Motorola's new Droid Bionic (Targa) pre-release thread - Part 1

[servo086]

Do you want software updates? Samsung's terrible.

Sent via the HowardForums Android app

[Slaughtrr]

Do you want software updates? Samsung's terrible.

Sent via the HowardForums Android app

Thats their first year with Android. Things can change. They have a lot riding on the Galaxy S line-up I can't see them blowing it this year. They have already proved they are in the Android game to win with the Galaxy S 2.

[Sailorcancer]

Thats their first year with Android. Things can change. They have a lot riding on the Galaxy S line-up I can't see them blowing it this year. They have already proved they are in the Android game to win with the Galaxy S 2.

If I'm not mistaken the original Galaxy S got 2.2 last year.

[Slinky317]

I thought the Verizon version of the Galaxt S still doesn't have 2.2?

[Slaughtrr]

I thought the Verizon version of the Galaxt S still doesn't have 2.2?

Blame Verizon. The Original received the update.

[DroidCLH]

yeah, months after it should have.

[DroidCLH]

Blame Verizon. The Original received the update.

And lets face it, it should have released with FroYo

[Slaughtrr]

And lets face it, it should have released with FroYo

says who?






10char

[DroidCLH]

Me. I'm tired of being told to wait for something thats already been released, I think that a majority of phones should be running gingerbread by now. seriously the release delays are crazy.

[Sailorcancer]

And lets face it, it should have released with FroYo

Samsung announced the Galaxy S phone March 2010. Froyo didn't come out till May.

In addition you seem to forget these phones are created and worked for a long time. Samsung couldn't predict when 2.2 was coming out and in all fairness 2.1 was either the current or newer android OS when they were designing the series.

So it's either delaying the phone to get an update to it that will be obsolete when they release it. Or releasing the hardware and then releasing the s/w.

[DroidCLH]

http://binarysquared.co.cc/2011/03/m...eal-after-all/
Is it possible that the above article could be right?

[galpdawg]

I hope not

[DroidCLH]

It would explain its similarity to the Droid X, but than again it does have the 4G logo on the back

[Slaughtrr]

http://binarysquared.co.cc/2011/03/m...eal-after-all/
Is it possible that the above article could be right?

I'll take wnrussells word over this article. His track record says it all. The blogs never get it right.

[moosc]

the usb port looks just like my DroidX plug. I would love for them to move it up like on bionic. and coming out holiday this should have quad core not dual core or it will be outdated by release time

I'm calling "fake" on this.
1. The micro-USB port is upside down. Also, the left and right photos are exact mirror images except with the ports added onto the far-left copy.
2. There is a poorly Photoshopped-out "with Google" in the top-left corner of the back. That contradicts the skin on the device.
3. The Verizon 4G logo is wrong because it does not include the LTE on the side. (Logo from Bionic added for comparison. Note proportion issues, too.)
4. Unless the picture was taken on a very uneven surface, the right-most photo shows the phone as lop-sided.
5. The harsh black line cutting off the Verizon Wireless logo on the front of the phone isn't caused by anything in the environment.

Maybe this is what they wanted the DROID X to be? Who knows. But it can't be real.

Sent via the HowardForums Android app