Print 33 comment(s) - last by maroon1.. on Aug 14 at 2:03 PM

The Galaxy Alpha will reportedly come in 4.7" and 6.7" varieties

We’ve been hearing about Samsung’s metal-trimmed smartphone for quite some time, with pictures of the device popping up regularly around the web. Today, we’re getting some of best images of the devices to date along with a few more details on the new smartphone family.
The images show that the Galaxy Alpha sports chamfered edges like the iPhone 5/5S. The metal band wraps all the way around the sides of the smartphone, but the back of the device will still be made from plastic like all previous Galaxy designs.

We’ve already seen the 4.7” Galaxy Alpha in black — and here in white — but there will also be a larger 6.7” model according to The Verge and the Weibo forums.
Although we know nothing about the specs of the larger model, the 4.7” Galaxy Alpha is said to include a 720p display, fingerprint reader, 32GB of storage, and a Samsung Exynos processor.

All Images Courtesy Weibo Forums

Sources: Weibo, via The Verge

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A solid "meh"
By quiksilvr on 8/4/2014 10:31:13 AM , Rating: 4
I was hoping for a no compromises Samsung phone in a smaller form factor but the lack of a replaceable battery and microSD card slot just shows that they are trying too hard to be closed off like Apple.

RE: A solid "meh"
By karimtemple on 8/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: A solid "meh"
By bug77 on 8/4/2014 11:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
Show me ONE phone that has better battery life because the battery is non-removable.
That trade-off is an urban legend, there is very little space to be saved by making a battery non-removable (probably around 1% of the battery size). That does not translate into better battery life.

RE: A solid "meh"
By tayb on 8/4/2014 11:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
It's not really an urban legend but in reality it never works out that an internal battery is more powerful. In theory we should see a slight increase in battery capacity due to the slight increase in space by removing the door and thick battery casing. This should result in increased battery life. In reality the space saved is not used for a larger battery but for a smaller phone, thereby negating any potential battery life advantages.

I don't know what the potential space savings are but I would estimate somewhere around 5%. If that space were used to increase capacity by 5% there would absolutely be a benefit to going internal only. Unfortunately that 5% is usually just eaten up in order to have a slimmer phone.

RE: A solid "meh"
By bug77 on 8/4/2014 11:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
Even 5% is not something one would notice. It means that if a removable battery lasts 24 hours, a non-removable version would last 25 hours and 12 minutes. And that's a best case scenario.
In reality, all this non-removable trend is just supposed to force the customer to go to authorized battery changers and make them spend some more cash. As if you got the phone dirt-cheap to begin with and the manufacturer is just getting by.

RE: A solid "meh"
By karimtemple on 8/5/2014 10:58:15 AM , Rating: 3
I was talking about design focus. Better battery life is a better feature than removable battery. It wasn't really a comment about batteries. There are better ways to increase battery life than making the battery bigger (or removable).

RE: A solid "meh"
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2014 11:42:03 AM , Rating: 2
The door doesn't take up any space though or intrude into the internal compartment whatsoever. Why do people act like making the back of the phone removable somehow dictates the battery be smaller? This has never made sense to me.

Samsung and LG make flagships that are as thin or thinner, with class leading battery life. And the batteries are removable.

It absolutely IS an urban legend. One created by Apple fans probably, who cannot grasp the point in NOT always doing something the way Apple does it.

RE: A solid "meh"
By tayb on 8/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: A solid "meh"
By bug77 on 8/4/2014 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what you mean by "fact", because the door on my old Desire S slides into place and does not take any extra space. See here (towards the bottom):
I don't have a picture of a section of a battery to show the casing of a battery, but since the SGS5 can pack a replaceable battery within 8.1mm, I'll take a wild guess and say it doesn't take a lot of space at all.

RE: A solid "meh"
By BillyBatson on 8/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: A solid "meh"
By jmunjr on 8/4/2014 3:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
I have three extra batteries, one of which is double the capacity of the OEM and comes with a bigger "door" to accommodate it, and it just so happens that extra bulk makes it a much easier phone to handle than the uber thin ones that exist today. Og an yeah the battery lasts twice as long..

Maybe I'm the minority but I do know others who have extra batteries as well. As for the dropping the phone issue, having the battery pop out is a good thing. If a phone can flex when dropped then there may be a lower chance of the screen cracking. Overly rigid phones result in more cracked screens. The iPhone comes to mind. I have dropped my Galaxy S Blaze onto hard floors at least 20-25 times and never a screen failure. I doubt most iphones can handle that.

RE: A solid "meh"
By ritualm on 8/4/2014 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Are you drunk irl? Also you didn't turn on autocorrect in your iOS settings!
in th[e] end I would take a non-removable battery phone over one that's replaceable any day


My order of preference for batteries in phones:
1. removable
2. non-removable, but is user-replaceable
3. integrated (if the battery dies, replace the phone)
Build quality is one reason; a phone with a removable back will never be [quite] as sturdy.

Build quality and batteries are mutually exclusive.
I like knowing that if I drop my phone the back and battery will not pop out and that everything will still be running.

Funny, because only maybe 5-10% of all iPhone users I've seen in the wild use their phones naked. Everyone else uses a case, which completely defeats the reason to have integrated batteries.
Another reason is because even those with removable batteries almost NEVER purchase a spare battery to swap out to.

Yeah, I have one with a removable battery, and I don't buy a spare, why? Because the current battery in my GS4 is 2.8x the capacity of stock while retaining NFC (there are 3.0x ones that don't come with it). I don't need a spare.
I myself wouldn't have a place in my pocket to carry around a spare battery even if I had one.

What kind of pants do you wear, tight-fitting body-hugging jeans with tiny pockets? No wonder you needed an easy-to-lose bag to hold that 7.9" iPad!

RE: A solid "meh"
By flyingpants1 on 8/4/14, Rating: 0
RE: A solid "meh"
By syslog2000 on 8/4/2014 5:25:29 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Loving the gigantic, long lasting and totally replaceable battery on my shiny new LG G3 fondleslab.

RE: A solid "meh"
By retrospooty on 8/5/2014 8:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... fondleslab.

That reminds me, I need to bust out the bottle of alcohol and clean my G3

RE: A solid "meh"
By Apone on 8/4/2014 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 3
@ bug77

It's really about modularity and not so much having a better battery life (urban legend or not). I don't want to be forced to switch or upgrade my phone/laptop/tablet if I don't have to. Even after three years and four batteries, my HTC Thunderbolt continued to work phenomenally (until it took a nasty drop recently) and my Dell XPS 15 (from 2011) still works great as a gaming/school/work laptop being on my 2nd battery.

RE: A solid "meh"
By bug77 on 8/4/2014 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you very much.

Though in all honesty, you don't have to upgrade just because the non-removable battery died. The manufacturer is always happy to replace your $20 battery for a $100 fee.

RE: A solid "meh"
By elleehswon on 8/4/2014 4:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
LG G2's battery is non removable...and the battery life is amazing.

RE: A solid "meh"
By bug77 on 8/5/2014 4:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
That does not mean it's amazing because it's non-removable. You need arguments for your statements.
For example, I'll throw in that SGS5 has a removable battery, is almost 10% thinner and has better battery life than the G2. The SGS4 was even slimmer and still had better battery life; but the battery in this case was indeed smaller.

RE: A solid "meh"
By GulWestfale on 8/4/2014 10:42:47 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think so. Most samsung phones do have those features, some even have dual SIM card slots. Judging by the low-res screen i would say that these are meant for developing markets, where people often cannot afford both a tablet and a phone (thus the 6.7" screen makes sense for them).
So not including certain features might just save samsung a few pennies so they can hit a lower price point in india or africa.
But out here in the west, nothing prevents you from buying a note or galaxy tab instead. The alpha is not a replacement for them, it's merely another option

RE: A solid "meh"
By tayb on 8/4/2014 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
They are just trying to make a decent budget phone with great battery life. Micro SD cards, dual SIM, replaceable batteries, and high res screens are all expensive.

The vast majority of users have no use for any of the above and only buy flagship phones because they aren't good at math.

Bring me a $350 phone with decent specs and a huge battery. Long battery life > features I'll never or rarely use.

RE: A solid "meh"
By shabby on 8/4/2014 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Who said this will be a budget phone?

RE: A solid "meh"
By tayb on 8/4/2014 12:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
The specs say that it will be. This clearly isn't a flagship.

RE: A solid "meh"
By retrospooty on 8/4/2014 3:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's supposed to have the new Octa core Exynos which easily beats the Snap 801. It has 32gb RAM. Sounds pretty high end to me, other than the screen, but it's only 4.7, so not having 1920x1080 is less noticeable. Premium design/materials.

Looks pretty high end to me. If this comes out at a price less than the standard flagship "$199 on contract or $650 off" I would be amazed.

RE: A solid "meh"
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2014 4:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to see some benchmarks on that. The last generation Octa chips failed to live up to the hype. Do these really smoke the 801? Just asking, honestly don't know.

RE: A solid "meh"
By retrospooty on 8/4/2014 4:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's early, so you cant say for sure this is the speed it will be released at...

It's supposed to be designed to fix the problems of the previous gen. Any way you count it, its 4 A15 cores, if it fixed the issues of the 5410 and 5420 it will scream.

RE: A solid "meh"
By retrospooty on 8/4/2014 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 2

Then again, it wouldnt be unlikely that teh US versions would have Snap 801 or 805 anyhow.

Whichever, it's not a "low or mid range device". It's definitely high end...

RE: A solid "meh"
By maroon1 on 8/14/2014 2:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
Exynos 5430 is the first 20nm ARM CPU in the world. It more power efficient than any of the older Exynos, and also support HEVC (H.265) hardware decoder

And benchmarks shown that it can compete with snadragon 801 which is used by most high-end android phones in 2014

RE: A solid "meh"
By ritualm on 8/4/2014 6:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
It has 32gb RAM

retro, you need some Red Bull lol.

RE: A solid "meh"
By retrospooty on 8/4/2014 6:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... Drinking coffee now. Somehow that was supposed to be 2-3gb RAM (different rumors point to both) and 32gb storage.

Not a bad phone for people that have been looking for a higher end smaller phone.

RE: A solid "meh"
By atechfan on 8/4/2014 8:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Octacore is a misnomer. It is really a high powered quad core and a low powered quad core. The chip runs one or the other, not both simultaneously. Also, I think you mean 32GB of Flash. 32 GB of RAM is high end even in a desktop PC :P

RE: A solid "meh"
By retrospooty on 8/4/2014 8:42:21 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I know. 4 A15 cores is plenty fast, not a low end phone.

Resolution is not everything
By maroon1 on 8/14/2014 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Resolution is not only thing that matters when it comes to display

Galaxy Alpha using the latest and best AMOLED display. Samsung has been improving their in every generation. Grayscale accuracy for example is even better than Galaxy S5

Would you guys rather have an outdated AMOLED display like Galaxy S3 but with 1080p resolution, or would you rather have the latest and best AMOLED with highest color accuracy and brightness but only 720p resolution ?
I prefer high quality 720p over old and poor quality 1080p display, specially if the screen size is only 4.7 inch. I doubt that 1080p will make a big difference on 4.7 inch anyway

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki