memphisto said:
It most certainly does not.
The latest Engadget hands on from yesterday:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/samsung-galaxy-s-preview/
And some responses of mine, to your statements above which appear to have been written in furious speed with no regard to accuracy!
"the screen apparenly is the best screen around"
It looks like a great screen but it's still a 4" AMOLED with a resolution of 800x480. It's not some new amazing thing, it is just very good that's all.
Samsung say the Super AMOLED screen is 20% brighter than normal AMOLED and that it's 80% more viewable in direct sunlight. Engadget above didn't seem to think it was 80% better in sunlight. It was better of course but not 80%.
"and i include the iphone 4 in that"
The iPhone 4 screen doesn't compare to any of the current AMOLED screens, it uses older TFT technology but with an LED backlight and doesn't have the colour levels and black detail of an AMOLED screen.
"the speed, everything aboutt it as well as the swipe text app which i saw in operation and is seriously amazing."
Swype is available on any modern smartphone, it's nothing new and yes it is amazing, it is not exclusive in any way at all to the Galaxy S. The speed of the Galaxy is very nice, yes, the 1GHz Hummingbird processor does the job well here.
"apparenttly this phone costs samsung £1200 to make"
Where is this confirmed other than from the mouth of a sales rep? The technology used inside the Galaxy S is very similar to most other HTC handsets sporting Snapdragon processors with the addition of Hummingbird and the Super AMOLED screen. Those alone don't suddenly increase manufacture cost to £1200.
Hummingbird also costs less than Snapdragon to manufacture, is more energy efficient as well. It's a 45nm vs 65nm package size (hummingbird vs snapdragon)
"it is the only true 3D phone"
Hummingbird has 90million triangles per second figure for graphics rendering so yes it is compared to the likes of the Evo4G which is 22 million.
"it has the same sound system chip as in the audi R8 by bang and olufsen"
This little difference in general, the guy mentioned the R8 and B&o for marketing purposes which makes it sound amazing. B&o make expensive equipment but not the best sounding compared to how much they cost. All this says is that the Galaxy contains a dedicated sound processor but no figures have been released as far as I can see as to what chip it uses and how powerful it is. There's no need to mention B&o or an R8, they don't add any weight to the sound processor's capabilities.
"the chip is 1ghz but is 4X faster than the snapdragon processor"
No it isn't. Samsung stated +3x rendering performance compared to competing SoC chips.
CPU performance is much closer however at 2000 (Galaxy S) vs 2100 (Evo 4G) instructions per second (millions).
It's worth noting that the ARM Cortex A8 based SoC used in the Galaxy S won't be as new in a few months time as Qualcomm have confirmed dual core Snapdragon SoC chips running at 1.3GHz+ and providing more new features and power handling / performance on demand scaling capabilities.
A lot of more useful info that goes into CPU/GPU details can be found here:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=17125
"the bloke said the super amo screen would cost £20k to make a 32inch version !"
Any OLED screen is super expensive right now, there is no price vs exclusivity to Samsung here. Just look at Sony's small OLED TV sets for example. Again, Samsung's rep was glossing the figures.