Samsung was lying! Maybe not a big deal, but a lie is a lie.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Hey there folks. So it would seem that just like Huawei, altough not as badly as from UFS 2.1\2.0 to eMMC 5.1 was, some Galaxy S8\S8+ units are actually using the older UFS 2.0 memory chips when they stated it was using a new UFS 2.1 technology, and just like Android Authority states, better to say that all costumers wont be getting the real deal since we have to get parts from a multitude of suppliers. Even worst is that its unclear wether it just happens with Snapdragon 835 variants (US markets) or Exynos 8895 variants (Global markets).

Quote

Regardless of how you feel about the old bait-and-switch, it’s obvious the difference between the UFS 2.1 and 2.0 memory Samsung uses in the Galaxy S8 is much less significant than between UFS 2.1 and eMMC 5.1 in the P10. Still, to many, lying is lying, no matter how many options there are or how close to the truth the lie is.

http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s8-ufs-2-1-mention-removed-769926/

 

So, do you feel "cheated" by them? I suppose if it were UFS 2.1 memory from various areas like Micron, Toshiba, SK Hynix and Samsung and with slight manufacturing changes (as with all microeletronics) it would be fine, but using different component technologies all together, especially older ones, could be downright detrimental for many "enthusiast users", because obviously most general consumers are be "meh", as long as it is usable and works well.

[themctipers]

Scummy move

 

sent from my iPhone

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, themctipers said:

Scummy move

 

sent from my iPhone

IKR

 

sent from my iPad

[themctipers]

Just now, DocSwag said:

IKR

 

sent from my iPad

the joke is that Apple has done more scummy shit and I'm shaming Samsung for this 

[DocSwag]

Just now, themctipers said:

the joke is that Apple has done more scummy shit and I'm shaming Samsung for this 

'Twas just humor  

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 minute ago, themctipers said:

-snip-

I honestly find it surprising since Samsung was meant to be one of the worlds top manufacturer of memory cells and given their size and time to prepare, something like this...

[themctipers]

Just now, VerticalDiscussions said:

I honestly find it surprising since Samsung was meant to be one of the worlds top manufacturer of memory cells and given their size and time to prepare, something like this...

Profits > moral 

 

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

'Twas just humor  

 lmfaooooo ???????

[VerticalDiscussions]

Just now, themctipers said:

-snip-

I wonder if they would still be morally insensitive if the phone was branded as luxurious and costed 5000€ xD.

[themctipers]

Just now, VerticalDiscussions said:

I wonder if they would still be morally insensitive if the phone was branded as luxurious and costed 5000€ xD.

More cost = more greedy 

 

 

Apple..

[manikyath]

samsung is for people with more money than time to pick a phone. which is actually pretty much why the company i work at uses samsung phones.

[VerticalDiscussions]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

-snip-

Wow, its quite surprising that 60~70% of people that dwell on the most popular forums around the web would vow for Samsung blindly and comments like yours are valuable and can be right, but the army of Samsung is as large or larger than the Apple ISheep one or however they want to call it and would horrendously attack you, without any reasoning even.

 

I suppose that 800€ would be "okay" for a smartphone such as the Note, because of its exclusivity, but the S lineup is extremely overpriced by comparison. The edges around the display are a complete gimmick and i would prefer a flat screen anyday.

 

But yeah, this report is quite disappointing, but they do sell a 128GB ROM with 6GB of RAM exclusively on Asian markets for more than 1000€, so greedy flats they are. 

 

Sad thing is that they can name such prices on countries or regions were smartphones from the likes of OnePlus, Motorola or Blackberry dont exist and unfortunately i live in one of those -.- places, where only Apple and Samsung exist, the G6 isnt even out here.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Wow, its quite surprising that 60~70% of people that dwell on the most popular forums around the web would vow for Samsung blindly and comments like yours are valuable and can be right, but the army of Samsung is as large or larger than the Apple ISheep one or however they want to call it and would horrendously attack you, without any reasoning even.

 

I suppose that 800€ would be "okay" for a smartphone such as the Note, because of its exclusivity, but the S lineup is extremely overpriced by comparison. The edges around the display are a complete gimmick and i would prefer a flat screen anyday.

 

But yeah, this report is quite disappointing, but they do sell a 128GB ROM with 6GB of RAM exclusively on Asian markets for more than 1000€, so greedy flats they are. 

 

Sad thing is that they can name such prices on countries or regions were smartphones from the likes of OnePlus, Motorola or Blackberry dont exist and unfortunately i live in one of those -.- places, where only Apple and Samsung exist, the G6 isnt even out here.

well.. samsung arent bad phones at all, in fact they are quite good, but compared to the amount of money you pay.. it is terrible value..

[VerticalDiscussions]

19 minutes ago, manikyath said:

-snip-

Personally not a fan of them either anymore... their phones are not reliable for me. Their software is buggy and sluggish at times (when it is, its quite bad), but the display is the only thing that convinces me all the time .-.

[maizenblue]

Samsung lost me when they put out the overpriced abomination that was the s6. Horrible battery life. No water resistance, no micro sd, average cpu, fragile glass back. No replaceable battery like the S5. 

 

It was a huge step backward from the s5, and yet it was more expensive. They went from making quality phones to impractical bling, and havent looked back. 

[VerticalDiscussions]

4 hours ago, maizenblue said:

-snip-

I suppose the PU leather back and aluminium frame on the Note 4 were nice, if i were to replace the current flagships glass combination, probably i would go with aluminium and Alcantara, which would make for a water and stain resistant synthetic fiber back and some solid holding metal all around.

 

Well, one thing is sure, Touchwiz was a royal piece of sh*t (always was for me). Its a nice step in the right direction in terms of software now with the Grace UI at least, but the software update history is still damn awful.

 

Samsung has a lot to improve yet, but that goes for most companies. Id say OnePlus is the one doing the best right now, aside from expensive and cringy commercials.

[Badger906]

depends on the market.

if you download a terminal emulator and type in the command "cat /proc/scsi/scsi"

 

it will throw up all of your memory chip data. mine gave me the model: KLUCG4J1ED-B0C1. if you do a quick google its a UFS 2.1 chip

mines a EU exynos version.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Just now, Badger906 said:

-snip-

Well yes, but some people, at least specification freaks like most of LTT avids users are i presume :p, arent going to be happy that Samsung is saying that their phones comes with UFS 2.1 memory modules early on to only later remove them completely and making an important aspect gone from their pages, something that they should have said since the very beginning, but hey thats just how i see it and whoever dislikes shady marketing, Most people just want it to work fine, but for the pricepoint it has working fine for me is not something id consider worth enough xD.

[Badger906]

im an LTT avid user! mine has a 2.1 chip im happy and not falsely sold a product! but to be honest i doubt theres any real world difference if you didnt actually know the difference

 

[VerticalDiscussions]

34 minutes ago, Badger906 said:

-snip-

Well... if your happy your happy, even if whatever you had were the better piece or not. Other folks are not because they were pretty much cheated upon and the company tried to dug the machiavellian act under a very thin rug .