| rocketpig said: When did "durability" become synonymous with "build quality"? The two have little to do with one another. A Faberge egg is terribly fragile but I don't think anyone would claim that its "build quality" is low. Personally, I think Apple made a mistake with the glass-backed 4/4S because it suffered from a functionality standpoint... The phone should survive at least a nominal drop. But that doesn't mean its build quality was low. It was a very well built phone that had some design choices I didn't agree with at the time (and still don't). The SII/SIII are fine phones with good build quality. Hell, I almost bought an SIII before deciding to wait for the new iPhone 5 instead (screen size and my frustrations with my current Android phone were the main reasons). But if you hold an SIII next to a top of the line Apple or Nokia, its build quality suffers by comparison if only because it uses cheaper components in its construction. |
I think durability is one of the most important aspects of design. Apple got that right in Iphone 5 it seems, but Iphone 4/4S was bad. And seriously what components in Iphone is expensive compared to a Galaxy? Actually a GS3 cost significantly more to produce. Almost half percent of the components in an Apple device (excluding the Iphone 5) are produced by Samsung. The rest is mostly aluminum and glass and they are not that musch expensive. Samsung can use aluminum of course, but then GS3 would probably weigh more than 200 grams. Nokia uses the same plastic and their phone weigh 185 grams, I don't know how they achieve that.
In my opinion, the reason why people think that Galaxy phones are inferior in build quality is that their designs are not that good. I am not fancy of GS3 design either, while N9 is great in that department. They should really do something about that in GS4.
