Samsung Galaxy S2 vs HTC Sensation

I'm quite confident the number of S2s out there will be in better shape than Sensations with chipped/scratched aluminium pieces of slight dents :p It's a big piece of kit to snag on the corner or edge or whatever :p My Desire looked like new but the amount of times I took off and put on the hard case you could see some light scrapings around the eadges of the aluminium bezel. Still looked like new though from a distance.

The only part of the S2 that would show signs of scratching is the bottom lip at the back but that's kind metallic in finish anyway so may well hide any light scratches if it's not been used in a case of some sort.
 
mrk said:
I'm quite confident the number of S2s out there will be in better shape than Sensations with chipped/scratched aluminium pieces of slight dents :p It's a big piece of kit to snag on the corner or edge or whatever :p
Click to expand...


My original iphone agrees with you. it's shot to hell, however i dont think anybody can deny the original iphone was very well built. other than the dents I've never owned a phone that's held up anywhere near so well after 4 years of use.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
You seem to think I'm stupid. At least that's how your posts read - is that intentional?
Click to expand...

I don't think you are stupid, I just don't think you get the concept of perceived quality, what it means to some buyers and its importance in product design and marketing.

The fact you go on to confirm, irrelevently, how the Galaxy S wont break, confirms this. It's nothing to do with whether it WILL or WILL NOT break. It's perception.

weight seems to have the biggest impact on perceived quality yet the reality is it has no bearing on build quality.
Click to expand...

I did explain, with a perfectly clear example, how often better perceived quality does not mean better actual quality.... and you wonder why I seem to think you just dont get it?
 
[TW]Fox;19601084 said:
I don't think you are stupid, I just don't think you get the concept of perceived quality, what it means to some buyers and its importance in product design and marketing.
Click to expand...

But i do, that's the point. I've already explain the factors that contribute to perceived quality, not argued against, explained. I dont think anybody else would believe i dont understand what perceived quality actually is.

The fact you go on to confirm, irrelevently, how the Galaxy S wont break, confirms this. It's nothing to do with whether it WILL or WILL NOT break. It's perception.
Click to expand...
Actually no, what I'm talking about is reality. I didn't have a problem with perception before you waded in and implied we were all thick and i don't now. I have no trouble differentiating between the two.

I did explain, with a perfectly clear example, how often better perceived quality does not mean better actual quality.... and you wonder why I seem to think you just dont get it?
Click to expand...

yep and i agreed with that :) I think the only person having trouble is you fox, no offense intended but either we are making it too difficult to read or you just aren't getting it.


perceived quality = weight, materials used.
actual quality = neither of those things.

I believe that should be simple enough for everybody to understand and that is what we have been saying, and arguing about, from the start. the weight and the plastics used, whilst it may feel better to some people, bears no impact on the build quality of the phone. This matters to me when choosing a phone as i am more interested in the real build quality than what it feels like, it might not matter to you. You and others would choose the sensation over the sgs2 because it feels better to you. That's fine. It's a personal decision and one i perfectly understand and it's not something i have ever argued against. In fact, i made this point about the sgs2 dock Mrk posted a few days ago. It looked light, it looked cheap, it looked like its not as well built as my iphone dock. I've not seen one n the flesh so i could well be wrong and as Mrk pointed out, the official photos dont do the dock much justice, but that right there is my opinion on the perceived quality of the docks. weight is important to me in dock - a light and flimsy looking dock is no good to me and that's what mrk's dock looks like. I'll check out the real story when i get to play with one and from what Mrk has said, the reality could be quite different. who knows.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
First report of creaking I've read about to date^! are you sure it's clipped in properly? :p
Click to expand...

Yeah everything is clipped in properly, It happens just under the camera it isn't a problem for me though really. Just thought i'd throw it out there.

My original iphone agrees with you. it's shot to hell, however i dont think anybody can deny the original iphone was very well built. other than the dents I've never owned a phone that's held up anywhere near so well after 4 years of use.
Click to expand...

Indeed the build quality was very good on the original iphone. After 4 years the only thing broken is the volume control on mine. Never used a case at all. One thing I have to say Apple have down to a fine art.

2011-07-17124230-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
Actually no, what I'm talking about is reality. I didn't have a problem with perception before you waded in and implied we were all thick and i don't now. I have no trouble differentiating between the two.
Click to expand...

So what are you talking about then?

Nobody is saying that the Galaxy S 2 will fall apart. Nobody has said that. The point being made is one of perceived quality alone - which the S2 falls short of the Sensation with.
 
Here we go again... :p

I get the perceived quality argument, I do. However, does your opinion on that change when you come to notice that after a bit of use, the Sensation starts creaking a bit within its shell when you press the screen? That would (and does) annoy me no end.

Also, perceived quality aside, I genuinely believe the Galaxy S II is the better built phone and it will be able to take more punishment if required. I know you wouldn't think it (I certainly didn't when I got the Sensation at first), but it's true.

Design is a totally fair point though, the Sensation does look more expensive if that's important to you. That is all down to personal opinion.

The only reason I prefer the Galaxy S II is that the battery tends to fare better and the camera/video performance is very noticeable when you're out and about trying to take pictures. Software wise I really do prefer the Sensation, HTC Sense is just excellent.

I'm not bothered about the screens, I think text is nicer to read on the LCD but the viewing angles are atrocious, but I'm not bothered about that.

I still believe the Apple Retina display is the best.
 
james.miller said:
i would say the desire is overly heavy but i am happy to admit this is after a month with an sgs2 - you adjust to the weight of whatever it is you are using. However, in no way do i think the desire is better built and I also dont believe it would come of better if they were both subjected to the same sort of impact tests.
Click to expand...

mrk said:
It may well feel better yes but looks? That's personal opinion :)

Regardless though, the HTC will start to creak, as almost all HTC phones with removable backs (whole backs) do. Some people even mentioned their Sensations creaking already in one of the other threads not long ago.

There's no chance of that on the S2, it's just too thin and the shell hugs the innards tightly so no possibility.
Click to expand...

[TW]Fox;19600619 said:
You might as well give up. They just don't get perceived quality (mrk does but only when it applies to something he personally owns) so you'll continue to argue until the ends of time. Some of us get your point.
Click to expand...

That's Mrk and myself talking about actual quality and that's you jumping in talking about the perceived and how we dont understand it, when its quite clear that Mrk and myself implied there was a difference between the two. Then you went on to argue with me, stating points i have already made myself, in this thread and others, implying I'm in idiot in the process, now we are here.
 
[TW]Fox;19601254 said:
As I look after my stuff I don't particularly have a requirement for something that 'takes punishment'.
Click to expand...

I look after my stuff too, but it seems that not everyone does :p
 
Robbo said:
Also, perceived quality aside, I genuinely believe the Galaxy S II is the better built phone and it will be able to take more punishment if required. I know you wouldn't think it (I certainly didn't when I got the Sensation at first), but it's true.
Click to expand...

Yes and i agree with that. the phone is really excellently designed. Had the phone been aluminium then perhaps it would be heavier and so it would appease the perception crowd but i do not for a second think that this would improve the build quality of the phone. It's minimalist, it doesnt have that hollow feeling that you can get with plastic phones like my bb 8900 had. That was smaller and heavier, despite still being plastic, and it didnt feel as solid as my sgs2.

I'd say if the only complains seem to be related to the lack of weight, the fact that it's plastic and not metal, and the 'flimsy' back cover that's only flimsy when its not on the phone then i'd say samsung did a great job. It doesnt have that premium feel that weight brings (and i except the sensation has the edge no question) but im happy with that as it's so well built.

edit: actually my 8900 wasnt heaver, it was 4 grams lighter. I guess it just felt heavier as it was smaller. That shows how easily your perception of reality can be skewed :o :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom