Anonymous, 22 Mar 2017That endurance rating should be on all flagships!Especialy with always on display still got long enough with 80 hours. Nice job Sammy
Anonymous, 22 Mar 2017That endurance rating should be on all flagships!Only flagships have to have high performance chipsets to gobble up the juice
Yeah, S7 price is cut down RM500 (RM2199 flat version) in Malaysia,
So there is just a bit different with A7 17 (RM1899).
Will they release Galaxy A9 (2017) with 4000 mah battery? That gonna be awesome beast.
Their A series have bigger batteries than their flagship S series. Guess they don't know what the meaning of a flagship is. It is supposed to showcase the best that the company can offer.
quote:"Samsung is still keeping the A7 (2017) away from European markets for some reason and until that changes, gray imports are your only bet on the Old Continent."
And that reason is that carriers are full of unsold A(2016) stock.So basically no one care bout newer ones,even less at this price points.
Jumped straight to page 3 to check its battery score. Will read the rest of the review tomorrow. :-D
If we browse the internet, can we really get a 15:28 screen on time as your test result on this phone? Just curious to ask if a phone could really get a 15 hour of screen on time now?
Seriously what's up with Samsung. Their low end or mid range phones are better than their flagship.
I mean this one has better endurance rating than S8 (surely , S8 would use just 3000 mah).
C9 Pro better day to day performance (due to ram caching)
All have a better aspect ratio...
Is Samsung dropping the ball with S8 or what?