I bought Galaxy Nexus over the weekend to test out and for me the iPhone 4S is the better phone. Aside from my small hands not being able to reach the notification bar when cupping the bottom of the phone, I noticed that most apps are still kind of stuttering and not nearly as smooth as the launcher. I also noticed when I visited engadget.com, the text layout was pre-rendered to align with a zoomed in screen (I have screenshots to show this if anyone is curious). Above all that, beyond the launcher and the core apps written by Google, most of the apps just don't look very nice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My review of the GSM Galaxy Nexus compared to iPhone 4S (long)
- Thread starter Neon01
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Videos are a pain. Preview doesn't work like for pictures. Only way I have found is iPhoto, and then export from there.
Galaxy Note, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S II AT&T version, or iPhone 4S... Decisions, decisions. I'm leaning towards the Galaxy Note now. The Galaxy Nexus hardware isn't as good as it should be - especially the camera. The GSII and Note take pics almost as good, if not as good, as the 4S. I can't imagine having anything worse.
Trust me, if you go out and try all of the devices, you'll come home with the Galaxy Nexus. I bought a Note and returned it, bought a GS2 and returned it, and I have the iphone 4S and still use it daily (I actually picked up a $30 tmo prepaid 5GB data plan for my Galaxy Nexus, though I do feel like a bit of a tool occasionally walking around with two phones), but it sounds like you're looking for an android device, unless I'm mistaken. If you really aren't sold on the Nexus, go with the iphone over the other two IMO.
I thought I would love the idea of a small tablet/large phone as a one size fits all, but it just doesn't work. It's just too damned big as a phone, and just too small as a tablet (remember the El Camino?
). Plus, after using them side by side, the extra horsepower of the Note doesn't seem like it actually makes it faster than the Nexus, in fact, for most UI elements, it's quite the opposite. Swiping between home screens has quite a bit of latency on the Note, for example. Unless you're buying the Note for the stylus (in which case you probably wouldn't even be thinking about the Nexus or GS2), you'll probably see that features as I did - something of a gimmick. I guess it's nice to have, but I didn't find that it worked well enough to really bother using it over a standard on screen keyboard. Overall, after using ICS, Gingerbread just feels old and busted to some extent. You also listed the hardware buttons as an advantage for the Note and GS2, but I see this as the opposite. I look at them as becoming vestigial features once those devices get ICS. ICS will likely demand on-screen buttons anyway (if it doesn't, it'll be a major kludge with fragmentation and resolution), so those hardware buttons will not only be useless, but you'll end up getting an even smaller screen because you have some of it tied up with the on screen buttons.
The camera on the GS2 is indisputably better (provided it's able to get ICS' no-shutter-lag feature), and the GPU and video decoding capabilities are definitely ahead of the Nexus, but you just have to ask yourself if these features are key for you or not. I hardly ever play graphically intense games on my android (I've got an ipad, psp, DS, and soon a Vita for that...), software decoding can get you solid performance on video files that aren't natively supported, and if I want decent photos, I'm taking them with a DSLR, not a camera.
As far as price, this is certainly a legitimate criticism at the current time, but keep in mind you're stacking up used prices of the GS2 against a brand new price of a phone that hasn't even been released stateside yet. If you can wait a month or two I bet you'll get them for $600 or less (new), and less than that used.
The Gnex is really tempting. It looks great, and I'm very curious to find out what ICS is like. I almost had an impulse buy today... but unlike the OP, I am not willing to carry two phones with me. It's either the 4S or the Gnex! At the end, I decided against the Gnex, even though I literately had my wallet out. There are couple things I am not ready to give up on iOS.
- iMessage with my kids who have iPod Touches;
- photostream with other i-devices in my house;
- seamless integration/sync with my Mac (iCal, Address book, bookmarks);
- sharing apps with other i-devices in my house.
Damn you Apple, give us iPhone 5 already, then we wouldn't have all these enticing Android threads to begin with
- iMessage with my kids who have iPod Touches;
- photostream with other i-devices in my house;
- seamless integration/sync with my Mac (iCal, Address book, bookmarks);
- sharing apps with other i-devices in my house.
Damn you Apple, give us iPhone 5 already, then we wouldn't have all these enticing Android threads to begin with
Your purchased music, apps, books, and TV shows, as well as your Photo Stream, dont count against your free storage.
http://www.apple.com/icloud/what-is.html
Phones that have hardware buttons will not have on-screen buttons. Those are reserved for phones with no hardware buttons. As for that being a "major kludge with fragmentation and resolution", that is inaccurate. The screen resolutions remain the same resolutions that are already available so this adds no additional problem. It's just business as usual. I do agree with you however that the on-screen buttons are an advantage. I see it as an advantage due to the flexibility. I love how certain apps can make them disappear completely (like movies) so that you have the entire screen real estate. Also, there are already mods out that allow you to change those buttons (add in menu bottons, a search button, etc), and soon there will be themes to change the overall look of them too. The flexibility of on-screen buttons is a large advantage, but the one advantage not too many people think of is being able to see the buttons in sunlight. With the blacked out capacitive keys you couldn't see the lights in sunlight so it was hard to see the keys. You don't have this problem with on-screen keys.
The Gnex is definitely not the best Android choice out there right now, although it is arguably for AT&T. DROID RAZR probably is, DROID 4 is coming soon, which will be the holy grail of Android. If the network and plans are more important to you, and you're in an AT&T-heavy area, you're kind of ****ed. Atrix 2 is nice, but not top of the line. The rest of the AT&T Android phones are pretty crappy. That's basically how I ended up with the iPhone, and I really like it, even more than I thought I would. There's definitely some issues syncing with Google stuff, but overall, the UX and form factor of the device is second to none.
Yup. However, everything that counts against the 5GB quota, plus Photo Stream, are completely useless. What a snore of a product for sure.
Actually, I agree with you - I'm not really carrying two phones with me most of the time. I'm only doing it right now so I can try out the Tmo prepaid plan and see if it's good enough for all my purposes. If it is, I'll kill the AT&T plan and sell the iphone. I say this because I would need GrooveIP/GVoice for the Tmo plan to work (to supplement my voice minutes), and iphone doesn't have the same seamless GVoice integration that android does (yet)
Damn you Apple, give us iPhone 5 already, then we wouldn't have all these enticing Android threads to begin with
Provided they make the screen at least 4", I'm with you 1000% on this one.
Do you know for sure that this is the case? I don't doubt you, but I just find it hard to believe they would allow yet another source of fragmentation into the OS when one of their stated goals with ICS is to reduce it (unified OS for tablets and smartphones, etc). If it's the case that they will continue to allow phones with hardware buttons in lieu of on-screen buttons, then yeah, that would certainly take care of the resolution issues, but the inconsistency of available buttons/commands from on-screen buttons and hardware buttons seems like it would be something they would want to avoid.
Yes I do know this with 100% certainty. Also, understand that is actually does not add any level of fragmentation because the on-screen buttons are no different than the physical ones. It's merely a different way of interacting with the phone. In the end it's the same thing though.
Not trying to be argumentative, but can you provide a source for that info? I'm curious to read more details about applying ICS retroactive to existing devices. I've found very few details about how this will be accomplished, aside from the fact that it simply will or won't.
The buttons are mostly the same, but not exactly. They're getting away from the menu button altogether since they've redesigned the OS, and the search button is (apparently) out too. Plus, I'm aware of no hardware currently released that has a multitasking button.
I'm certainly not saying there's no easy workaround, like remapping them, for example. But remapping a physical button in the shape of a menu or magnifying glass to a multitasking command is exactly the kind of thing I'd call a kludge. If there's no consistency between which units have which buttons, that's the very definition of fragmentation. Having extra buttons is no big deal (and, arguably, a good thing, like in the case of models with physical KB), but not having the Google-specified core Android buttons is a big deal, in one form or another.
My source is that I have used ICS on a nexus s and I know first hand how it operates. Furthermore, the information is pretty readily available. Fyi, the multitasking is triggered the same it is currently triggered (by long pressing the home hey) on other android phones. As for the menu key, it is no different than it is currently in that if an app has a menu then when you hit that button it will come up, if it doesn't then nothing will happen (same as it has always been). As for the search button, it is still business as usual for it too. Nothing different at all. See it isn't nearly as bad as what you are thinking.
I wouldnt own a Motorola phone so i dont agree. And its not because of Android. Just dont care for Motorola phnes....and IF i ever want to root it, which i have done often, Motorola is the hardest to do.
They are the only Android devices that have good build quality, audio, and RF, which are pretty critical for a cell phone.
Details on Sync
Hi,
Just bought a new iMac and now need to buy a new smartphone. I normally use google for everything (email, calendar, contacts) and it was no problem syncing earlier with my nokia.
Syncing the calendar doesn't seem to be a problem, but I'm not sure whether the iphone can sync in the manner that I need or if I should buy android instead. Basically, I have all my contacts in groups (work, family, medical, etc.) and I like to see these groups on my phone as well since I dont always remember the name of a particular person (but I do know which group to look in). The iphone cannot sync groups with gmail contacts. But can the android (especially custom groups I have created in contacts)? If so, then its probably best to get the android.
I thought by buying an imac, and an iphone, all would be well. But it seems more tedious than before!
Hi,
Just bought a new iMac and now need to buy a new smartphone. I normally use google for everything (email, calendar, contacts) and it was no problem syncing earlier with my nokia.
Syncing the calendar doesn't seem to be a problem, but I'm not sure whether the iphone can sync in the manner that I need or if I should buy android instead. Basically, I have all my contacts in groups (work, family, medical, etc.) and I like to see these groups on my phone as well since I dont always remember the name of a particular person (but I do know which group to look in). The iphone cannot sync groups with gmail contacts. But can the android (especially custom groups I have created in contacts)? If so, then its probably best to get the android.
I thought by buying an imac, and an iphone, all would be well. But it seems more tedious than before!
I never use this functionality, but I just took a look at my GNex, and it certainly looks possible. I just went to my contacts list, went into "contacts to display", and it gives you an option to "customize". Click that, and it displays several pre-built groups (friends, family, coworkers, "starred in Android", etc), which you can select one or more of to display. Once you do, it separates them out in the contacts list. I would imagine you could create any custom group you want in google as well, though I don't know this for sure.
I think the only real advantage to having a mac and iphone is the icloud automatic syncing. The ability to auto sync all of the photos you take on your camera to your mac via photo stream is actually very slick.
I'm just not sure that I should even be responding to this post - as I have a feeling that you're just trolling. But here goes - have you even looked at Apple contacts, calendar, email? You might want to do a little reading on the Apple site - because Apple not only enables seamless syncing, but you can also sync your google info to each respective app.
I too use google for things - as a backup for my contacts and calendars, but I want to have everything local as well - and OSX and its integration with iOS makes Android to any computer seem clunky.
lol, you and many, many others (including me).
What is it with this guy? He keeps going on and on about how the RF on the Nexus is crap based on a single review he read, yet ignored the four reviews from much more reputable tech sites that I posted.
Good old confirmation bias, I suppose... to each their own
Build quality is sort of subject, audio quality is a little bit subjective, RF isn't. It is measurable, comparable, etc. Although it's very difficult to find reviewers that do a decent job with RF testing (I wish it would be the first thing in the review so I could stop reading if it can't compete with Nokia/Moto/ iPhone 4S), RF is an objective measure of how well a phone will pick up a signal. Although it varies a bit model to model, it is well known what phones are good, and which are aren't (usually). RIM is typically above average, but not the best, Samsung is mediocre to a little below average (Gnex is mediocre), Nokia is usually the best in the business, Motorola is almost always above average (the OG DROID had the best RF of any phone when it came out).
This site describes it pretty well:
http://www.arcx.com/sites/Samsung Galaxy Nexus.htm
The Captivate is pretty lousy, but definitely not the worst out there. I couldn't hold a conversation in most places in my house. It's a pretty good test, as some phone can't get decent service anywhere in the house, others you can wander all around and keep a conversation.
You can actually look at RF performance on wifi too. The iPod Touch has some of the lousiest RF performance out there, and I think the iPhone is pretty bad too, although I haven't really tested it. Mac laptops seem to be very good in area. It is less critical with wifi, however, as you are usually very close to the base station, and at home, you can build out coverage for devices with additional APs, antennas, etc, whereas the cell networks are what they are, and your location will vary a lot.
One big issue with the reviewers and RF is that a lot of them live and test in urban environments that are bathed with cell sites every few miles, especially with T-Mobile in SF and NYC, but true of all carriers. You have to go out a ways where you have one tower, and you can fade out to a bar or even no service on any phone to really see how well they perform on a very weak signal. It's unfortunate that so little is put towards RF, as it dictates how useful a connected device is. Over the past decade, the RF performance of phones has gone way down. I remember the days of AMPS phones that had flip-out antennas that were 6" long, and could pick up a signal 5 miles away from a tower. Now, you're lucky to be able to connect at 2 miles in my area, if even that. We went from flippy antennas to nubs to internal antennas to make them look better, but largely ignored their ability to pick up weak signals.
All that being said, the best thing to do now is to pay very close attention to the RF performance of a device. I bought a Captivate because there was nothing else out that met my needs, and I suffered as a result. Now the 4S works much better, with it's top notch RF. You couldn't pay me to use another Samsuck device.
@Neon01: Conclusion, the RF isn't crap, it's mediocre. And mediocre often won't cut it. There are much worse phones out there, but there are better ones (DROID series, iPhone 4S, etc).
EVERY SINGLE ONE of your sources talked about call quality, which is not RF performance. Clearly, Engadget was in a strong signal area to be getting 8mbps. Being stable and good sounding is great, until you get in an area where you don't have a good signal, and the iPhone is chugging away with 100kbps of data that works half the time, and making phone calls that are semi-reliable and texts are sending 80% of the time, and the Gnex is dead in the water and can maybe send a text upside-down in the air if you're lucky and holding it the right way.
http://www.arcx.com/sites/Samsung Galaxy Nexus.htm
The Captivate is pretty lousy, but definitely not the worst out there. I couldn't hold a conversation in most places in my house. It's a pretty good test, as some phone can't get decent service anywhere in the house, others you can wander all around and keep a conversation.
You can actually look at RF performance on wifi too. The iPod Touch has some of the lousiest RF performance out there, and I think the iPhone is pretty bad too, although I haven't really tested it. Mac laptops seem to be very good in area. It is less critical with wifi, however, as you are usually very close to the base station, and at home, you can build out coverage for devices with additional APs, antennas, etc, whereas the cell networks are what they are, and your location will vary a lot.
One big issue with the reviewers and RF is that a lot of them live and test in urban environments that are bathed with cell sites every few miles, especially with T-Mobile in SF and NYC, but true of all carriers. You have to go out a ways where you have one tower, and you can fade out to a bar or even no service on any phone to really see how well they perform on a very weak signal. It's unfortunate that so little is put towards RF, as it dictates how useful a connected device is. Over the past decade, the RF performance of phones has gone way down. I remember the days of AMPS phones that had flip-out antennas that were 6" long, and could pick up a signal 5 miles away from a tower. Now, you're lucky to be able to connect at 2 miles in my area, if even that. We went from flippy antennas to nubs to internal antennas to make them look better, but largely ignored their ability to pick up weak signals.
All that being said, the best thing to do now is to pay very close attention to the RF performance of a device. I bought a Captivate because there was nothing else out that met my needs, and I suffered as a result. Now the 4S works much better, with it's top notch RF. You couldn't pay me to use another Samsuck device.
@Neon01: Conclusion, the RF isn't crap, it's mediocre. And mediocre often won't cut it. There are much worse phones out there, but there are better ones (DROID series, iPhone 4S, etc).
EVERY SINGLE ONE of your sources talked about call quality, which is not RF performance. Clearly, Engadget was in a strong signal area to be getting 8mbps. Being stable and good sounding is great, until you get in an area where you don't have a good signal, and the iPhone is chugging away with 100kbps of data that works half the time, and making phone calls that are semi-reliable and texts are sending 80% of the time, and the Gnex is dead in the water and can maybe send a text upside-down in the air if you're lucky and holding it the right way.
So you're refuting review sites like Slashgear, The Verge, Engadget, and Tech Radar with a site that might as well be a blog by an enthusiast consumer. By the formatting and level of professionalism displayed, I had to double check that I wasn't looking at an old Geocities site. Further, all of the objective measurements of RF signal you referenced were nowhere to be found in that article. His "test" method is to bring the phone being evaluated to a shopping mall along with another "reference" (and I find that laughable as an engineer) phone, and walk inward to see which one drops signal faster. He didn't even mention using any basic apps that would actually reveal signal strength or RF link budget with real resolution.
Even setting aside his specious methods, his opinion (because that's what it is without real test equipment or other such objective analytical methods) of the Galaxy Nexus was that it was average, not worse than average as you purport.
I would debate that the RF capabilities (beyond perhaps the Wifi capability, which is mostly irrelevant considering both are well beyond good enough) of the 4S are better than the Nexus. I have used both where I work in a predominantly concrete government building with very poor signal. Using the same SIM card (I've tried both T mobile and AT&T) on each phone, the Galaxy Nexus is rarely, but consistently, able to receive calls or text messages quicker than the 4S.
Data speed tests in identical location with the same SIM yield similar results for both phones, in my experience.
It would also seem that any reasonable and unbiased discussion about the Galaxy Nexus would be highly dubious given your unsatisfying experience with previous Samsung products and frequent use of terms like "Samsuck".
Please reread what I posted (quoted here for convenience):
Neon01 said:
"Signal quality", not call quality.
Neon01 said:
Call quality, stability, and data rates. These metrics are directly related to RF quality. They also mention excellent call stability ("no dropped or failed calls") in locations that are typically poor for call stability.
Neon01 said:
"tenacious grip on a mobile signal". This is not limited to call quality, this is RF.
Neon01 said:
References call quality and data speeds.
You prefer the RAZR to this phone; this is clear. Nothing wrong with that. But please don't get on here making claims that the Galaxy Nexus RF quality stinks (or is even below average) when, 1. you've never used one, and 2. all information available is to the contrary.