing-ing the VZW BB users pissed off eighty million folks.

 

[Bateluer]

Yea, they do expect them to replace other portable devices like netbooks and iPods.

Which, most of the time, they can do. Netbooks and iPods are hardly known for their digital camera capabilities.

 

[CTrain]

So because Samsung made a pretty crappy attempt at this, that was not powerful as a smartphone, and was released only in Korea, you assume the entire concept can't go anywhere? That's an odd stance to take. And LOL at your attempt to compare the dimensions of a phone from 2006 to 2010. The Nokia N95, released in 2006 & the best smartphone at the time, was 21mm thick. The difference between that Samsung and the N95 is more like the difference between the Droid and the HD2. Oh, and the N95 actually had a pretty solid camera lens on it. A lot better than the utter garbage HTC and Motorola use.

I will ask for the third time - why is it smartphones are all in one devices, and for every other function, they are supposed to be as competent as the devices they're replacing - but for cameras, its ok for them to have the quality of a $10 disposable?

I don't know if you've walked down the camera aisle recently, not every camera is a fat brick. There are in fact small form factor cameras. No, they don't take as good pictures as big point and shoots or DSLRS - but they're still leaps and bounds ahead of the Droid, HD2, etc.

Anyway, this discussion is digressing from the Galaxy line, so I will take my leave of it.

Its getting to a point where you only hear yourself talk.
Dude, do a research and find whats the tinnest point and shoot camera available.
Thinnest cameras with internal optical zooms like the Sony TX5 are still 18mm thick.
Thinnest cameras with external optical zooms are still over 20mm+ thick.
Its like you think cell phones manufacturers don't want to incorporate better cameras just to piss the consumer off.
What don't you get ??
In order to have camera function as good as stand alone camera
1) sacrifice the size of the cell phone
2) drive up the cost.
Kind of obvious the majority of the consumers are happy to have the camera just for the quick snapshot.
And seems to me you're the only person bitching about the quality of cell phone cameras.
My HD2 takes pretty damm good pictures. The iphones 4 pictures are great.

Oh and BTW, I used the example of the Samsung from years ago because thats the last time anyone made a cell phone with optical zoom.
Kinda obvious why noone have tried making one since.
Consumers don't want a camera with cell phone functions.
They want a cell phone with camera functions.

 

[hanoverphist]

ive pretty much replaced my P&S camera with my phone. the omnia has a pretty solid camera in it so far, i havent had many complaints at all about it beyond the slow focus it has. i use it at work for taking pics of electrical cabinets and use them later to zoom in and read the terminal strip and wire markers, i also use the night shot mode to take decent pics without having to worry about the flash. overall the quality is good, i havent missed my p&S hp r707 at all. when i know i need to take excellent pics, ill grab my old canon a70 and plan to use it.

i dont mind losing a bit of function over specific devices, my phone is a good hybrid of everything for the most part, and thats what it is supposed to do. i dont expect it to be the best at everything.

 

[Deeko]

Its getting to a point where you only hear yourself talk.
Dude, do a research and find whats the tinnest point and shoot camera available.
Thinnest cameras with internal optical zooms like the Sony TX5 are still 18mm thick.
Thinnest cameras with external optical zooms are still over 20mm+ thick.
Its like you think cell phones manufacturers don't want to incorporate better cameras just to piss the consumer off.
What don't you get ??
In order to have camera function as good as stand alone camera
1) sacrifice the size of the cell phone
2) drive up the cost.
Kind of obvious the majority of the consumers are happy to have the camera just for the quick snapshot.
And seems to me you're the only person bitching about the quality of cell phone cameras.
My HD2 takes pretty damm good pictures. The iphones 4 pictures are great.

Oh and BTW, I used the example of the Samsung from years ago because thats the last time anyone made a cell phone with optical zoom.
Kinda obvious why noone have tried making one since.
Consumers don't want a camera with cell phone functions.
They want a cell phone with camera functions.

They don't necessarily have to include an optical zoom. It would be a nice touch, but its not a requirement. Even just including a xenon flash would be a major step forward in improving the low light performance of the camera. The HD2, and the iPhone 4, and the Droid, all take abysmal excuses for low light pictures. But because they also have abysmal battery life, they don't want to include a flash technology that would drain it even further.

Not everyone has the mindset of you, that a phone has to be under 11mm thick to be worthwhile. Otherwise the Droid would not be as big a seller as it is. Hell, the HD2 could have had a bigger battery if they'd just increased the housing a little to make it flush with the ridiculous pop-out camera lens...but oh no, we want to have a spec war and make the phone sound really thin!

edit: I mean it this time, this camera discussion has nothing to do with the Samsung Galaxy S line, so I'm done with it.

 

[preslove]

T-Mo Vibrant may be coming out on 7/15 (up from the 21st): http://mobile.engadget.com/2010/07/07/samsung-vibrant-launching-on-july-15-instead-of-21/

ATT Captivate will be out on 7/18: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/08/samsung-captivate-coming-to-atandt-on-july-18-for-200/

 

[Anubis]

I'm wondering if you can un-Bing the Verizon version. Bing-ing the VZW BB users pissed off eighty million folks.

please put that in English for me

 

[Bateluer]

please put that in English for me

He's referring to Verizon making Bing the default search engine for some devices and wants to know if you can uninstall/remove/change it to his search engine of choice.