Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

comparedial.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#51

Post by _fat_santa »

the_snooze wrote: post #31
Darmody wrote: post #15

I can't believe how bad Samsung has become. You pay them extra to avoid "Chinese brands" and you get ads everywhere, bloated devices with very bad performance. I'm still using a Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition and even if it's slow, it still works pretty well. It has some stuff in it that I can't get rid off but overall is a great tablet. I've used countless Samsung devices ever since and I only see the quality going d…

Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad? I have Samsung phones for testing and development work, and I don't understand why anyone would ever use these things. They're loaded down with so much half-assed knockoff shovelware of common services, some of which have ads, and nearly all of which keep issuing out useless notifications. It's like Samsung forgot that phones serve people, not the other way aroun…

The problem as I see it, Samsung wanted to carve out a piece of Android to create their own experience. They wanted to be like Apple and Google and have their own first party apps.

The problem is that Android already comes with all these first party apps so you just end up with duplication. This problem is only further compounded by the carrier having their hand in the cookie jar and having their own first party apps.

From this all you end up with is massive app duplication on your phone and every app fighting to be your choice. I remember buying an S7 from Verizon years back, it had 3 dialers, 3 messaging apps, and 4 web browsers.

Dialers: Verizon Dialer, Samsung Dialer, Android Dialer.

Messaging: Verizon Message, Samsung Messages, Android Messages

Web Browser: Verizon Web, Samsung Web, Chrome, ,

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#52

Post by elp »

the_snooze wrote: post #31
Darmody wrote: post #15

I can't believe how bad Samsung has become. You pay them extra to avoid "Chinese brands" and you get ads everywhere, bloated devices with very bad performance. I'm still using a Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition and even if it's slow, it still works pretty well. It has some stuff in it that I can't get rid off but overall is a great tablet. I've used countless Samsung devices ever since and I only see the quality going d…

Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad? I have Samsung phones for testing and development work, and I don't understand why anyone would ever use these things. They're loaded down with so much half-assed knockoff shovelware of common services, some of which have ads, and nearly all of which keep issuing out useless notifications. It's like Samsung forgot that phones serve people, not the other way aroun…

This is what no competition gives you. The Huaweis are much better, and were starting to eat into Samsung's business, but without the Google services its hard no for most people including me.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#54

Post by mschuster91 »

jotm wrote: post #12

If the Note 9 is any indication, it's not the hardware, it's the bloody software - Samsung is seemingly terrible at it! The North American Note 9 used a Snapdragon 845 SoC while the European version used Samsung's own Exynos 9810. The Exynos consistently benched lower, had worse battery life and ran hotter. The upside was that the Exynos version has an unlocked bootloader, which is huge imo. With a custom kernel made…

> Sadly, flashing a custom ROM on it involves tripping an eFuse and losing some Samsung functionality, but if you don't care about Samsung Pay and whatever other "secure" garbage they offer, it's worth it.

It's not just Samsung Pay you'll lose. Blow the eFuse and you'll play constant cat-and-mouse with Google Pay, Netflix and a shitload of banking apps.

It's really sad that we have to choose between rooting our devices (and giving us the same amount of control that we have on desktop PCs and laptops) or participating in digital life.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#55

Post by Jweb_Guru »

skavi wrote: post #20
jotm wrote: post #12

If the Note 9 is any indication, it's not the hardware, it's the bloody software - Samsung is seemingly terrible at it! The North American Note 9 used a Snapdragon 845 SoC while the European version used Samsung's own Exynos 9810. The Exynos consistently benched lower, had worse battery life and ran hotter. The upside was that the Exynos version has an unlocked bootloader, which is huge imo. With a custom kernel made…

Definitely not the software. Samsung consistently ships very well tuned flagships. Compare their performance and efficiency to other devices using the same SoC, and that much is clear. Of course, we can only say this about their Qualcomm devices, since there aren’t other Exynos devices to compare against Samsung’s.

Qualcomm makes all their own firmware, drivers, etc. and my impression is that it's considered to have much better software quality than Samsung's stuff. Take this with a grain of salt though since I'm hearing this second-hand.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#56

Post by k8sToGo »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #8

Day to day, anything past an iPhone 6s or 7 and phones pretty much feel the same speed. If you game or edit pics or anything else that needs a faster proc, sure, you'll notice not having the fastest phone. But if you email, reddit, HN, twitter, etc, you're really not going to notice much. Rumors are the iPhone 14 will have the same A15 and only the Pro will get the A16. I think you'll see a bunch of people freak out…

Higher Refreshrate is quite useful.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#57

Post by TonyTrapp »

the_snooze wrote: post #31
Darmody wrote: post #15

I can't believe how bad Samsung has become. You pay them extra to avoid "Chinese brands" and you get ads everywhere, bloated devices with very bad performance. I'm still using a Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition and even if it's slow, it still works pretty well. It has some stuff in it that I can't get rid off but overall is a great tablet. I've used countless Samsung devices ever since and I only see the quality going d…

Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad? I have Samsung phones for testing and development work, and I don't understand why anyone would ever use these things. They're loaded down with so much half-assed knockoff shovelware of common services, some of which have ads, and nearly all of which keep issuing out useless notifications. It's like Samsung forgot that phones serve people, not the other way aroun…

For what it's worth, even outside Android their software is horrible. Check out Samsung Magician, their SSD tool [0]. That UI just doesn't make any sense. Samsung is a hardware company (and they're great at that), can't remember any good software from them, ever.

[0] https://i.imgur.com/lbqdn8i.png

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#58

Post by cl0ckt0wer »

reaperducer wrote: post #13
lkxijlewlf wrote: post #8

Day to day, anything past an iPhone 6s or 7 and phones pretty much feel the same speed. If you game or edit pics or anything else that needs a faster proc, sure, you'll notice not having the fastest phone. But if you email, reddit, HN, twitter, etc, you're really not going to notice much. Rumors are the iPhone 14 will have the same A15 and only the Pro will get the A16. I think you'll see a bunch of people freak out…

The only feature fight I want to see from phone makers and networks anymore is latency. Voice latency is a big part of why people type on a telephone, instead of talking on it. We're entering a second generation of people who have no idea what it was like talking on an analog POTS network. They'll even argue with you, claiming their VOIP connection across the ocean has the same quality and latency as someone talking…

IIRC, Sprint was just increasing the bass somewhere in their connection. But you can't really think that a POTS call sounds better than a modern VOIP call? Maybe the super-compressed crap you get when you dial a number, but apps use way better sounding codecs.

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#59

Post by duxup »

the_snooze wrote: post #31
Darmody wrote: post #15

I can't believe how bad Samsung has become. You pay them extra to avoid "Chinese brands" and you get ads everywhere, bloated devices with very bad performance. I'm still using a Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition and even if it's slow, it still works pretty well. It has some stuff in it that I can't get rid off but overall is a great tablet. I've used countless Samsung devices ever since and I only see the quality going d…

Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad? I have Samsung phones for testing and development work, and I don't understand why anyone would ever use these things. They're loaded down with so much half-assed knockoff shovelware of common services, some of which have ads, and nearly all of which keep issuing out useless notifications. It's like Samsung forgot that phones serve people, not the other way aroun…

>Does anyone know why their software is just so so bad?

Is Samsung "good at software" at all?

I'm wondering if maybe Samsung's skill set as a company just doesn't include software / they don't have the people who know how to manage software development / products / teams and etc?

I remember ages ago I had a Samsung phone and their software started to trickle out and I thought "woah they're just getting started it seems, but they've got the money to get better". A few years later they hadn't improved at all, and were clearly going to push their own software and at that point I decided I was out...

Re: Samsung's latest Galaxy A53 is 33% slower than the previous Galaxy A52s

#60

Post by Jiejeing »

starwind wrote: post #42
durnygbur wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Galaxy S10e was the last Android smartphone, if it only wouldn't crack within first weeks I possessed it. Now only Android phablets exist.

I love my S10e but it's probably the last Android I own cause--to your point--everything else is just too big

I am going to make it last as long as I can get the battery replaced and lineage OS keeps pushing updates, after that I’m not sure. Maybe a fairphone that I would carry much less often.
Post reply on HN