Samsung Galaxy S 4 Review - Part 1
by Brian Klug on April 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTFinal Words
Samsung has done a tremendous job creating a global following not only for its brand, but also for its software. In studying Samsung and its devices it becomes quite clear that although many enthusiasts yearn for pure, unadulterated Android, there are seemingly big pockets of the market who have grown used to (and maybe even desire?) Samsung's TouchWiz user experience. It really is a very clever strategy on Samsung's part. If you deliver products that your users appreciate, and deliver a uniquely different user interface at the same time, you begin to create an appreciation for that user interface as well. All of this flies in the face of what we as reviewers normally seem to prefer, but Samsung's success is proof of the fact that not everyone absolutely detests OEM customized Android.
Samsung's existing user base is likely the easiest to talk to about the Galaxy S 4. Compared to any previous Galaxy S device, the SGS4 is a clear step forward in all of the right areas. The display is higher resolution, the SoC is significantly faster, there's better WiFi (and connectivity depending on what generation of Galaxy S you're talking about) and obviously the Galaxy S 4 runs the absolute latest version of Android. Even on the camera side, Samsung has improved imaging performance over the Galaxy S 3 this generation thanks to its use of a wider aperture lens system. If you're a happy owner of a Samsung Galaxy S/S2/S3, you'll likely be a happy owner of a Galaxy S 4.
It's when you compare the Galaxy S 4 to its chief technical competitor, the HTC One, that the discussion becomes more complicated. HTC and Samsung take very different approaches to nearly every aspect of their flagship smartphones. Whether it's display (LCD vs. Super AMOLED), camera (low light vs. well lit performance), or software (subtle Sense 5 or feature filled TouchWiz), you couldn't pick two more different players in the Android space. So which is better?
It really depends on what you value more. The One's camera delivers better low light performance, while the Galaxy S 4's camera delivers better performance in well lit (e.g. outdoor) scenarios. The One's software customizations are definitely more subtle and out of your way, while Samsung's approach is much more feature overload and in your face. It's difficult to say for sure given our Sprint review unit, but HTC likely gets the slight edge in battery life based on our results here today (although these two devices can be close competitors depending on the workload). Samsung does integrate the faster SoC, despite both the Galaxy S 4 and HTC One shipping the same Snapdragon 600 platform. Samsung and HTC remain on opposite sides of the removable battery/microSD fence, if those two things matter to you then Samsung is the obvious choice. Finally there's a question of how much you value/desire an all-metal smartphone. For some, Samsung's choice in materials is going to continue to be a very big issue.
At the end of the day, the Galaxy S 4 is an evolution of the Galaxy S 3 in pretty much all of the areas you'd expect it to be. Whether or not that's what you wanted in a new Android smartphone is going to vary from one person to the next. The good news is that you at least have a choice.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
335 Comments
View All Comments
K_Space - Sunday, April 28, 2013 - link
HTC 32Gb unlocked costs £540 newS4 16Gb unlocked costs £615 (refurbished!) (source: amazon.co.uk)
Is the spec difference (including SD card and removable battery which I have never removed) worth ~$100? No...... not for me at least.
But horses for courses.
RiotSloth - Saturday, April 27, 2013 - link
Bizarre, had to read that twice to make sure you weren't joking. Have you read the HTC One review? Seriously, you think removable battery and sd card slot is a game breaker? Jokes....GotThumbs - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
IMO whether a phone has a plastic or aluminum shell adds absolutely zero to the daily functionality of any phone. If one can make a case for increased signal strength or something other than just that its NOT metal, I'd see that as an acceptable functional difference. It just comes off as unnecessary filler IMO.Most users will be wrapping thier phones in what.....whats that....some form of plastic or rubber protectors? For those of you who are very good at caring for your phones and choose not to use any form of additional protection, what are the real world odds that the metal case will be better protection over plastic? Perhaps there should be a rigorous test scenario set up by Anandtech to test the reality of true protection using metal over plastic cases?
The 2014 Ford Mustang comes with either a 3.7L V6 (305 HP) or a 5.8L supercharged v8 (631 HP) while the core frame and shell are both the same. My point is.....It's what's under the hood that really counts.
Same with mobile phones today. Please stop focusing on case materials if they have zero to do with operation/specs.
GotThumbs - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
My point using the Mustang...would you prefer the V6 or the v8?No factoring cost of fuel of course.
Best wishes you whatever you select as your mobile phone.
Zeratul56 - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Your argument is ridiculous. The 2014 mustang is something most people can agree is well designed and beautiful car.A better comparison would be would you rather have that supercharged v8 in the body of The current mustang or an old 90's beater.
kevith - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Correction: Most people = Most AmericansCoryS - Friday, April 26, 2013 - link
Correction...some Americans.Crono - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
Last time I checked, I don't hold my car in my hand. Plus the comparison should between a Mustang and an uglier higher HP car.And I do prefer the V6 as a daily driver. You can't just leave fuel cost out of the equation because you want to.
HTC One and 2012 Mustang V6 owner.
Kutark - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
What you failed to mention in your example is that the base v6 mustang looks almost nothing like the GT500. People would NOT pay the premium for the GT500 if the only difference was the engine/drivetrain. Aesthetics are extremely important to people and not just for outward reasons. The gt500 looks absolutely amazing, the base v6 while it doesnt look bad, is only moderately attractive, but still very "meh". A little goes a long way. Just like why HTC's plastics felt better than Samsungs.I am a fan of engineering. Its why i tend to prefer german cars over american cars (though there are some im impressed with, cadillac CTS-V for example). If something has brushed aluminum or magnesium, or billet aluminum, etc etc. I'm all about it. And it has nothing to do with what other people think.
Also, like someone else said, cost benefits are meaningless unless they are passed on to the consumer, which they typically arent. This phone will likely cost as much as the HTC One and frankly its not a better phone. Its more like comparing oranges to tangerines. Basically IMO if you dont care about a replaceable battery or an SD slot, get the HTC One, if those two features are important to you, get the samsung. Im sure people would be pleased with either phone.
beluga - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link
I am fine with the choice of materials. The GS3 looks fine to me. I don't treat my phone like a precious jewel but take it into rough conditions. Plastic is softer than metal so when it drops it acts as more of a bumper for the fragile parts inside. If it gets scratched up I get another back off ebay for a few bucks. And most importantly - it makes the back easily removable to access battery and storage without using tools.