Related
05/07/11 - Finally, nexus wiki page is updated a few weeks ago. My apologies for being under the rock this whole time. Kudos to the guys who did all the work. Thanks so much guys for helping providing these infos. Keep them coming if you have anything to add.
================================================
I think there should be a sticky, or an updated nexus s wiki, about the variants of nexus s we are having lately and upcoming
Like, for example:
gt-i9020t for t-mobile, with info like samoled, t-mobile radio band, ...
gt-i9023 for europe, with amoled/sclcd, ...
and the ones coming out in canada
==================================================
Well, I finally figured out all these technical problems I was having - Thread got moved
Anyway, I just hope that we all share what we know, correct misleading info, gather it all and hopefully someone update the Nexus S wiki page.
(like the Galaxy S page where different models are listed which I think is very helpful)
==================================================
Model: GT-I9020T
Compatibility: T-Mobile USA, Wind, Mobility (900/1700/2100)
Screen type: Super AMOLED
Model: GT-I9020A, GT-I9020F
Compatibility: AT&T, Rogers, Fido, Telus, Bell (850/1900/2100)
Screen type: Super AMOLED
(Rooting differs from I9020T)
Model: GT-I9023
Compatibility: Most of countries outside of the N America continent
Screen type: Super Clear LCD
(Rooting method also differs from I9020T)
Model: SPH-D720
Screen: Super AMOLED
Bands: 800MHZ/1900MHZ/2.5GHZ (Sprint // 1xRTT, EVDO Rev. A, WiMAX)
--Thanks to NastyNate208--
Model: SHW-M200K, SHW-M200S
Compatibility: KT, SKT
Screen type: Super AMOLED
==================================================
why dont you start it then? :|
zephiK said:
why dont you start it then? :|
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, this just came up while I was about to buy myself one
Now, I am holding off because I want to get an at&t compatible one, but worried if it has sclcd which I don't prefer
As I digged deeper, the more I got confused
So I thought there should be some info on this that would help me and everyone else
Yes, I would make a thread for this, only if I had the time as I have a very tight schedule with work and school
9020 samoloed 9023 slcd
and if I'm not mistaken the 9023 is only around in europe. (which is why i have one - and let me tell you the screen isn't half bad either - the only pain is that it needs different recovery roms than the 9020 and that finding out how to unlock/root it took 10 extra minutes )
i think you guys got it a bit off...
i9020 is the original one (T-mobile USA 1700/2100 3G)
then came the i9023 (Europe 1700/2100 3G)
and it came the
i9020A (for AT&T 850/1900 3G)
and coming soon is the Nexus S 4G for sprint, which we do not yet the model code
jk0l said:
Actually, this just came up while I was about to buy myself one
Now, I am holding off because I want to get an at&t compatible one, but worried if it has sclcd which I don't prefer
As I digged deeper, the more I got confused
So I thought there should be some info on this that would help me and everyone else
Yes, I would make a thread for this, only if I had the time as I have a very tight schedule with work and school
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The AT&T is 9020A, the 9020 model is Super AMOLED. Adding the A means it'll be Super AMOLED. If it was SLCD then it would be 9023A.
Sprint will probably be 9020S
zephiK said:
The AT&T is 9020A, the 9020 model is Super AMOLED. Adding the A means it'll be Super AMOLED. If it was SLCD then it would be 9023A.
Sprint will probably be 9020S
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Considering one has to use the rooting technics of the 9023 to get a 9020A rooted, i don't see rhyme or reason for standard in the naming convention.
I strongly suspect that 9020 means AMOLED, 9023 means LCD, the A indicates ATT, the carrier info, or A as an official variant of the base model.
I believe that the reason the 9023 guide needs to be used to root the 9020A is because of the hardware revision of the device. I don't think that the 9023's only major difference is the screen and radio, there is something else more under the hood that is making a difference in how the phone behaves. And it's these changes that are brought into future models (like the 9020A)
My Device for example is marked as "REV - 16" for it's hardware revision
Matridom said:
I strongly suspect that 9020 means AMOLED, 9023 means LCD, the A indicates ATT, the carrier info, or A as an official variant of the base model.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is indeed correct if you look over at the i9000 forum
all the SLCD version of the Galaxy S are coded i9003 or something with a 3, like i903 (china SLCD version), i909 (china SAMOLED verison)
so for whatever the reason they like to use 3 to mean SLCD version
Nexus S Variants
*technical problem*
*technical problem again , updated first post*
SO what does my number signify? if anything?
GT-I9020FSRRWC
It's on the Rogers Network here in Canada
sal14m said:
SO what does my number signify? if anything?
GT-I9020FSRRWC
It's on the Rogers Network here in Canada
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Super AMOLED screen.
Just Information,
I'm from Indonesia and Baseband version is I9023XXKB3.
@jk0l
you should also list the frequency bands they operate in 3G otherwise is pretty useless to only know the models
we all know quad-band works with voice, but 3G are different for each of those
refer to my previous replies for details
the AT&T/Rogers/Fido also works on Telus/Bell
the T-mobile USA version also works with MobilityCity, Windmobile, Vidéotron
AllGamer said:
@jk0l
you should also list the frequency bands they operate in 3G otherwise is pretty useless to only know the models
we all know quad-band works with voice, but 3G are different for each of those
refer to my previous replies for details
the AT&T/Rogers/Fido also works on Telus/Bell
the T-mobile USA version also works with MobilityCity, Windmobile, Vidéotron
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assumed that everyone already aware of the 3g stuff since I've put down the carriers
But anyway, I've just included it as you prefer
PS. did you know that videotron still carries nexus one?
I dont know about now, but it was there the last time I checked
Don't foget that the i9023 is slightly thicker than the i9020 too - dues to the sclcd screen technology.
I found this out the hard way when buying a case for my i9023. It doesn't fit!
re: wiki
everyone is free to help update the wiki
you automatically have access to edit the wiki, for those that knows how to code in Wiki language.
GT-i9023 also can be had with a white battery cover, colour is classed as Perl White on the box.
what about the first stock model?
model Nexus S(yha thats how its model name is on my nexus s.):S
well its model GT-I9020
not I9020T.
last time i checked, england is in europe, and it has the i9020.
i'm also coming to the conclusion that the 9020a that's available in canada has improved gps drivers. of course as the phone - i'm guessing - will need root to install new drivers on the phone - those with the existing problem are sol. that's why google are 'looking into the problem' which i don't believe was not caught in testing, and is probably why a new phone has been released in canada for samsung to prove they can correct the problems.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s3-specs-ntt-docomo-86272/
First of all, the Japanese version of the S3, codenamed SC-06D, will be powered by a dual-core 1.5 GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon MSM8960 S4 processor. The “Krait” chipset will replace Samsung’s Exynos 4 Quad, set to power the S3’s international model. The main reason behind the substitution is the fact that NTT Docomo will offer Samsung’s new flagship with 4G LTE speeds and, as you may already know, quad core chipsets haven’t played nice with LTE. We suspected that the LTE-versions of the S3 would come with the MSM8960 chipset under their hood and, while it isn’t officially confirmed, we can now be almost certain that the US or Canadian models with 4G speeds will feature the same proc.
The second technical detail that will set the Japanese S3 version apart from the international model is the featuring of 2 GB of RAM. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, LG’s Optimus LTE2 is no longer the only smartphone to come with 2 GB of RAM and Samsung’s SC-06D could steal the spotlight from the recently unveiled LG phone in Korea.
In terms of software, the Samsung SC-06D will run Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich with TouchWiz 4.0 UI on top, as well as with the “Docomo Palette UI”.
Huh. That would be pretty sweet.
Guess time will tell.
First time I've ever thought I wanted a month to end that much quicker!
why they keep screwing up international versions?
1st that tegra3 garbage on 1x and now 1gb vs 2gb of ram on gs3..
This is most likely the US version then !! S4 + 2GB is nice.
I would take the Exynos over the 2gb of ram any day
Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio Z715e using xda premium
so, are there any US carriers that the japenese version would work on?
Most likely you would be limited to WCDMA connectivity if you privately imported one of these. (Unlocking is not a problem, DoCoMo unlocks brand new phones no question asked, just pony up 3150 yen)
International LTE bands are a total mess. Over 40 unique band allocations at last count.
I am holding onto my SII until the fallout of how similar/different the hardware ends up being with respect to custom rom development gets figured out. (DoCoMo SII was similar enough to the standard I9100 for most roms to be tweaked into working, though there were digital-TV and GPS issues and the partition sizing was a little different)
I don't get how the largest electronics company in the world cannot work out how to make 4G support for their main smart phone chip. Like it's the biggest failure about this phone, the only reason why I wanted it was for the Exynos 5 + the 544 but instead now we get the Snapdragon with the Adreno 320. Basically it has the same internals as every other frigging phone out there and I bet they'll be cheaper too like the HTC One has no up front cost.
It's just made me got "forget the GS4" not only did it look no different to the GS3 but the internals are a let down too because Samsung doesn't have 4G support for Exynos. At this point I'm just going to end my contract, go on a month by month contract as it's only £12 for unlimited data what I'm paying £40 a month for now. Then I'm just going to wait it out for something better, hopefully Nokia do a 41mp Windows Phone or something actually interesting rather than these lack luster phones we've had so far this year.
I was gonna upgrade but no Exynos 5 + 4G = no sale.
slannmage said:
I don't get how the largest electronics company in the world cannot work out how to make 4G support for their main smart phone chip. Like it's the biggest failure about this phone, the only reason why I wanted it was for the Exynos 5 + the 544 but instead now we get the Snapdragon with the Adreno 320. Basically it has the same internals as every other frigging phone out there and I bet they'll be cheaper too like the HTC One has no up front cost.
It's just made me got "forget the GS4" not only did it look no different to the GS3 but the internals are a let down too because Samsung doesn't have 4G support for Exynos. At this point I'm just going to end my contract, go on a month by month contract as it's only £12 for unlimited data what I'm paying £40 a month for now. Then I'm just going to wait it out for something better, hopefully Nokia do a 41mp Windows Phone or something actually interesting rather than these lack luster phones we've had so far this year.
I was gonna upgrade but no Exynos 5 + 4G = no sale.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using a seperate radio and SoC consumes more battery, and LTE already consumers more battery. The N2 has a gigantic battery which is why it was released with Exynos. With 40 different LTE bands a different radio has to be used depending on the market which also makes developing and supporting the s/w a pain in the ass.
This is coming out mid-year and should allow multiband LTE-capable devices to be built and sold just like HSPA devices have been in the past. Samung's already said they plan on using it.
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/relea...olution-enables-single-global-lte-design-next
Thing is if that comes out later in the year, at that point I might as well just see what Nokia or Apple do and possible Google will have the Nexus 5 by then. It's just not good enough really and I have my upgrade now from my GS2 like loads of other people who got one in 2011.
What are u talking about the upgrade is HUGE
www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s4-vs-samsung-galaxy-s3-169204/
S4 INFO
The Exynos supports LTE so the whole question you're posing is loaded with misinformation.
The question you should be asking why Samsung decided to pair it up with the Qualcomm instead; that has some more meaningful answers and hypothesises:
- The Octa is not ready for mass-production in the quantity so to satisfy the demand for the biggest flagship phone on the market right now.
- Because of the above, they chose to multi-source the SoC.
- Because the LTE models are supposedly globally multi-band it is easier to engineer only two models.
- Why did they even release it as such - that's what most people are angry about; it sucks for the enthusiasts but it makes perfect sense from a business perspective. Release it early so to catch as many users as possible who would be otherwise tempted by the HTC One or the Z.
And who says that we won't get a refresh with Exynos and LTE.
Using a seperate radio and SoC consumes more battery, and LTE already consumers more battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That argument is useless here. The Snapdragon 600 doesn't have an integrated modem so they still need a separate LTE chip. And also proven by demonstration by the many new LTE devices which separate chip (Note 2, i9305, One), the battery argument is again something which seemed to be pulled out of thin air last year.
AndreiLux said:
The Exynos supports LTE so the whole question you're posing is loaded with misinformation.
The question you should be asking why Samsung decided to pair it up with the Qualcomm instead; that has some more meaningful answers and hypothesises:
- The Octa is not ready for mass-production in the quantity so to satisfy the demand for the biggest flagship phone on the market right now.
- Because of the above, they chose to multi-source the SoC.
- Because the LTE models are supposedly globally multi-band it is easier to engineer only two models.
- Why did they even release it as such - that's what most people are angry about; it sucks for the enthusiasts but it makes perfect sense from a business perspective. Release it early so to catch as many users as possible who would be otherwise tempted by the HTC One or the Z.
And who says that we won't get a refresh with Exynos and LTE.
That argument is useless here. The Snapdragon 600 doesn't have an integrated modem so they still need a separate LTE chip. And also proven by demonstration by the many new LTE devices which separate chip (Note 2, i9305, One), the battery argument is again something which seemed to be pulled out of thin air last year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's unlikely we will get a refresh with Exynos + LTE. Even the Korean LTE versions are Snapdragon-based.
We might see them earliest in Note 3.
Livebyte said:
It's unlikely we will get a refresh with Exynos + LTE. Even the Korean LTE versions are Snapdragon-based.
We might see them earliest in Note 3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's up to Samsung.
Japan also got a refresh and was in the same situation; original release was the Qualcomm S3, then they got the S3 Alpha which is basically an i9305 with the Note 2 Exynos revision. T-Mobile are also adopting their M3 (i9305) variant.
AndreiLux said:
The Octa is not ready for mass-production in the quantity so to satisfy the demand for the biggest flagship phone on the market right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wild ass guess.
Because of the above, they chose to multi-source the SoC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They used Exynos 4 in tablets last year so they had plenty and still multi-sourced.
Because the LTE models are supposedly globally multi-band it is easier to engineer only two models.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Until the RF360 comes out LTE radios are hardware limited as to the bands they support so there are multiple radio configurations based on where the device is to be sold or used.
Release it early so to catch as many users as possible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wild ass guess. How many mainstream users know what an Octa or Snapdragon is and would care if they did?
And who says that we won't get a refresh with Exynos and LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A wild ass guess I'd agree with based on it driving more profit for Samsung by using their own SoC.
That argument is useless here. The Snapdragon 600 doesn't have an integrated modem so they still need a separate LTE chip. And also proven by demonstration by the many new LTE devices which separate chip (Note 2, i9305, One), the battery argument is against something which seemed to be pulled out of thin air last year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why did Samsung deploy the N2 with Exynos/LTE and not the SGS3?
BarryH_GEG said:
Why did Samsung deploy the N2 with Exynos/LTE and not the SGS3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Qualcomm didn't start offering a standalone LTE+GSM combo solution until late 2012 as far as I know. And Samsung did eventually offer an Exynos+LTE SGS3 with the I9305, which was released in fall 2012.
I suspect the Exynos vs. Qualcomm difference has nothing to do with LTE but is for some other reason, as others have said, the Snapdragon variants are not using one of the Qualcomms with integrated baseband, but one of the standalone modem chipsets (like the Xperia Z and Nexus 4 do... And in fact I think every quad-Krait device on the market is using an APQ with an external modem chipset.) Probably production rampup is one of the issues, also, the Exynos5 "Octa" is not by any means a proven platform, so Samsung might be sticking with a more proven base for the majority of their devices.
BarryH_GEG said:
Until the RF360 comes out LTE radios are hardware limited as to the bands they support so there are multiple radio configurations based on where the device is to be sold or used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're massively mistaking amplifiers and actual modems. The modems are identical on all models since they're compatible with everything. The Note 2 LTE variants are globally the same thing and the only difference are the antennas and amplifiers.
BarryH_GEG said:
They used Exynos 4 in tablets last year so they had plenty and still multi-sourced.
...
Why did Samsung deploy the N2 with Exynos/LTE and not the SGS3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Last year" encompasses a period of 12 months, so please think a bit before doing such arguments. The S3 was launched on May 29th while the second device to have the Exynos was the Galaxy Note 10.1 in mid-August. That's already a 3-month period between devices and in manufacturing terms, that's an eternity. Furthermore you're comparing a device in double-digit million sales within the first two months to a tablet which basically nobody bought.
Furthermore they did not release it with LTE because at the time there wasn't any discrete modem available and only Qualcomm's MSM offered LTE capability. This is the same reason the Tegra 3 One X never came out in the LTE enabled countries, they were in exactly the same situation. The Note 2 (And i9305) came out with the Exynos + Qualcomm because the MDM9215 was specifically available as a discrete chip by that time.
Also please refrain from calling things wild ass guesses when your own claims are even more uninformed.
Check this:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/data/competitive.pdf
BTW, does s600 have integrated LTE? I believe not.
I recall the model name was APQ***
s800 is supposed to have integrated LTE.
hot_spare said:
Check this:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/data/competitive.pdf
BTW, does s600 have integrated LTE? I believe not.
I recall the model name was APQ***
s800 is supposed to have integrated LTE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the 600 being included in the GS4 is an APQ - which means no integrated baseband.
While there are quad Kraits with integrated modem on Qualcomm's roadmap, they are quite rare. As in I have yet to see a quad-Krait device that wasn't an APQ.
Could be related to the yield issues mentioned in the PDF above.
AndreiLux said:
The Exynos supports LTE so the whole question you're posing is loaded with misinformation.
The question you should be asking why Samsung decided to pair it up with the Qualcomm instead; that has some more meaningful answers and hypothesises:
- The Octa is not ready for mass-production in the quantity so to satisfy the demand for the biggest flagship phone on the market right now.
- Because of the above, they chose to multi-source the SoC.
- Because the LTE models are supposedly globally multi-band it is easier to engineer only two models.
- Why did they even release it as such - that's what most people are angry about; it sucks for the enthusiasts but it makes perfect sense from a business perspective. Release it early so to catch as many users as possible who would be otherwise tempted by the HTC One or the Z.
And who says that we won't get a refresh with Exynos and LTE.
That argument is useless here. The Snapdragon 600 doesn't have an integrated modem so they still need a separate LTE chip. And also proven by demonstration by the many new LTE devices which separate chip (Note 2, i9305, One), the battery argument is again something which seemed to be pulled out of thin air last year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you give more information on which LTE bands exynos supports?
Sent from my Xperia Arc S using xda premium
1337RYoN said:
Can you give more information on which LTE bands exynos supports?
Sent from my Xperia Arc S using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exynos4 and Exynos5 don't support ANY LTE bands directly. In fact they don't have built in wireless capability of any form. Neither does the Snapdragon 600 that is going to be sold in the GS4, neither does the APQ8064 used in many current Qualcomm quad-Krait devices.
All of the above depend on an external modem chipset, in almost all cases for LTE devices Qualcomm MDM9x15 or MDM9x25. Band support is determined by the RF frontend chipset (Qualcomm WTR1605L in all cases probably) and what bands the manufacturer added RF frontend filters for.
There is nothing that prevents a MDM9x15 or 9x25 from being hung off of an Exynos4 or Exynos5 (in fact, that's what was done for LTE Note2 variants).
The misconception that "this or that CPU doesn't support LTE" comes from the early days of LTE when the only multiband multimode modem was Qualcomm's, and initially Qualcomm only provided it in the form of fully integrated MSM CPU+baseband solutions. But since Qualcomm started selling the standalone MDM9615 last fall or so, there's nothing preventing any CPU with HSIC support (which basically any modern CPU has) from having LTE connectivity.
Exynos "Octa" not having LTE almost surely has nothing to do with technical incompatibilities but everything to do with Samsung not wanting to put all of their eggs in one basket with an unproven highly complex processor.
so what will be the better choice ? Snapdragon or Exynos, if both support 4G?
Now if the extnos octa does support lte, which I believe it does just not American frequencies. If it has a Qualcomm radio and its model supports multi band or world radio chip that support everything (forgot model number). Can a different modem enable those lte bands or is it all hardware related??
S4 Exynos 5 import -- 4g works?
Entropy512 said:
Exynos "Octa" not having LTE almost surely has nothing to do with technical incompatibilities but everything to do with Samsung not wanting to put all of their eggs in one basket with an unproven highly complex processor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolute novice here, so if it's not down to technical reasons would an imported GS4 with the Exynos 5 still actually work with 4G networks, or will it just not work end-of? Would there be any way to mod the phone's firmware to get the 4G supported, or is the failure due to the hardware itself?
MattKneale said:
Absolute novice here, so if it's not down to technical reasons would an imported GS4 with the Exynos 5 still actually work with 4G networks, or will it just not work end-of? Would there be any way to mod the phone's firmware to get the 4G supported, or is the failure due to the hardware itself?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same question here. Furthermore, I am curious as to why no one else makes LTE modem besides Qualcomm.
MattKneale said:
Absolute novice here, so if it's not down to technical reasons would an imported GS4 with the Exynos 5 still actually work with 4G networks, or will it just not work end-of? Would there be any way to mod the phone's firmware to get the 4G supported, or is the failure due to the hardware itself?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each device is customized for the bands it will run on. See the Note2 as an example - There are multiple t0lte variants, the N7105, I317 (AT&T), T-Mobile version, Sprint version, Verizon version - Each had RF frontend hardware customized for their target carrier/region. The CPU was the same (Exynos), the modem was the same (MDM9615), the primary RF chipset was the same (WTR1605L I *think*), but the RF frontend filter and switching circuitry was different for each variant, meaning you couldn't just flash an I317 baseband to N7105 and get AT&T LTE support for example.
As to why no one else is making an LTE modem besides Qualcomm - Qualcomm have more experience with these things than any other company. Many of the core principles of communications theory were created by Qualcomm's founders. Principles of Communication Engineering is still considered the Bible of communications theory, written by Wozencraft and Jacobs (Jacobs being one of the founders of Qualcomm, along with Andrew Viterbi, famous for the Viterbi Algorithm.) Same reason Qualcomm was the first company to achieve reasonably power-efficient UMTS baseband chipsets.
Edit: Here's a good read regarding Qualcomm's modems: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6541/the-state-of-qualcomms-modems-wtr1605-and-mdm9x25
maybe somebody interestening in
octa core with lte all 20 bands???
go to sammobile and look the new news.
Octacore supports LTE all 20 bands
Is Samsung developing a new Galaxy Note II variant for China with a Snapdragon 600 chipset underneath, instead of the company’s very own Exynos chip? A leaked AnTuTu benchmark for a GT-N7108D, running on a 1.9GHz processor and Android 4.2.2 Jelly Bean, suggests that might be the case.
With a score of 26901 points, this new variant would be even faster than the Galaxy S4, which currently reigns supreme in possibly every benchmark test out there. This new variant of the Note II is apparently headed to China Mobile with support for their TD-LTE network, which explains why Samsung is suddenly working on a Snapdragon variant of the device (Qualcomm’s chips come with an integrated LTE modem, which offers better battery life and efficiency), almost a year after the original Note II was launched.
This Snapdragon-powered Galaxy Note II has also appeared at the FCC, with the filing confirming support for the Wi-Fi 802.11ac 5GHz standard, which is currently only supported on 2013 flagships like the Galaxy S4 and the HTC One (and is expected to be the next big thing when it comes to Wi-Fi speeds.) So, while it is possible the benchmark might be a fake, the fact that a newer Galaxy Note II variant is in the works is all but confirmed.
However, the question remains: why is Samsung working on a new variant of their second-generation phablet when its successor will be making its way to the market before the end of this year, with even better specs across the board? I guess we’ll have to wait for further info to get an answer to that, though we won’t be expecting to see this faster and more powerful Galaxy Note II launch outside China
Source with pictures: www.sammobile.com/2013/07/22/snapdragon-600-galaxy-note-ii-showed-up/
Oh I just saw that there is already a topic about this. Sorry.
Hi, I have Galaxy s5 g900f and NextRadio installed to receive fm radio but it doesn't work because carrier didn't unlocked it. S5 Sprint version has it. Can someone port Sprint S5 kernel to G900F version? I tried TuneIn radio but I need offline radio.
As dar as I know, it's a hardware limitation
Enviado desde mi SM-G900F
It may just be wishful thinking, but the current consensus is that it's a software (or firmware) limitation:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2661286&page=16#post57373795
The phones with it seem to have the same hardware as those without.
They both share this Broadcom chip which is capable of receiving FM radio signals. Whether or not the sprint version uses this or not I don't know. It is not at all uncommon to find redundant hardware in mobile tech.
It's very unlikely that Samsung would commission a special variant for just one carrier. It really doesn't make business sense. The most likely explanation is that Samsung pays Broadcom a rate depending on which features they use. Sprint have simply foot the extra money for the FM capabilities so Samsung have enabled them.
It is possible that the Broadcom chip requires a specific external oscillator (if it doesn't somehow share the same 2.4GHz one the bluetooth and Wi-FI uses). My poor-man's electrotec instinct is telling me it's impossible to put an accurate oscillator inside an IC. Relatively speaking, these are actually expensive components. Samsung could simply not load the pick'n'place machine with this component and there you go. They've saved money with no design changes whatsoever and we loose our FM This is a visible mod and if we ever get pics of the two mainboards side by side we would be able to tell.
However! It is also possible the Broadcom chip can have features permanently deactivated via an eFuse to satisfy licence requirements. (Nasty right? but it does go on unfortunately It's a lot cheaper than making several different chips)
I think we have a great chance to be honest, but no one has announced they're working on it now.
If like me, you really want this feature, I suggest heading to the post above and pledging a donation for a working hack.
My s5 mini is same.