Firstly, I'm NOT a Developer - I want to make that very clear
I have been trying to get data/info about what ever happened to the Original Samsung Galaxy S4 'TouchWiz'
Camera feature/ability to be able to 'Simultaneously' record videos (not talking about taking pictures here)
with both the front and back cameras on the phone.
This question has been asked before by a very very very small number of people on the net including in XDA
developers forums, However these questions only have been asked on forums relating to NEXUS phones/devices.
When i originally bought my S4 (second hand) i used the recording feature, i absolutely love it, i think it it brilliant,
it is one of the reasons why the S4 has such appeal for me.
I later upgraded to CyanogenMod, because of privacy concerns relating to Samsungs Involvement with the NSA over
their KNOX security.
The OS seemed fine to me, but this security concern was the basis of WHY i moved over to CyanogenMod.
Then i found out, that CyanogenMod does NOT Support the Dual Camera feature.
I contacted Samsung, and they told me that the Camera app was not really an app at all, but was in fact part of the OS itself.
But remember, the Genuine Samsung Galaxy is actually model number GT-i9500, which uses the Exynos Chip, unlike the Samsung Galaxy S4
variant known as the S4 LTE GT-i9505, which uses the Qualcom Chipset.
It has also been said by some XDA developers, that Samsungs 'TouchWiz' is not Open Source, it is Closed Source.
Well belonging to the company, this is no surprise, I'll also bet that it is probably Patented as well.
I say, so what ?, CyanogenMod does NOT need the original samsung 'TouchWiz' code, it only needs to know the HardwareSpecs of the Qualcom
Chip, then programming/developing can begin.
The S4 is already Superceeded by the S5 (and any possible variant(s) of that), i feel that the GT-i9505 is getting left out of the picture.
Are there any answers to this mystery ???
Related
I have been a fan of XDA and appreciate the development and support the devs provide. But last few days a thought is bugging me continuously. We saw a lot of posts about S Voice and other apps being ported to other devices. Specially for S Voice, I believe that it's illegal as this could potentially cause Samsung to lose sales. My views:
1] We know that this is re-designed vlingo. vlingo is available in market, S Voice is NOT. Clear indication that they (as in Samsung) don't want the app to be used with other devices and they are not willing to sell it separately. Using vlingo from market is NOT same as using S Voice.
2] Did Samsung give us the permission to use/modify and distribute the app?
3] There is some infrastructure costs associated with running the services. It costs money to install and maintain servers and network. I work in enterprise storage management, so I am aware of costs associated with such massive infrastructure. Who pays for the non-SGS3 devices using the services?
4] Did Samsung every promise that SGS2/Nexus or other phones will get S Voice? So, why should we assume that other Samsung-device owners have the divine right to use a feature meant for SGS3?
5] It is one of the main USP for SGS3. Check here. This is listed as the top-most feature in the SGS3 product page. Hacking this app to be used with other phones is going to harm the phone sale. Is that not clear enough?
6] When Samsung started blocking connections from other devices - was that not an indication that they want the service exclusive for SGS3?
7] How is this different from movie piracy? The uploader never gains anything, but the studios/producers lose money.
8] What if Samsung starts locking their device in future with locked bootloaders/DRM/encryption because of such activities? Can we then blame Samsung for locking the devices?
9] Android is open source - but why assume that every feature in any Android is also open source? If someone can show me that S Voice is open source software, I will retract my statement.
It's sad that most people here equate freedom with piracy. Freedom and piracy are not same thing. Such act in the name of open source and community-feeling does not make it right. Maybe Samsung won't do anything about it -- but it does NOT make this act any better. It will just prove that Samsung considers this to be a petty nuisance (I am not using the word crime as I know nobody is doing this for any monetary gain).
Though I support open initiative with regards to Android, but I can't support such act.
Last check this statement from Samsung in VERGE
An initial test version of S Voice which was found online has been blocked as Samsung Electronics does not want consumers to judge the quality of the voice feature based on a test version. When the product is launched, users of GALAXY S III will be able to fully experience S Voice.
Exactly my thoughts. Though I am not sure what can be done to stop it.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
rd_nest said:
I have been a fan of XDA and appreciate the development and support the devs provide. But last few days a thought is bugging me continuously. We saw a lot of posts about S Voice and other apps being ported to other devices. Specially for S Voice, I believe that it's illegal as this could potentially cause Samsung to lose sales. My views:
1] We know that this is re-designed vlingo. vlingo is available in market, S Voice is NOT. Clear indication that they (as in Samsung) don't want the app to be used with other devices and they are not willing to sell it separately. Using vlingo from market is NOT same as using S Voice.
2] Did Samsung give us the permission to use/modify and distribute the app?
3] There is some infrastructure costs associated with running the services. It costs money to install and maintain servers and network. I work in enterprise storage management, so I am aware of costs associated with such massive infrastructure. Who pays for the non-SGS3 devices using the services?
4] Did Samsung every promise that SGS2/Nexus or other phones will get S Voice? So, why should we assume that other Samsung-device owners have the divine right to use a feature meant for SGS3?
5] It is one of the main USP for SGS3. Check here. This is listed as the top-most feature in the SGS3 product page. Hacking this app to be used with other phones is going to harm the phone sale. Is that not clear enough?
6] When Samsung started blocking connections from other devices - was that not an indication that they want the service exclusive for SGS3?
7] How is this different from movie piracy? The uploader never gains anything, but the studios/producers lose money.
8] What if Samsung starts locking their device in future with locked bootloaders/DRM/encryption because of such activities? Can we then blame Samsung for locking the devices?
9] Android is open source - but why assume that every feature in any Android is also open source? If someone can show me that S Voice is open source software, I will retract my statement.
It's sad that most people here equate freedom with piracy. Freedom and piracy are not same thing. Such act in the name of open source and community-feeling does not make it right. Maybe Samsung won't do anything about it -- but it does NOT make this act any better. It will just prove that Samsung considers this to be a petty nuisance (I am not using the word crime as I know nobody is doing this for any monetary gain).
Though I support open initiative with regards to Android, but I can't support such act.
Last check this statement from Samsung in VERGE
An initial test version of S Voice which was found online has been blocked as Samsung Electronics does not want consumers to judge the quality of the voice feature based on a test version. When the product is launched, users of GALAXY S III will be able to fully experience S Voice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung will have known about this,
If they explicitly didnt want it to be shared with other android phones they could have prevented this easy in one of 2 ways,
1. integrate it into touchwiz framework
2. link the phones imei or unique identifier to the app and set up a database on the servers, similar to siri's protection.
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution. I dont think they mind this because they have NO competitor in the Android market and are far superior to any other OEM that produces android phones.
PS. The Android OS is open source but there are many applications that have closed source to protect their business. Touchwiz source is never fully open sourced and neither is Sense.
I remember a year ago with the CM team asking for help from Samsung for little bits of protected code to get the camera fully functioning on the stock android rom (CM7 ROM).
JD
JupiterdroidXDA said:
Samsung will have known about this,
If they explicitly didnt want it to be shared with other android phones they could have prevented this easy in one of 2 ways,
1. integrate it into touchwiz framework
2. link the phones imei or unique identifier to the app and set up a database on the servers, similar to siri's protection.
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution. I dont think they mind this because they have NO competitor in the Android market and are far superior to any other OEM that produces android phones.
PS. The Android OS is open source but there are many applications that have closed source to protect their business. Touchwiz source is never fully open sourced and neither is Sense.
I remember a year ago with the CM team asking for help from Samsung for little bits of protected code to get the camera fully functioning on the stock android rom (CM7 ROM).
JD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My view is that we took the application and made it compatible with other devices, Samsung never explicitly gave the permission.
Maybe they thought it would be easier to upgrade the app if it's not integrated into the TW. But I fear such activity may force them to become less dev-friendly in future.
It's a different story if in future they make the code available for CM9 or other projects separately. I just hope not, but the way it's being spread over the internet, I fear they will react in some way. Also throws a bad light over XDA.
JupiterdroidXDA said:
Samsung wanted this app to be freely available as they have done nothing to protect its redistribution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They obviously didn't want it to be freely available because they have blocked it now.
Anyway, I don't get this mentality that if something is not impossible to take, it's ok to take it.
I will ask about the validity of ripping/porting the samsung apps and post back to this thread. If there is anything illegal about it (and im not sure there is unless the apps have been licensed specifically to the Galaxy S3) then any links on xda will be taken down.
I cant do anything about the rest of the internet though lol.
Mark.
mskip said:
I will ask about the validity of ripping/porting the samsung apps and post back to this thread. If there is anything illegal about it (and im not sure there is unless the apps have been licensed specifically to the Galaxy S3) then any links on xda will be taken down.
I cant do anything about the rest of the internet though lol.
Mark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Much appreciated. I wanted this to be brought to the notice of MODs. Nobody wants XDA to be in bad light for such a petty affair.
As for the apps (specially S Voice) being exclusive to SGS3, I think so. That's what I infer from Samsung's statement in Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/22/3037943/samsung-blocking-s-voice-app-leak
But please do verify with relevant authorities and take appropriate actions (if required).
Mac OS X doesn't require a product key, but that doesn't mean my friend can just use my installation DVD legally, it all depends on the T&C's
The fact Samsung have blocked it for other devices should give an indication of their decision towards people using this software on another device. They may not send the FBI to kick down your door and arrest you, but cracking it to spoof a SGSIII for example would probably get a DMCA take-down notice pretty quickly. They almost certainly won't want all and sundry freely enjoying one of the big features of their new flagship device.
I have e-mailed Samsung PR dept on their views about this issue. Not sure if they check their Inbox
Unless we hear otherwise from Samsung, we will follow the normal site policy. In this case (though it is an edge case) for the moment we're allowing it.
If this is the case, then all devs who port roms from other models are in breach also.
Is this thread trying to stop dev work, and has the OP loaded the program, if he has shame on him for going against his beliefs, now let us and the devs get on with it.:what:
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Edit: phone model is Arc, now why did I change the prop build?
OP - Care to share how this is any different from all of the Sense ports to other devices? It's not.
I also like how you thanked Mark for checking into this - and that you were waiting to hear.... And then not even an hour later you go and contact Samsung PR? It sounds to me like you have an ax to grind.
I think everything that needs to be covered has been
Google translate crash
Web Broderick crash
Change play crash
Manga reader not responding crash
Missing air gestures option
Spent disabled
I'm pulling back to stock rom
Hope Samsung will support omni team more
romi1996 said:
Hope Samsung will support omni team more
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOOOOOOOOL!
The limit of Samsung's support of community developers has been to throw a few Galaxy S2 units over the wall with no followup.
Ever since then, they have been uncooperative at best, and at worst have in some cases engaged in practices that directly hurt community development efforts (such as the the XWLPM2 Superbrick disaster on I9100)
When you bought your Note 2, it was not a secret by any means that nearly all of the (then-Cyanogenmod) Exynos4 maintainers were transitioning to other devices. (Most of those people are now with Omni, but still - Exynos4 devices have been on minimal life support for more than a year.)
I don't know what the hell the OP is talking about when he says spen is disabled. Works fine here, further the spen apps on the play store are far superior to what Samsung puts out.
Samsung recognizes the problem of camera in Galaxy S5
Korean company Samsung has recognized the existence of a technical problem in some models of the new smart phone Galaxy S5, no technical problem at the level of a camera in this phone , where he faced a lot of users problems in this context .
Officials at Samsung confirmed the Website specialist (The Verge) that a number of phones Galaxy S5 already suffering from a technical problem at the level of camera devices , where he faces some users a problem when you use the camera and face notify the phrase (Camera Failure) and then stop the camera from work once and for all .
Assurances officials Samsung not accompanied by explanations of the reasons that caused the problem and not the number of people affected , although it is clear they are the problems of manufacturing , but in contrast, has been directing users who suffer from this problem is the need to go to the ( after-sales service for Samsung ) to solve this problem
Who cares ? This is an S2 forum 8-/
This is the SII forum..not the s5. Thread closed.
Hello, not exactly new to Android or Linux for that matter, but this has got me stumped.
I bought a Samsung Galaxy S5 from China because the seller conned me into thinking it was a g900v. It turns out its a Sm-G9006v. Android says it is 4.4.2 but other programs (Sysinfo, looking up the IMEI) tell me it is 4.2.2. So which do I believe? How do find out once and for all?
There are other little weird things about this phone and I'll explain if you'd like.
Sent from my SM-G9006V using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Here's some shots of system info. First two are from android rest are from sysinfo
Sent from my SM-G9006V using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
GeneralRikan said:
I bought a Samsung Galaxy S5 from China because the seller conned me into thinking it was a g900v. It turns out its a Sm-G9006v. Android says it is 4.4.2 but other programs (Sysinfo, looking up the IMEI) tell me it is 4.2.2. So which do I believe? How do find out once and for all?
There are other little weird things about this phone and I'll explain if you'd like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The additional information about anomalies would help. As you discerned, the system information screen looks legitimate, but SysInfo reports a fake i.e. MT6572/4.2.2. Which is correct?
One way to tell conclusively would be to run an extended benchmark suite. There would be a substantial difference in benchmark scores between a fake with a MT class processor and a legitimate G9006V (China Unicom S5). Alternately, you could look closely at the system files to discern if you actually have 4.2.2 or 4.4.2. Or multiple irreconcilable anomalies would.be compelling evidence of a fake.
.
Looking at the status bar icons it is pretty apparent this is not an original S5. Or maybe the seller rooted his device and changed the icons.
Also, it shows up as a Mediatek based device (mt6572). IT IS FAKE.
Hellscythe said:
Looking at the status bar icons it is pretty apparent this is not an original S5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since you're certain, can you provide a screenshot of a known legitimate China Unicom S5 for comparison?
If you've never seen a China unicom S5, then it's premature to declare it a fake before we really know. A different icon could easily be something that the carrier or a localized update effected.
.
fffft said:
Since you're certain, can you provide a screenshot of a known legitimate China Unicom S5 for comparison?
If you've never seen a China unicom S5, then it's premature to declare it a fake before we really know. A different icon could easily be something that the carrier or a localized update effected.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's running a Mediatek chipset. It is 100% fake. No variant of the S5 uses a Mediatek chipset. Kernel version is also incorrect and Android version shows JDQ39 which is Jellybean. No version of the S5 runs on Jellybean.
Here is your requested image: http://i3.sinaimg.cn/IT/cr/2014/0319/1504933938.jpg sourced from: http://tech.sina.com.cn/mobile/n/2014-03-19/07359253359.shtml
I'm thinking this might be the phone you're talking about...
http://upnovo.com/?Wholesale-China-mobile-cell-smart-phone-cheap/Chinese-Copy-Samsung-Galaxy-S5-G9006-Clone-Replica.html
You're assuming that sysinfo is correct. And it is far from 100% reliable. I already stipulated earlier that it will be a fake if sysinfo turns out to be correct. The information page for the G9006V that you found after the fact is inconclusive with mostly oblique screen views.
The bottom line is that we don't know one way or the other for certain yet. You can cherry pick the evidence suggesting it's a fake if you wish. But there is no reasonable basis to say that the matter has been conclusively proven yet. The OP needs to benchmark the processor or another metric that will clearly distinguish between the two.
.
its fake, the android numbers is jelly bean 4.3 , the battery icon is a themed one.
Wrong cpu, wrong board, wrong buildnumber, a clear and obvious copy of a S5. Sorry for you dude. Try to get your money back if you can if you payed with your credit card because of fraud
Yeah, it's 199% fake. Get a refund if possible.
If you want to make it sure, try connecting it to a pc with kies3.
It's a fake, looking at the photo's, the phone is a dual sim phone, in china only the sm9008W and sm9009 are dual sim.
A fake..
Now here's the kicker, it has the heartbeat sensor, it has the fingerprint sensor. Do you think maybe the person I bought it from just flashed it with a wrong ROM?
Sent from my SM-G9006V using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
GeneralRikan said:
Now here's the kicker, it has the heartbeat sensor, it has the fingerprint sensor. Do you think maybe the person I bought it from just flashed it with a wrong ROM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Despite a lot of dogmatic opinions in the thread, you still don't have enough information to know yet. You probably have a fake, but that isn't certain simply because a third party app says that you have Jelly Bean firmware and a MT processor. It's a fake if that information is correct, but it wouldn't be the first time that an app has reported erroneous information either.
Likewise, missing the heartrate or fingerprint sensors would be strong evidence of a fake. But the best quality clones do have working heartrate & fingerprint apps. The most damming evidence IMO is the kernel version which is suggestive of a clone. But I stand by my earlier advice. Had you run a benchmark suite, you'd already have a conclusive answer.
.
I'm testing and getting a couple donated tablets ready for a group, and one came in that was a SM-T237 (which is pre-KRACK-patches ). So far I have tracked down that it is an Exynos 3470 powered system, different from the Marvell SM-T230, and the Qualcomm Matisse, but I can't find even a code name for this particular device, and I want more information before I try to flash "TWRP for Galaxy Tab 4 Degas" or anything else that may or may not break it. Is it similar to any other tablet for a starting point at least?
Looks like nothing simple anyway. Thinking I'll probably slap a "be careful... vulnerabilities" sticker on this one and send it back with Lollipop, and focus my attention on the probably equally difficult ZenPads, but they have 3GB RAM and I have two of them to spread the justification for the effort over.