• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

***Official Galaxy Nexus Pre-Release speculation thread**

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upvote 0
I would like to see a 100% crop of it? Please? View it @ 100% and crop a section out and post it for me? Say, just his head?

View this page and then click on the magnifying glass (near the top right) to bring up a Flash viewer of the whole photo.

EDIT: Photo's been removed. Oh well.
 
Upvote 0
While that's somewhat disappointing, I would rather have a 4.65 inch plastic phone that fits into my pocket than a metal brick which doesn't

Edit:


Ooooohh, the first rumor that actually seems believable. Except it coincides with the Moto event, doesn't it?

It could be that Samsung is looking to take the wind out of Moto's sails and Google is trying to prove it isn't going to favor Moto. I, of course, base this on nothing but my own thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gilgehmesh
Upvote 0
There's a lot of dorks on IRC but usually it starts out with some knowledgeable users, then gets flooded with idiots. I got on there when it was just getting started and I trust much of the info that was posted early. I would bet my bottom dollar that they did in fact get this info from a test phone. The only question is...was it the final product? Makes sense that it probably would be since otherwise there's no real reason to test in the first place. They admitted "older" firmware but unlikely that the hardware is going to magically change unless they updated the phone's internals and left them out of the loop which once again doesn't make any sense other than an intentional deception campaign which is reaching bigtime.
 
Upvote 0
aren't these essentially just the BGR specs?

Similar, but if we remember, vz_wired said there were four incorrect specs from BGR.
Comparing this new set of specs to BGR, we find the following differences:

1) TI OMAP4460 with dual-Cortex A9 cores clocked @ 1.5GHz (BGR claimed 1.2GHz)
2) 2MP Front facing camera (BGR claimed 1.3MP)
3) Rumored SAMOLED+ display (just because it's samsung, not actually confirmed) (BGR claimed regulard SAMOLED, not SAMOLED+)

Which would leave just one more difference. My guess would be the battery (BGR claimed 1,750mAh).

However, I'm a bit skeptical about the SAMOLED+ screen, which would then leave an additional difference...
 
Upvote 0
Similar, but if we remember, vz_wired said there were four incorrect specs from BGR.
Comparing this new set of specs to BGR, we find the following differences:

1) TI OMAP4460 with dual-Cortex A9 cores clocked @ 1.5GHz (BGR claimed 1.2GHz)
2) 2MP Front facing camera (BGR claimed 1.3MP)
3) Rumored SAMOLED+ display (just because it's samsung, not actually confirmed) (BGR claimed regulard SAMOLED, not SAMOLED+)

Which would leave just one more difference. My guess would be the battery (BGR claimed 1,750mAh).

However, I'm a bit skeptical about the SAMOLED+ screen, which would then leave an additional difference...

Interesting. Either battery or the device's name....

hey! I said best guess. and then confirmed with a "no one really knows" either way still proves my point that you cant trust irc

lol
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones