Samsung Galaxy S7 Review

Samsung Galaxy S7 Review

By: Peter Egan

Samsung Galaxy S7 Not Without Major Flaws

Overall Grade:  C

Update: The auto-correct feature on the Samsung Galaxy 7 is so bad I had to revise this review and downgrade it from a B- to a C, and I still feel I’m being generous.

Seriously though, if you’re in the market for a new smartphone, do yourself a favor and get a Motorola (if you prefer Android) or an iPhone. Don’t let the commercials with the people blown away by the headsets fool you. If a phone can’t spell 9 (and this one can’t), what are the odds that it has other deficiencies? Here’s a suggestion for anyone thinking of getting a new phone: Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals – Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Electronics.

Sometime towards the end of November 2016, my two year-old Motorola Android Maxx smartphone started to malfunction in ways that indicated to me that it was time to get a new phone.

Most importantly, it stopped charging altogether no matter the charger (although mysteriously started charging again once I brought home its replacement).

However, there were other flaws. The screen was cracked, it only occasionally picked up the WiFi at my house (although it never had a problem picking it up elsewhere), and the actual reception is relatively poor where my house is located. Maybe the metal roof has something to do with it, but the bottom line is that when it decided to detach from WiFi, I was missing important calls, texts, emails, etc.Samsung Galaxy S7

So I decided it was time to get a new phone. After what seemed like an eternity at the Verizon store (this is a testament to their staff taking the time to explain to me in detail the ins and outs of every phone in-stock, not a complaint), I settled on the Samsung Galaxy S7. The deciding factor for me was that I can still plug headphones and speakers into the S7. I’m not ready to go wireless, I don’t like Bluetooth and I’m waiting to see what type of audio quality (and volume) these wireless speakers have to offer before I restrict myself to a very new technology about which I have plenty of reservations.

My take on the Galaxy S7 from Samsung

Don’t let the commercials with the kids (and old people) mesmerized by virtual reality headsets reminiscent of 1990’s Aerosmith music videos fool you into buying this phone. While the Galaxy S7 has some positive features going for it, there are also some major drawbacks. If I could go back in time two months, I’d really have to strongly consider paying an extra $150 and getting the Motorola phone, sucking it up and just deal with the Bluetooth audio being imposed on me.

Samsung Galaxy S7 Headset

Let’s recap some of the positives and negatives of the Galaxy S7.

The positives:

  • The camera is very high-quality: The photos I can take on this phone are indescribably better than those I had become accustomed to with my Motorola Android Maxx. The camera on this phone is incredible, and may be it’s best feature.
  • There’s plenty of space: I like apps, and photos — lots of them. This phone lets me have them both.
  • Call quality is about what I expected.

The negatives:

  • Typing: Texting, Facebook, Messenger or anything else that involves typing. One of the things I loved about my old Motorola phone was it really was a “smart” phone. It’s auto-correct feature actually corrected typos, and it had a capacity to learn new words, acronyms and abbreviations that may not be standard English but which are part of my regular vernacular.

The Samsung Galaxy S7 is the dumbest “smart” phone I’ve ever seen in this regard. It takes the liberty of changing words I spelled correctly to misspelled versions of the same words, different words altogether or my (least) favorite of all, nonexistent words. And God-forbid if you ever have to hit the backspace button to fix a type, the Galaxy S7 lacks the capacity to recognize that you’re still typing the same word, and will treat any new typing you do as though you’re typing an entire new word as opposed to correcting a word you’ve misspelled. Then it will combine the new word it thinks you were trying to spell with the portion of the actual word you were typing that you typed (this applies even if you type the entire word, spelled correctly, but had to hit the backspace button to fix a letter).

This is a remarkable pain to deal with. The worst part is, after a month with this phone, it has shown no capacity at all to learn my typing tendencies, and still takes far too much liberty with regard to inserting auto-correct into places it has no business being. I’ll likely end up just having to turn the feature off entirely because it’s wrong more than it is right. Sure, it’s good for fixing “its” to “it’s”, and other common mistakes made involving apostrophes (especially the ones I deliberately make because auto-correct fixes it). However, I’m not sure that the auto-addition of an apostrophe here or there justifies the amount of having to delete entire words and slowly type the word I want typed, then click the “check mark” symbol to confirm with Galaxy that I indeed intended to type the word exactly as I did. With such a limited vocabulary (Galaxy S7 really doesn’t know many words compared with my 2 year-old Motorola), this gets very annoying.

I haven’t found any other significant flaws so far, but the auto-incorrect is a pretty major one. If I encounter any more I’ll update the review accordingly.

Overall, I give the Samsung Galaxy S7 a C grade. While the camera is fantastic, there’s plenty of space and there are lots of cool features I don’t care about but some people undoubtedly will (like the headset), the Galaxy S7 is the “Special Ed” of smart phones. Its ability to make typing more difficult than ever before on any device (phone, tablet or computer) is remarkable in itself, and would earn this phone a C- were it not for the camera and the quality of photos.

My advice to someone shopping for a new phone is to consider whether or not sounding like a complete idiot in typed conversations (or taking the time to fix Galaxy’s inexplicable errors) is important to that individual or not. If it is, I’d strongly consider looking into other options, because there are plenty of other phones on the market now with great cameras, and that seems to be the main thing the Galaxy S7 has going for it. An older model Motorola phone has all the positives associated with the Galaxy and is very intuitive and intelligent. Motorola phones made this decade have vocabularies that exceed that of your average six year old (the Galaxy really is that dumb — it has a VERY limited vocabulary and is incapable of grasping the concept of an apostrophe, as well as incapable of learning via user behavior).

Overall, the Samsung Galaxy 7 gets a C because of the camera and the plug-in, traditional external audio device port. If you plan to buy one, expect to turn auto-correct off because this phone is so incredibly stupid you’ll have to in order to come across as an incoherent idiot who uses words out-of-context, non-existent words and is unable to spell properly, much less deploy proper use of grammar.

Why is Wikipedia Begging for Money?

WikiPedia Chooses Blind Communism Over Common Sense

I’d like to offer a very generous proposal to make Wikipedia financially solvent without the world’s largest online encyclopedia having to beg on street corners for spare change while unshaven and at least a week since their last shower.

Wikipedia Begging
Wikipedia has a page on Advertising. They know what it is. Like good liberals, they believe all money is for government and profits are earned in order to be given to the government.

Okay, so I took some license here with regard to the panhandling, disheveled appearance and putrid body odor, but the analogy is really not that far off the mark. At least to me, that is precisely the image that pops into my head when I see one of the world’s largest and most successful websites threatening to close down permanently due to financial shortfalls.

Of course, this should come as little surprise considering Wikipedia has relied on donations and volunteer for the duration of its existence. At some point the amount of work is inevitably going to reach the point of excess relative toward the good will and charitable nature of others.

Wikipedia could integrate advertising and within a month pay off any/all liabilities. Every monthly surplus thereafter could either be designated as profit (and Wikipedia changed from a non-profit to for-profit entity). That said, they could allow advertising and remain a non-profit entity.

Wikipedia is so liberal, they think advertising is inherently evil. So they want individual readers and editors to donate to them instead of just allowing advertisers to advertise.

They don’t even need to engage in such liberal blasphemy as advertising. Sure the proceeds could be used to start a foundation to raise money for feeding Africa’s poorest countries or installing a water cleansing or desalinization plant in a place like Haiti… Maybe even some plumbing to go with it.

But no, they evidently aren’t capable of allowing sponsors to sponsor pages/topics, so they won’t help solve world hunger, or provide Haitians with clean water. No, those people will have to continue to suffer an impoverished life the likes of which anyone who has ever heard of Wikipedia can so much as envision (no plumbing, electricity or clean water on an island near the equator).

Communism Killed Wikipedia
Wikipedia is so liberal, they think advertising is inherently evil.

So here’s my proposal:

Sign over Wikipedia to me, Peter Egan, effective immediately. In so doing, I will be assuming full control of both the organization’s assets and liabilities. Wikipedia will incur no additional financial losses from the moment the paper is signed.

And yet, I haven’t a doubt in my mind that I can not only turn around Wikipedia’s financial fortunes, but do so in a hurry too. If in four months, I don’t have the company solvent at the very minimum, I will incur my losses and spend as long as necessary paying them back. I’ll even agree to keep it non-profit provided I receive a salary consistent with that of an executive or an organization that size complete with healthcare, benefits, retirement, etc.

The below image is more recent than that above. They’re actually soliciting every visitor to the site with a pop-up that covers the entire screen, forcing you to close it or make a donation to view your content. Click the image to view the full-size version.

Wikipedia Begging / Panhandling
Wikipedia Doing Its Best “Homeless Vet” Impression… (Click image to view full-size.)

I don’t foresee that scenario occurring though (me going bankrupt after assuming control of Wikipedia’s assets and liabilities). You see, I am aware of a few concepts called supply-and-demand, and I have no doubt whatsoever that advertisers would be getting in line the moment the announcement was made that Wikipedia would began selling a small advertising spots in a manner that did not in any way corrupt the integrity of the information (which was always overblown anyway).

So Wikipedia, you can either fold like quitters and losers and allow one of the greatest developments in the history of the internet die needlessly because you were too stubborn to put your liberal egos aside long enoughCommunism is bad, mmkay to come to your senses and make a rational decision.

Reneging on the vow to never accept money from advertisers is far less of a breach of principle than is throwing away one of the treasurers of the internet — and all because you wanted to prove how much you hate capitalism. In other words, you’re threatening to close Wikipedia if people don’t give money in exchange for nothing, closing one of the most oft-used sites in the web’s history all because you want to show the world how devoted you are to your political views.

What will happen if Wikipedia does become insolvent financially, they’ll (I speculate) charge viewers and move to a paid membership model whereby those who pay for memberships can have access to varying amounts of content, depending on how much is paid. That would have far more influence on the site’s contents than would advertising all run through a third-party broker.

My final question is this: Since your “free,” communist utopia of Wikipedia is failing financially and on the brink of collapse, are any of the site’s founders or major contributors intelligent enough to recognize that this is merely one major example proving the point that communism is a failed economic system everywhere it is and had every been tried? Can they see that it always will fail until the end of time so long as people continue to delude themselves into thinking that it only needs one more chance to work, and that the hundreds of failures from over the past hundreds of years are all aberrations?

Granted, it hasn’t gone full communist yet (paywall model) whereby you MUST pay or you can’t have access, almost certainly with exceptions made for certain groups and individuals who are leftist nobility and/or members of high-priority interest groups. They of course would benefit from those who pay for access by being granted free access. These exceptions, while not explicitly stating as much would only be available to the left’s preferred classes and groupings of people.

Is the sun setting on Wikipedia?
Is the sun setting on Wikipedia?

This my readers and friends, is why communists being allowed to vote in a free society is a recipe for civil war and economic collapse. I’m as much for freedom of expression as the next guy, but not when said expression takes the form of mass murder, misinformation and financial calamity; which is what has happened every time communism has been tried anywhere, ever.

If Wikipedia does in fact implement a model whereby certain people have to pay while others will still be able to use the site free (socialism), I fear one of the web’s greatest creations and one of the most valuable properties on the web will be left to deteriorate in ruins, much like the abandoned housing complexes (the ones that look like college dormitories) in the old Soviet Union.

If that happens, it will be a shame and a pity. I’d be willing to risk my own financial wellbeing to prove that advertising does not have to influence content.

That said, if I have to pay for access to Wikipedia, or if I make a voluntary donation, I’d like my own page, and I’d like it to be the first one returned when one searches the name “Peter Egan.”

Communist Devil
Communist Devil