Talk:Samsung Galaxy S (2010 smartphone)

Variants
Why don't any of the variants have their own page? User:Ral725 —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

Camera
Why is there no mention of the front-facing camera or its specs? 203.39.203.226 (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was grouped into the inn an unclear manner. I've never done this much work on a wiki article and it's my first cell/mobile phone article.  I mostly copied formatting from other popular phones.  I agree wid more explicitly mentioned, however up until now I haven't read anything more specific than VGA.  Alovell83 10:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

US Release?
Why are the network details on this phone are for US (and Canada)? The North American variants section could do with expanding. As it is, it seems that the phone has only been released in the U.S. and Canada and the text in that section seems to advertise the various networks. It could do with a little bit of globalisation. The Twitter thing may be construde as trivia (although at the time of publishing, it is valid and important info.). The first 300 words (or so) are referenced(!ref) 25 times. While sourcing is good, this amount distracts from the article and could be relocated (not the only article guily of this).Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Halo rip-off
not sure if this is relevant but in the commercial for this phone a man in green armor is shown fighting an alien in a spacecraft. the armor is a nearly flawless copy of the armor used in the Halo video games series. However the commercial contains no mention of the Halo IP or its creators making this a possible copyright infringement. i think it should be mentioned somewhere but not sure where. below is a link to an article on a gaming site about the issue.

http://gamersyndrome.com/2010/online-games/halo-ripped-off-in-new-samsung-4g-commercial/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.163.133 (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if it were true it sounds irrelevant to this article. And in reality it sounds like total speculation on the part of Gamer Syndrome - if Samsung had licensed the use of Halo graphics then their agreement might be that they paid enough to not have to mention who they licenced it from in the advert, so them not mentioning it is not necessarily anything to be suspicious of. Lopifalko (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, alot of people are confused about it and think the phone comes with a Halo movie. It could be construed as false advertising. IT would be nice for someone to find an answer tot he Halo question with this phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.60.239 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means information like this shouldn't go into the article unless it is discussed in other reliable secondary sources first. Thus far, it seems to only be discussed in blogs and other speculative sources. gnfnrf (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

US version
I have begun expanding information on the US versions of this phone, but I have been having difficulty finding reliable sources that clearly spell out the hardware variations. Which version have an LED flash? Which versions have a front-facing camera? Can someone find some good citations for that? gnfnrf (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GPS
Before anyone removes the notation of the Galaxy GPS issues generally, or the Epics documented GPS problems specifically, please comment here first. Users and tech sites that do testing are reporting new, and in some cases even worse, problems with Epic GPS than users of other Galaxy phones. The Epic's problems are less consistent and masked by the fact that they don't appear if the phone has recently be reset, but they are none the less quite serious, in some ways more so, as Samsung claimed the Galaxy GPS problems were fixed on this variant.Carwon (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As September 2010 is over now, has anyone seen the promised upgrade yet? 194.94.224.254 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The latest released models, such as Epic, have new GPS problems and bugs. So the fix of the earlier variants' GPS is probably still under review since they haven't gotten it right on the devices that were supposed to include the fixes. In addition to bugs in the cache, users report poor signal to noise results on GPS testing programs, indicating that at least some of the Galaxy GPS problems maybe inherent to hardware and not correctable.Carwon (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Extremely poor 3G speeds on Epic Variant
A one time posting anon removed this a couple of days ago despite this being the most widely documented bug, noted and confirmed by not just a few users, but all users on all relevant Epic user forums, such as on androidcentral, XDAdevelopers, Androidforums, and Sprints own forums and tested and shown by professional review sites such as Anantech. The issue of the very very low 3G upload cap on Epic of 150kb became the lead story on Slashdot on Sept 19. On Sprint's own forums, its own employee moderators acknowledge they themselves cannot get 3Grev.A speeds on Epic. This isn't just documented, it is possibly the most well documented severe flaw on any recent smartphone.

Please keep an eye out for anyone attempting to remove this notation, most likely someone doing Samsung PR, because it is completely factual and quite severe.Carwon (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 3GS??
Shouldnt it be be iPhone 4? I mean, it all over the internet... iPhone 4's Retina Display vs Galaxy S Super AMOLED. There is no way the 3GS can compare to this phone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.64.83 (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

NO. The actual article making the comparison cited, and referenced, quoted is comparing against the 3GS.Carwon (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blackberry function
Like with all the other smartphones it would be interesting if the blackberry software can be installed so that the phone can fully replace a Blackberry, for example if the company runs a Blackberry server. I am missing this information within all these articles, and it seems to be hard to optain in the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.3.251 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really same as "Samsung Epic 4G Galaxy S"?
"Samsung Epic 4G" redirects automatically to this article, however, the present article appears to describe a phone with touch-screen only, and Samsung Epic 4G Galaxy S is described as having a slide-out keyboard e.g. see: http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=10509

Are they really same (in which case mentioning the keyboard is really a MUST!), or should the redirect link be replaced by a stub (or new article)? 64.149.234.79 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not read the article before jumping ot conclusions? Galaxy S is a family of smartphone variants with several different hardware configurations, not limited to only varying presence of keyboard or not. Some have front facing cameras, some do not, some have flash, some do not, etc. This article is the whole family and includes Epic and its hardware differences noted.
 * The article has a specific paragraph on the Epic variant. The article also says "variants" in the first graph. It also notes in the side bar under Type (Form Factor) "Candybar or Slider". Slider means keyboard.
 * It also says this: "Sprint announced the release of "Samsung Epic 4G" for August 31, 2010. It features a 4G radio, a full QWERTY keyboard and reworked version of Android 2.1, as well as some downgrades from other Galaxy models, such as a reduced functionality version of TouchWiz, and a number of applications removed. This version is 14.2mm thick. This includes the front camera of the international version and also adds a camera flash and comes bundled with a 16GB micro SD memory card. "Carwon (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

infobox connectivity
Dual band CDMA2000/EV-DO Rev. A 800/1900 MHz CDMA 800/1900 MHz EVDO Rev. A, WiMAX 2.5 to 2.7 GHz; 802.16e 2.5G(GSM/GPRS/EDGE): 850/ 900/ 1800/ 1900 MHz; 3G (HSDPA 7.2 Mbps, HSUPA 5.76 Mbps): 900/ 1900/ 2100 MHz; Wi-Fi (802.11b/g/n); Bluetooth 3.0; USB 2.0, DLNA, Radio FM

Wow, this should be cleaned. First, all devices support Wifi, Bluetooth, USB2, DLNA, FM. Then it depends on the device, correct me if I am wrong, but:


 * International Galaxy S GT-I9000: Quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE + Tri-band (900/1900/2100) W-CDMA/HSPA
 * AT&T Captivate, Canada and Brazil: Quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE + Tri-band (850/1900/2100) W-CDMA/HSPA
 * T-Mobile Vibrant: Quad-band GSM/GPRS/EDGE + Tri-band (1700/1900/2100) W-CDMA/HSPA
 * Verizon Fascinate: Dual band CDMA2000/EV-DO Rev. A 800/1900 MHz
 * Sprint Epic 4G: Dual band CDMA2000/EV-DO Rev. A 800/1900 MHz + WiMAX 2.5 to 2.7 GHz

Also, we should make it clear which device has 8GB and which has 16GB. Same thing for front camera and flash. --Bob333333 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Several errors, example they certainly do not all support FMCarwon (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the Sprint Epic 4G only has 2gb of internal memory... at least mine does :) Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 02:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead, Variants, and Reported Problems sections
Dear "72.75.0.149", please consider registering an account on Wikipedia so we can have a proper conversation. Also, please don't revert constructive edits without giving a reason.

On your individual edits, I have the following comments:

a. the lead section is for the most notable facts about the article's subject, to encourage the reader to read the rest of the article. "The version of this phone with the keyboard is thicker, but not the thickest Android phone" is not especially notable or interesting, "this phone is currently the thinnest Android phone" is. Similarly "Some US versions, such as the Sprint Epic are not expected to recevie [sic] updates to 2.2 until the end of 2010" is unsourced, not especially notable, and too detailed for the lead section, as I said in my edit summary.

b. Variants section: this is for listing the differences from the config stated in the infobox, which doesn't have a camera flash.

c. Three-button recovery mode: now that this problem has been identified and (to some extent) resolved, a long speculative story from enthusiast forums about it is no longer notable or relevant (if it ever was).

d. FM output: how do you justify reverting this edit? Dcxf (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * User Dcxf, please stop wholesale removal and revisions without consulting talk. YOu have made seveal errors.
 * a) if the designation as the thinnest phone is relevant, the fact that the most celebrated US variant is among the thickest of current android phones is quite relevant. If thinnest is in the lead what justifies your removal of among the thickest?


 * b) removing cites and then claiming material is sourced is not a serious position. The delay is sourced. The sourcing was removed. This is highly relevant due to Samsungs history of delayed upgrades.


 * c) FM output is note enabled on all variants with the stated workaround from XDA. CDMA variants are missing hardware. Not to mention Rom flashing involved voids warranty.


 * I and other editors who placed it in text, disagree with your edits on the camera flash. It is relevant where it has been.


 * You are going to have multiple editors revert your changes if you are not more careful.Carwon (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Carwon, re the points in contention:


 * a) "Thinnest" is interesting because, well, it's the thinnest, making it exceptional. Having one of the variants with a thickness that is in the upper mid-range of other Android phones is not very interesting, is it? Why not move this to the variants section?


 * b) As I said above there was and is still no source for the statement "Some US versions, such as the Sprint Epic are not expected to receive updates to 2.2 until the end of 2010", and anyway the lead section is not the place for a detailed history of all the software releases for the phone. If you think such a history has a place in an encyclopedia article, why not create a separate section for it? Why do you think it belongs in the lead section?


 * c) You haven't explained why you feel it's necessary to have a long detailed section about the three-button recovery mode issue, including speculation about the cause, given that it has already been identified and fixed. This is an encyclopedia article, not an FAQ or help forum for users of the phone. Personally I don't think sections on minor technical issues like this belong in the article at all, but if they are there they shouldn't give undue prominence to chatter and speculation, the sourcing on this article is bad enough as it is. And why have you removed the sourced information about the released fix, including the Samsung official release?


 * d) Obviously variants that don't have an FM radio can't output FM stereo, but this should be noted in the variants section. I'm not sure why you're talking about a "workaround" here, as I said in the article FM stereo radio output is enabled in the released Android 2.2.


 * What do you think? Please try to address my concerns constructively, thanks. Dcxf (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to especially remove the statement that Android 2.2 was late, and also remove the statement about Android 2.2 not being expect until late 2010, from the first paragraph. It's not first paragraph material. It doesn't even need to say that anywhere. All it needs to say is that Android 2.2 has begun to be made available across some variants and some networks. Lopifalko (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Any comments on this Carwon? I see the release history issue in the lead section has been taken care of by another editor, and regarding the "thickest" issue I checked on droidthing.com and there are at least 14 Android phones that are thicker than the Epic 4G so I think that should be removed as incorrect.


 * For the "Reported problems" section, I think the whole section should either be removed, or reduced to one-line summaries with references. This article is not a technical FAQ and I don't see sections like this in the Wikipedia entries for other phones, most of which have had similar problems. Is that OK with everyone? Dcxf (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just a Wikipedia user, but it strikes me as odd the "Samsung Galaxy S" entry has a long section on "Reported Problems". The "Apple iPhone 4" entry does not have a "Reported Problems" section; all I can find is the one-liner "The iPhone 4 owners get free bumper case to temporarily resolve the antenna problems" (without even mentioning what "the antenna problems" might be). Something feels wrong here. 88.27.54.23 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there are things missing from the reported problems section. How about the fact the Froyo update has been delayed months, that it was then released in Scandinavia, only to be withdrawn because Samsung's kies software crashed when trying to install Froyo. This is has been a major debacle and highlights serious problems The article needs more of this.

Olyus (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the sort of newsy material you would put in a blog article or a talk forum about the phone. I realise late software releases tick people off, but they're not that unusual or notable. Where there are reliable sources describing technical problems they would be better put under the Reception section. If the only source for a "reported problem" is an internet forum posting, or if the problem was a relatively minor one that has already been fixed, it is better left out completely. For example the GPS issue has been widely commented on in reviews and news articles, and deserves a place in the Reception section, but the problem of the FM radio being in mono rather than stereo isn't at all notable and should be removed. Dcxf (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Software Updates
The following is explaining, justifying and modifying edits for Dcxf to try and avoid another reversion. Dcxf requested citation of:

"The Android  version is  network operator dependent and will normally be upgraded over the air, but this will not occur when a handset is configured for one  network operator but operated on another network."

No citation is needed because software updates from different carriers is fully discussed in the following sections and this sentence provides context for that discussion.

Dcxf said in comments:

"Nexus S not a Galaxy S variant."

This depends on the definition of variant. The hardware differences are that the Nexus S does not have an SD card and does have a near field chip. It is almost the same hardware, so on a hardware basis the Nexus S could be described as a variant. It is sold as a different model, so on that basis, it is not a variant. Varying, carrier dependent, software versions and updates are a big issue with the Galaxy S so I have added this to point out that it is probably the different software version and update practices that is the principal difference between the Nexus S and Galaxy S, not the hardware differences. To avoid the variant issue I have rewritten this so that it now says:

"The Nexus S has similar hardware to the Galaxy S but a major difference is that the software is upgraded by Google regardless of carrier."

Dcxf requested citation of:

"The latest official Android version for a handset configured for any carrier is available using the Samsung Kies application."

This information is included the linked Wikipedia article where it says "This software can be used for: .... Device Firmware Upgrade".

Dcxf requested citation of:

"but installing them may void the owner's warranty."

Citation added as requested.

Reversion is easy to do but when done too casually it detracts from article quality and I think it happens too much with this article. Most phones of the same model have the same characteristics for all their users but Galaxy S is almost a class of phones rather than a model and their is a variety of user experiences with this product. The article could capture this better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenT (talk • contribs) 11:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi KenT, I understand it's frustrating when your contributions are changed. However almost everything we put in Wikipedia should be verifiable from a reliable published source. Please read Verifiability and SOURCES.


 * For example,
 * "will normally be upgraded over the air, but this will not occur when a handset is configured for one network operator but operated on another network."


 * This needs one or more reliable published sources that say:
 * a) Galaxy S phones receive over-the-air upgrades
 * b) Over-the-air upgrades won't happen when a handset is operated on another network


 * I don't think these facts are, as you say, "fully discussed in the following sections". Also as far as I know most international Galaxy S phones with Android 2.1 and 2.2 are still upgraded through Samsung Kies rather than over the air, so these facts may be wrong, or at least incomplete.


 * Regarding "The latest official Android version for a handset configured for any carrier is available using the Samsung Kies application.", the Kies article doesn't state that the latest version of Android for any carrier is available through Kies. I'm not entirely sure this is true for all carriers (and would be interested to know for sure), so clearly this needs a proper reference.


 * The Nexus S has quite a few other internal and external hardware differences from the Galaxy S (see for example) and isn't in the official Galaxy S family of variants according to Samsung, so information about it is really off-topic and potentially confusing to the reader in this article. Also carriers (not Google) do push out upgrades to Nexus S variants, for example.


 * Your reference for upgrades voiding warranties is from the Cyanogenmod install guide which is not a reliable source, being a publicly-editable Wiki page (see ).


 * Please note that I didn't revert your last contribution, instead I edited it a bit and added citation needed tags to point out areas where it could be improved. Hopefully this helps too. Dcxf (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What does this even mean?
In the intro paragraph, it reads "it is at time of release is one of the thickest and the thinnest Android phone in some of its variants" What does that mean? It's a poorly constructed sentence that completely contradicts itself. I'd fix it but I have no idea what the author was trying to say. 60.240.12.250 (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tidied up the whole lead section, including this sentence, so hopefully it's better now, although it's still a bit clunky. Dcxf (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Accelerometer/Gyroscope?
Apparently the European version comes only with a tri-axial accelerometer (I can see on my phone in Germany the Bosch SMB380). If confirmed, the 3-axis gyroscope should be removed from the specs.


 * My device, delivered by french operator SFR, does not contain gyroscope

Also, the 6-axial accelerometer (measure accelerations on 3 axis and 3 angles) vs. 3-axial accelerometer + 3-axial gyroscope (measure accelerations on 3 axis and SPEED on 3 angles) is creating confusion, and might be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.139.2 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * an accelerometer measures linear acceleration, and a gyroscope measures angular data (position speed or acceleration)

The Samsung Galaxy S does not contain a 3-axis gyroscope, only a 3-axis accelerometer (sometimes confusingly referred to as a "G-sensor"). http://www.samsung.com/au/smartphone/galaxys/specifications.html The Samsung Galaxy S 2 on the other hand does have a 3-axis gyroscope in addition to a 3-axis accelerometer. http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxys2/html/feature.html --LashLash (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Page name: "Samsung i9000 Galaxy S" is wrong, what should it be changed to?
"i9000" is wrong, it is never lowercase "i". If the page was only about the international version of the Galaxy S the name should probably be "Samsung Galaxy S GT-I9000", which is how Samsung styles it in the user manual and publicity material. But it's also about the variants and they have different part numbers e.g. the Vibrant is SGH-T959. So I vote for just "Samsung Galaxy S", what does everyone else think? Dcxf (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Samsung Galaxy S": I agree, the page should be moved. I've never seen it referred to as the "i9000" or anything other than "Samsung Galaxy S" in the media. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this seems to be uncontroversial so I have moved it to "Samsung Galaxy S". Dcxf (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reported Problem section
It is obvious some editors are deliberately adding negative information about Galaxy S without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. There are thousands upon thousands of Apple/HTC/Motorola/Rims problems every single modles, and most of them are not significant. You can't go on a mission to put mention of every problems from fourm, blog, personal opinions sources into all the Galaxy S articles. This thing apply to any other phones (Apple/HTC/Motorola/Rims). I can pick up every single negative informations of iphone/HTC/Motorola/Rims/Sony phones from fourm, blog, personal opinions, some news sources. The policy undue weight explains why. of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. 660gd4qo (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

Self-published sources (online. eg.Internet forum postings) should not as a source in wikipedia.

I removed Internet forum postings contents. Self-published sources (online. eg.Internet forum postings) androidforums.com, forum.xda-developers.com, community.sprint.com, facebook.com, blog.laptopmag.com... etc. Please do it by WP:RS sources. and explain why they are significant at topic. See WEIGHT, WP:RS Thanks. 660gd4qo (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, I folded the verifiable parts of the old Reported Problems section (GPS issues) into the Reception section as I suggested above.Dcxf (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these alterations, however, i would suggest that a website, such as this www.samsung-galaxy-s.co.uk which is admittedly self published offers a fairly reliable source and takes in to account a whole host of well respected opinion. I think ultimately, reliability is totally subjective and the assumption that something is unreliable purely based on the notion of of it being self published is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.188.237 (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Still the fastest graphics processing unit?
The Samsung Galaxy S has a PowerVR graphics processor yielding 90 million triangles per second, making it the fastest graphics processing unit in any Android phone to date.

Not that I'm arguing that fact, but the article referenced is almost a year old (Dated March 26, 2010). Is it still the fastest graphics processing unit? Judging by how technology goes, I would have thought a faster one would have come out by now, however, I'm not going to touch the article until I find a reference that says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudoGhost (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not the fastest any more, e.g. the LG Optimus 2X beats it by a lot in 3D benchmarks. [] Dcxf (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TONS of misinformation
This article needs a lot of help.... and a lot of rewriting that I simply don't have the time for. But 70% of it needs correction in one way or another. I fixed a lot of what was wrong with the Canada section but there are still more revisions needed.. wow.

Errors in Canada section?
I have one from Rogers, and: Its model is SGH-I896, not SGH-I897 (easy to find online) It has 311252 bytes (according to free(1)), which is around 304 MB, of RAM (obviously, this is original research) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.99.150 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The value reported by free isn't the amount of RAM installed in the device. Some RAM is reserved for device drivers and the call processor.[] for example. Dcxf (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

triangles per second
this article says 20 million triangles per second, but every source I can find (other than the one listed by the article) says 90 million triangles per second. I would also like to point out that the source listed in the article doesn't say if the listed S5PC110 is using the SGX530 (14 million), SGX535 (28 million), or the SGX540 (90 million), but the Galaxy S uses the 540 (for comparison, the iPhone 4 uses the S5PC110 and the SGX535) 174.91.97.132 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed it to 90 million but you need to add the source because im REALLY busy. Have a Nice Day! Editor123ALOP (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Android 2.3 upgrade
It was never available in Germany and in countrys where it was available Google has withdrawn it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.88.133 (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Carrier IQ
The Epic 4G on Sprint has Carrier IQ. That is quite the nasty thing. http://forum.androidcentral.com/lg-optimus-s-rooting-roms-hacks/64914-carrier-iq.html Bizzybody (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Non reflecting surface
Is there a non reflecting Surface (polish it like a watch, e.g. by the jewelry)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.13.24.82 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy S Plus (I9001)
There is now (on the german Market) a variant of the Galaxy S called "Galaxy S Plus" (GT-I9001), which I couldn't find mentioned on the english wikipedia (german wikipedia has two sentences about it). Main difference is a faster, different processor (1.4GHz, Qualcomm MSM8255T). The GPU too got changed to an Adreno 205. Cyanogenmod is unsupported, as the hardware is very different|(source). 78.53.223.221 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't really a variant, although it has the same case and a similar brand name, the internals are completely different. Since most of the article won't apply to this phone it would be better to start a separate article, if it's considered notable enough. Dcxf (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Media player version
It seems there is also a GSM-less version around named "Galaxy S WiFi", which is marketed as an Android-based media player. Should this be mentioned on the page somewhere? WooShell (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is Marketed as a different device and has its own article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.39.200 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

4G
Are all versions of this phone 4G compatible or only some? This is not clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Battery
Battery life cited in this article is completely bogus. It says "Standby time: 2G, 750 hr; 3G, 576 hr." which is grossly overestimated. In my experience it will "standby" at maximum for 24-36 hours which is still very generous. Even with expanded battery packs there's no way it would last more than 100 hours, much less 500-700 hours. Generally the battery lasts about 5-16 hours depending on use. 750 hours = 31.25 days which is laughable. Edited the article to change battery life divided by a factor of ten, which may not have a citation but it's closer to reality than these current figures are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.180.2 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support for 64GiB-SD-Card: wrong reference
Reference [1] linked in the Table as proof for the 64GiB-SD-Card-Support only speaks of the Samsung Galaxy S II (read two), not of this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.212.21 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S Blaze 4G?
Released by T-Mobile in March 2012 yet it is not included on this wiki page or on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy

http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-T769NKBTMB

Review: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/27/t-mobile-samsung-galaxy-s-blaze-4g-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsharkymd (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2024
Samsung Galaxy S (2010 smartphone) → ? – Whether it was made in 2010 or 2015, it IS the original. Just as we have the Xbox (console) and PlayStation (console) articles on the original or first versions and yet there are articles on their later/latest versions. Intrisit (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose adjective as a parenthetical disambiguator, but no prejudice against any alternative proposal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment pinging, , , , , , , &  to weigh in on this. Intrisit (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure why I was pung here, but oppose per KoH. Queen of Hearts &thinsp;talk 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I pinged you based on your active involvement in RM discussions and at RMTR during the last 3 months. And why the oppose? This article is about the smartphone, hence the "(original)" disambiguator. If not, then just "(smartphone)" will suffice. Intrisit (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed but would support a move to Samsung Galaxy S (smartphone) (which somehow doesn't exist?) as all other variants and later versions are pretty universally referred with their model/number. The existing hatnote handles the situation similar to the Xbox and PlayStation cases. (I'd almost support moving this article to Samsung Galaxy S and moving the existing Samsung Galaxy S to Samsung Galaxy S (family) or (series) or similar and update hatnotes. But may be a bit too far afield.) Skynxnex (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the ambiguous name Samsung Galaxy S (smartphone), as that would be too ambiguous. The current title seems OK to me. I don't understand the reference to 2015. Please note the title of iPhone (1st generation). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ignore the 2015 reference as I was making my point with the RM rationale. How is "Samsung Galaxy S (smartphone)" too ambiguous? At least it aligns with the "PlayStation (console)" and "Xbox (console)" articles, otherwise we should be moving those too. The iPhone has its own set of periods of release history, not with the other brands out there, hence why the "(1st/2nd/3rd...etc. generation)" disambiguators. The "Samsung Galaxy S" title already hosts a DAB page, hence the disambiguator for the original phone. What's more, there is a whole sub-group of articles related to this title. Intrisit (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a tricky RM so I've removed and replaced the "Samsung Galaxy S (original)" title with a question mark, as 1 of 4 possible titles (old or new/unused) could house this article (or not). I'll still list that title up for deletion at RFD though within 3 months. Intrisit (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Additional relist, to discuss the alternative of Samsung Galaxy S (smartphone) BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming to Samsung Galaxy S (smartphone), as that parenthetical is unfortunately vague because multiple smartphones use the name Samsung Galaxy S. Sadly it's just not precise enough. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)