On 19 Jan 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> I'd definitely avoid the A32 5G. When the Cnet review says "We
> tested Samsung's cheapest 5G Galaxy phone, and it's not bad"
><https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/we-tested-samsung-cheapest-5g-gala
>xy-phone-its-not-bad/>
> that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

And they're right - it's not a bad phone... when it works. They were
lucky enough to get a working sample, or they didn't use it long enough
for it to malfunction.
> The biggest drawbacks are: a) low resolution display (1600 x 720
> compared to 2400 x 1080 on the A52 (both 4G and 5G), b) the
> low-performance processor, c) the 64GB of storage, and d) no IP
> rating.

All those were OK with me. Display was fine, network speed was decent,
storage was expandable, I don't know what IP rating means so that
wasn't a factor. I did, in fact, get 5g speeds at times, which was nice
but not required.

If only the thing didn't crash spectacularly and often.

> Of course "Andy" doesn't care about any of this. He bought the A32
> 5G and hence everyone else should also buy it.

Right. Doesn't seem to matter that there are dozens of documented
reports of the device becoming unusable.

On 19 Jan 2022, Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:54:11 -0500, Nil wrote:
>
>> Nice attempt to change the goalposts, by the way.
>
> It's always the trolls claiming the goalposts are changed when the
> goal post is written in big bold letters in the SUBJECT line of
> this (& every) thread.
> *Good $200 Android phone please*

Goalpost:

> "I have not seen even a _single_ negative review for the Galaxy
> A32-5G. Can you name just one negative review for us so we can
> take a look please?"

Answered by me in good faith in great detail.

Repositioned Goalpost:

> "Can you find even a _single_ professional review with a bad
> rating for it?"

That is irrelevant, as I explained and as should be obvious, and I
wouldn't bother chasing your moving goalposts.

On 1/19/2022 5:11 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

> All those were OK with me. Display was fine, network speed was decent,
> storage was expandable, I don't know what IP rating means so that
> wasn't a factor.

IP=Ingress Protection, how waterproof and dust-proof the phone is. The
A52 5G is rated "IP67-" but I've never seen a - sign before in an IP
rating and it is not an official IP rating as far as I can tell.

Low-end phones typically have no IP rating and cannot withstand any
immersion.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code>

On phones, there are price levels below which there is a dramatic drop
in quality and functionality. It's usually a good idea to spend enough
to buy something in the mid-tier where the display, the processor, the
RAM, and the storage take a big jump.

On 19 Jan 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> On 1/19/2022 5:11 PM, Nil wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> All those were OK with me. Display was fine, network speed was
>> decent, storage was expandable, I don't know what IP rating means
>> so that wasn't a factor.
>
> IP=Ingress Protection, how waterproof and dust-proof the phone is.
> The A52 5G is rated "IP67-" but I've never seen a - sign before in
> an IP rating and it is not an official IP rating as far as I can
> tell.
>
> Low-end phones typically have no IP rating and cannot withstand
> any immersion.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code>

Interesting. I've never gotten a phone very wet so I never considered
that. My previous phone, a Motorola X4 had some degree of water
resistance but I never challenged it. The phone I settled on after the
Samsung A32 fiasco is a Pixel 5a, which I see carries an IP rating of
67, which means it should survive being dropped in a urinal but I
shouldn't take it deep sea diving.

On 1/19/2022 5:23 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

A while back I was looking for a reasonably priced mid-range Android
device too. I have pretty simple basic requirements for a phone:

• 6.5" or greater AMOLED screen (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
• > 400 ppi pixel density (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
• 128GB or more of storage (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• Headphone Jack (3.5mm) (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• MicroSD Memory Card Slot (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• NFC (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• Fingerprint scanner (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• ANT+ (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• Must work on AT&T and Verizon (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• IP 67 or greater (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)

Would be nice
• Wireless charging (no on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
• 90 Hz or more refresh rate (120 Hz on A52 5G, 90 Hz on A32 5G)
• MST (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)

Not needed
• 5G, including C band (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
• mmWave 5G (no on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)

You can get a 4G LTE model with these minimum specs for $250 or so
unlocked (and a lot less if locked for a year).

For a 5G model similar in other specs to a 4G model, add $150 or so. For
example, the unlocked A52 5G was on sale for $400 in December.

The A52 5G from Cricket, locked for 180 days, for $259.99 is a very good
deal, especially for someone who was on Metro and doesn't mind switching
to a better carrier for 180 days (or permanently). 180 days is about
$180 ($30/month x 6 months).

The whole 5G thing is rather ridiculous for a lower-cost phone, though I
suppose on T-Mobile, whose LTE speeds are very slow, it makes some
sense. But Verizon's LTE speeds are comparable to T-Mobile's low-band 5G
speeds.

For a 5G phone, probably better to wait a year or two until all phones
have 5G and the prices come down (unless you're buying a subsidized phone).

What makes the A52 5G a mid-range phone rather than a high-end phone?
Slower processor, no mmWave 5G, no wireless charging, no IP68,
lower-quality (but still very good) cameras.

On 1/19/2022 5:57 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

> Interesting. I've never gotten a phone very wet so I never considered
> that. My previous phone, a Motorola X4 had some degree of water
> resistance but I never challenged it.

One day my wife was gardening next to our swimming pool and dropped her
Moto X4 in the pool. I was outside and was designated to dive into the
pool retrieve it. Fortunately we have a high wood fence around our back
yard. The X4 worked fine after being submerged at about 12 feet for a
minute or so.

On 1/19/2022 5:57 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

> Interesting. I've never gotten a phone very wet so I never considered
> that. My previous phone, a Motorola X4 had some degree of water
> resistance but I never challenged it. The phone I settled on after the
> Samsung A32 fiasco is a Pixel 5a, which I see carries an IP rating of
> 67, which means it should survive being dropped in a urinal but I
> shouldn't take it deep sea diving.

I really liked the Moto X4. It was the last mid-range, reasonably priced
(around $200 on sale), smallish Android. My daughter and my wife both
had them. My daughter broke hers, she took my wife's X4 and I got my
wife the Samsung S10E, the last mid-size Galaxy S phone.

It was interesting to see both the X4 and the S10E go up in price, for
new ones, as they aged because people were paying more to get the few
smaller decent Android phones. Now you can buy the Asus Zenfone 8 but
it's nearly $700 for the 8GB/128GB and nearly $800 for the 16GB/256GB.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:27:16 -0800, sms wrote:
> You can get a 4G LTE model with these minimum specs for $250 or so
> unlocked (and a lot less if locked for a year).

THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BE A GOOD REFERENCE CITE FOR NOW & THE FUTURE.
*Good $200 Android phone please*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>

It's good when intelligent well-educated people compare facts, as it's a
rarity on Usenet for people to list the facts as they objectively are.

Since I'm a purposefully helpful kind-hearted person, I went to the trouble
to vet Steve's rather useful list, but with _budget_ phones in mind (not
high-end phones which Steve's list caters to).

That is, of course, apropos given the clearly budget SUBJECT of this thread
*Good $200 Android phone please*

To that end of a budget (aka "low end") phone, to ask for features Steve is
listing (such as AMOLED screens) is, IMHO, not apropos for low end devices.

Steve's "high end" list of features isn't bad for high end phones, but we
need to keep in mind we're trying to find the best price:performance here.

To that end, Steve should have added the $190 unlocked Motorola Moto G Power
(2022), which, let's be blunt, is only 3/4 the 4G LTE price he set at $250.
> For a 5G model similar in other specs to a 4G model, add $150 or so. For
> example, the unlocked A52 5G was on sale for $400 in December.

I disagree that the 5G feature costs $150 based on the phones I already
suggested as it's much closer to 1/2 of that for the phones I suggested.

> What makes the A52 5G a mid-range phone rather than a high-end phone?
> Slower processor, no mmWave 5G, no wireless charging, no IP68,
> lower-quality (but still very good) cameras.

It's not a "mid-range" phone, Steve... it's a _low end_ budget phone.
Which everyone in the USA postpaid on T-Mobile were offered for free.

The lack of wireless charging is meaningless to me, where the thing lasts
for _days_ (the battery could jumpstart my car) and the fast charger that
came with the box charges the thing in a surprisingly short period of time.

You're correct on the frequency bands though as this is what the phone has:
<https://i.postimg.cc/FFByv7Ps/bands01.jpg> Hidden Network-Mode Activity
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZKnwPGQ0/bands02.jpg> Hidden Band-Selection Activity

And these are the 5G mmwave bands.
<https://www.5gmmwave.com/5g-mmwave-frequency-bands/>
NR 5G mmWave frequency bands above 24 GHz
Band n257, 28GHz, LMDS band
Band n258, 26GHz, K-band
Band n259, 42GHz, V-band
Band n260, 39GHz, Ka-band
Band n261, 28GHz, Ka-band

> A while back I was looking for a reasonably priced mid-range Android
> device too. I have pretty simple basic requirements for a phone.

Being well educated, I just want to note you keep deprecating "my" choice,
but what you don't understand are ratios. The price:performance of a free
phone is _impossible_ for you to beat if you pay anything for your phone.

The price:performance ratio of a free phone aside, let's compare the wish
list you provided, which I easily grant you isn't a bad list to start with.

> 6.5" or greater AMOLED screen (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
> > 400 ppi pixel density (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
> 128GB or more of storage (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> Headphone Jack (3.5mm) (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> MicroSD Memory Card Slot (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> NFC (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> Fingerprint scanner (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> ANT+ (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> Must work on AT&T and Verizon (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> IP 67 or greater (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
>
> Would be nice
> Wireless charging (no on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
> 90 Hz or more refresh rate (120 Hz on A52 5G, 90 Hz on A32 5G)
> MST (Yes on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)
>
> Not needed
> 5G, including C band (Yes on A52 5G, yes on A32 5G)
> mmWave 5G (no on A52 5G, no on A32 5G)

Let's use _your_ criteria to compare the $190 Moto G Power 2022:
�<https://www.google.com/search?q=full+specifications+motorola+moto+G+power+2022>

Desired
6.5" or greater (*Yes* on gt 6.5")
AMOLED screen (No on AMOLED as it's IPS LCD 90Hz)
gt 400 ppi pixel density (No as it's ~270 ppi density)
128GB or more of storage (*Yes* on 128GB@cost, Yes on 64GB)
Headphone Jack (3.5mm) (*Yes* on industry standard aux jack)
MicroSD Memory Card Slot (*Yes* on industry standard sdcard slot)
NFC (No on NFC)
Fingerprint scanner (*Yes* on fingerprint, side mounted)
ANT+ (No on the ANT+ Garmin bluetooth standards)
T-Mobile, AT&T & Verizon (*Yes* for all USA & Canadian carriers)
IP 67 or greater (No on IP67 as it's IP52 rated)
Would be nice
Wireless charging (No wireless charging, even USB-C is slow)
gte 90 Hz refresh rate (*Yes* on the 90Hz refresh rate)
MST (No on Samsung magnetic secure transmission std)
Not needed
5G, including C band (No on 5G)
mmWave 5G (No on mmWave 5G)

Steve's high-end features list aside, since this is clearly a thread about
low end budget phones, I think it's more useful to the reader to compare the
two low-end budget phones that come up in multiple reviews, such as these:

Required:
Low cost (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
Headphone Jack (3.5mm) (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
MicroSD Memory Card Slot (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
T-Mobile, AT&T & Verizon (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)

Desired:
6.5" or greater (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
128GB or more of storage (Yes for both but at additional cost)

Would be nice
Fingerprint scanner (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
5G, including C band (No on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
mmWave 5G (No on $190 Moto G, No on free A32-5G)
IP 67 or greater (No on $190 Moto G, No on free A32-5G)
Not needed
ANT+ (No on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
NFC (No on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)
MST (No on $190 Moto G, No on free A32-5G)
AMOLED screen (No on $190 Moto G, No on free A32-5G)
Wireless charging (No on $190 Moto G, No on free A32-5G)
gte 90 Hz refresh rate (Yes on $190 Moto G, Yes on free A32-5G)

Bear in mind _multiple_ reviews compare these exact two phones above.
*Motorola Moto G Power (2022) Review*
<https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motorola-moto-g-power-2022>
"The 2022 Moto G Power is a good no-frills phone that won't break the bank.
It handles basic tasks with ease, doesn't have bloatware, and can easily
get you through a day between charges. That said, we would have liked to
see a 1080p screen (even at the expense of the 90Hz refresh rate) and
wish Motorola had either shipped the phone with Android 12 or committed
to two future OS updates. Still, it's a good value for the price,
offering longer battery life than the $159.99 Moto G Pure and stronger
camera quality than the $169.99 Moto G Play. If you're willing to spend
a bit more, however, the $279.99 Samsung Galaxy A32 5G offers the best
bang for your buck, with even better camera quality, stronger software
support, and 5G connectivity, making it our Editors' Choice."

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:23:42 -0500, Nil wrote:

> Goalpost:

The "goalpost" of this thread is to suggest a good cheap set of
(around $200) budget Android smartphones that are available today.

That's why the SUBJECT line of this thread is exactly what it is:
*Good $200 Android phone please*

>> "I have not seen even a _single_ negative review for the Galaxy
>> A32-5G. Can you name just one negative review for us so we can
>> take a look please?"
>
> Answered by me in good faith in great detail.

With respect to your repositioning of the goalposts, I'm fine with your rant
that you hate what tracfone gave you. You ranted. We listened to your rant.

You ranted again. We responded.
You ranted yet again, and again, and again.

OK. We get it.
You don't like the tracfone phone.

What more do you want from your rant against a phone that tracfone gave you?
That phone is, by all counts, about $280 so it's not even a $200 phone.

> Repositioned Goalpost:

Notice both Steve and I added value to the conversation with useful detail.
How does your endless purely emotional rant against tracfone add any value?
> That is irrelevant, as I explained and as should be obvious, and I
> wouldn't bother chasing your moving goalposts.

I get it that Steve wants to also change the goalpost to a Verizon
higher-end phone than a $200 (as that's what he's looking for).

There's nothing wrong with Steve's suggestions, as they _fit_ with the
original topic of the thread, which clearly is a budget smartphone.

However, Steve's list of needs is slightly higher-end than what was
originally envisioned, which is ok - but we just need to adjust to that.

To that end, I first further fleshed out his list of requirements (which
isn't bad for mid range and for higher end phones) adding the $200 phone.

Then, since I'm a kind-hearted purposefully helpful soul, I modified Steve's
list to change it from a mid-to-high-end wishlist, to a budget wishlist.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic/m/3XCi0js_EQAJ>

Don't you think the three lists Steve and I provided are better value for
the recipients of this thread, than your endlessly repeated tracfone rant?
List #1: Steve's list of mid-range features (comparing two phones).
List #2: I added to Steve's comparison, a third ($190 budget) phone.
List #3: Then I compared one phone from each list for _budget_ features.

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 02:11:09 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> > Any good suggestions that others can benefit from?
>
> Maybe have a look at <https://www.gsmarena.com/> ?

No experience, but Nokia have a reasonable reputation for lower end phones.
They have some starting at $150:
https://www.nokia.com/phones/en_us/smartphones

On 1/20/2022 12:12 PM, Theo wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 02:11:09 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>
>>> Any good suggestions that others can benefit from?
>>
>> Maybe have a look at <https://www.gsmarena.com/> ?
>
> No experience, but Nokia have a reasonable reputation for lower end phones.
> They have some starting at $150:
> https://www.nokia.com/phones/en_us/smartphones

Phone Scoop is another good place to search for phones based on specific
criteria
<https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/finder_results.php?w=s&car=r&ca_2=y&ca_4=y&ca_5=y&avr=r&av_2=y&plr=r&pl_20=y&dwr=r&dw_1439-9999=y&dw_1079-1438=y&drr=0&f30r=r&f30_31=y&m13r=r&m16r=r&f89r=r&f32r=r&f32_3=y&f60r=r&f55r=r>.

The problem is that at $200 it's a little below where you can buy a
mid-range phone.

On 1/20/2022 12:40 PM, sms wrote:

<snip>

> The problem is that at $200 it's a little below where you can buy a
> mid-range phone.

Actually the Phone Scoop Search should have been
<https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/finder_results.php?w=s&sao=y&car=r&ca_2=y&ca_4=y&ca_5=y&avr=r&av_2=y&plr=r&pl_20=y&dwr=r&dw_1439-9999=y&dw_1079-1438=y&dtr=r&dt_6=y&dpr=r&dpv=6.5&drr=r&dr_89-119=y&dr_119-143=y&dr_143-999=y&f30r=r&f30_31=y&m14r=r&m15r=r&m13r=r&m16r=r&f89r=r&f90r=r&f90_7=y&f83r=r&f32r=r&f32_3=y&f60r=r&f55r=r&f73r=r&f72r=r&f92r=r>

• AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon 5G, including C Band
• Memory Card Slot
• Headphone Jack
• At least Full HD + (1080p)
• Fast Charging
• NFC
• At least IP67
• At least 90 Hz refresh rate
• At least 6.5" screen
• Fingerprint Reader
• Stereo Speakers

Sadly, only one phone shows up, the A52 5G. The cheapest I've seen it is
around $300, and right now it's around $500.

On 20 Jan 2022, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> With respect to your repositioning of the goalposts, I'm fine with
> your rant that you hate what tracfone gave you. You ranted. We
> listened to your rant.

Oh, blow it out your ass, Arlen. You know full well that you asked me a
question, I answered it, and you intentionally turned it into an
argument like you always do.

On 20 Jan 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> I really liked the Moto X4. It was the last mid-range, reasonably
> priced (around $200 on sale), smallish Android. My daughter and my
> wife both had them. My daughter broke hers, she took my wife's X4
> and I got my wife the Samsung S10E, the last mid-size Galaxy S
> phone.

I liked my Moto X4 a whole lot. For some reason I can't explain, wi-fi
performance was better than any other phone I've owned (which is not
many.) The only reason I replaced it now was that Tracfone informed me
that it was not VoLTE compatible and that when Verizon shuts down their
3G network the Moto would stop working. I could have waited (it appears
that Verizon has delayed the change until the end of this year) but I
had an opportunity to get the new and shiny Samsung A32 5G at a great
price... which did not come to a good end.

Anyway, the X4 was an excellent performer and was the first smart phone
that I never had any significant issues with. Very reliable. If it were
possible to be nostalgic about a telephone, that would be one.

On 1/20/2022 11:36 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

> I liked my Moto X4 a whole lot. For some reason I can't explain, wi-fi
> performance was better than any other phone I've owned (which is not
> many.) The only reason I replaced it now was that Tracfone informed me
> that it was not VoLTE compatible and that when Verizon shuts down their
> 3G network the Moto would stop working.

Hmm, still have an X4 on my Total Wireless/Tracfone family plan.

"I then put in my TF Verizon sim. There was a Toggle for VoLTE but none
of the others." from <https://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1912599>.

<https://www.reddit.com/r/MotoX4/comments/me2k0r/volte/>
"The Moto X4 is absolutely HD Voice capable, in fact I used HD voice on
this phone on Verizon prepaid in 2019."

From
<https://www.reddit.com/r/MotoX4/comments/k70c3k/does_the_moto_x4_support_volte_or_not/>:
"For most of 2019 I was using Verizon prepaid service & I had VoLTE on
my X4. But I since switched to AT&T prepaid and I do not have it VoLTE
because AT&T only allows on Iphones & AT&T sold Android phone's. You
can't get VoLTE on unlocked devices with AT&T."

The X4 has the Qualcomm Snapdragon 630
<https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon-630-mobile-platform> which
supports VoLTE.

On 1/15/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 02:11:09 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli

<snip>

>> Any good suggestions that others can benefit from?
>
> See
> https://www.amazon.com/Android-Phone-Under-200-Dollars/s?k=Android+Phone+Under+200+Dollars

If the other person doesn't mind switching to Cricket for six months
they can get an A52 5G for $234.99. I can't imagine why someone on Metro
would object to switching to Cricket for six months, but there could be
a reason, like being on a family plan with other people on the plan
having phones that are being financed or that can't be unlocked yet.

Minimum Cricket service with 5GB of data is $30 per month. For someone
currently on prepaid service anyway, it may be a good deal, and they can
always switch to another prepaid carrier after 180 days when Cricket
will unlock the phone.

Caveats:
1) You have to port in a number to get that price, but for most people
that's not an issue (you can always get a number to port in for $10 or
less if you are getting a new line).

2) The initial prices is $259.99 but you can get a referral code that
will take $25 off after 60 days, see
<https://www.reddit.com/r/CricketReferrals/>

If you're really intent on minimizing costs you can often buy discounted
Cricket refill cards at Target, usually in February.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:23:35 -0800, sms wrote:

> Sadly, only one phone shows up, the A52 5G. The cheapest I've seen it is
> around $300, and right now it's around $500.

Steve's thread is apropos since what someone looks for in a low-end sub $200
phone is _different_ than what someone looks for in a mid-range phone.
*Good $200 Android phone please*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/EoqHQGrRtic>

*Selecting an Unlocked, Mid-Range, Phone*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/qe7lsYEtKag>

Comments there about the Fingerprint scanner, ANT+, MST and the fast
charger-in-the-box.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:19:08 -0500, Nil wrote:

> You know full well that you asked me a
> question, I answered it, and you intentionally turned it into an
> argument like you always do.

And yet, you fabricated that claim since it was _you_ who asked the
question.

When you ranted against tracfone, I listened.
When you ranted again (and again and again), I responded.

I responded by asking you for a _single_ reliable professional review that
claims that the device (outside and above any tracfone issues) is what you
claim.

And you found nothing.
*Not even one*

And _that_ is the classic response of all bullshitters like you are.
*Your entire belief system is based on exactly _zero_ actual facts.*

On 22 Jan 2022, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 02:19:08 -0500, Nil wrote:
>
>> You know full well that you asked me a
>> question, I answered it, and you intentionally turned it into an
>> argument like you always do.
>
> And yet, you fabricated that claim since it was _you_ who asked
> the question.
>
> When you ranted against tracfone, I listened.
> When you ranted again (and again and again), I responded.
>
> I responded by asking you for a _single_ reliable professional
> review that claims that the device (outside and above any tracfone
> issues) is what you claim.
>
> And you found nothing.
> *Not even one*
>
> And _that_ is the classic response of all bullshitters like you
> are.
> *Your entire belief system is based on exactly _zero_ actual
> facts.*

You're not going to fool anybody by lying like that. If they care to
check (which isn't very likely,) they can easily see what was said and
when. Your posts are date- and time-stamped and it's demonstrable fact
that YOU asked for "just one review." I gave you several. THEN you
moved the goalposts to demand "one professional" review. I've seen you
try to create conflict like that before. I won't play that game.

Also, those "rants", as you call them, are not mine. They are quoted
from the many user reviews I found at unrelated sites around the net,
including Samsung's own.

On 1/22/2022 5:19 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

> Also, those "rants", as you call them, are not mine. They are quoted
> from the many user reviews I found at unrelated sites around the net,
> including Samsung's own.

The reviews of the A32 5G have not been great. See
<https://shop.totalwireless.com/shop/en/totalwireless/phones/tw-samsung-galaxy-a32-5g-s326dl#2>.
More 1 star reviews than any other rating.

Better to switch to Cricket for 180 days and get the A52 5G for $234.99,
plus $30 per month for service for six months.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 20:19:30 -0500, Nil wrote:

> Your posts are date- and time-stamped and it's demonstrable fact
> that YOU asked for "just one review." I gave you several. THEN you
> moved the goalposts to demand "one professional" review.

Why don't you open a tracfone rant thread instead of derailing this one?
This thread is about finding a good $200 budget Android phone.

1. This thread isn't about your personal tracfone hatred rant.
2. If you want a tracfone rant, what's stopping you from starting one?

On this newsgroup, we post links to _professional_ well-vetted reviews.
I even posted links to professional reviews to Steve's mid-range thread.
*Selecting an Unlocked, Mid-Range, Phone*

And I commended Steve for opening that mid-range thread.
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/qe7lsYEtKag>

On the other hand, this thread is _clearly_ about a $200 budget Android.
Why don't you open a tracfone rant thread instead of derailing this one?

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 17:26:32 -0800, sms wrote:

> The reviews of the A32 5G have not been great. See
> <https://shop.totalwireless.com/shop/en/totalwireless/phones/tw-samsung-galaxy-a32-5g-s326dl#2>.
> More 1 star reviews than any other rating.

Steve... sometimes I wonder about your professional abilities.
*How is _that_ URL pointing to _any_ professional reviews?*

All it says that they wrote is:
"Galaxy A32 5G pairs our best core features with one of the most
affordable 5G devices on the market. That means you get a long-lasting
battery, expandable storage, multiple cameras, a super-crisp display
and blazing-fast 5G speed."

All that is true, Steve, is it not?
It's what the professionals wrote, Steve, is it not?

Yes, I see the idiot reviews but those are _not_ professional reviews.
Idiots are held to no standard whatsoever save for the ability to type.

Why can't you find even a _single_ professional review backing your claims?

On 1/22/2022 5:19 PM, Nil wrote:

<snip>

> Also, those "rants", as you call them, are not mine. They are quoted
> from the many user reviews I found at unrelated sites around the net,
> including Samsung's own.

While I'm not a fan of carrier-provided, locked, phones, this thread is
ample evidence that _sometimes_ it makes sense to take advantage of
phone discounts in exchange for being locked to a carrier for six months
to a year.

I think that this thread was about someone on Metro looking for a new
phone. The cheapest plan on Metro is $30/month for 2GB of data. On
Metro, you can get an A32 5G for free, or an A52 5G for $99.99, but only
if you port in a number as a new customer, it's not for existing
customers apparently.

A Metro customer could always port out to a carrier like Cricket, buy
the A52 5G for $234.99, and pay $30/month for 5GB of data. After 180
days they can get the A52 5G unlocked and go back to Metro if they
desire (or go to another MVNO), though it's hard to imagine a reason why
someone would choose Metro over Cricket, other than for the fact Metro
has bigger discounts on new phones for new customers.

Bottom line, there's no good reason to burden someone with a low-end
phone like an A32 5G when they can get a much better phone for not that
much more money.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 08:30:48 -0800, sms wrote:

> While I'm not a fan of carrier-provided, locked, phones, this thread is
> ample evidence that _sometimes_ it makes sense to take advantage of
> phone discounts in exchange for being locked to a carrier for six months
> to a year.

Being "locked in" depends on how long you plan on staying on your carrier.
I've been on T-Mobile for a decade; so being "locked in" for two years
doesn't mean much since I don't plan on moving off T-Mobile anytime soon.

And, even if I did, all I'd have to do is pay off the remaining numbers of
months on the free phone, which for a $280 phone is about $12/month.

In short, being locked in is _not_ a big deal to almost everyone out there.

> I think that this thread was about someone on Metro looking for a new
> phone. The cheapest plan on Metro is $30/month for 2GB of data. On
> Metro, you can get an A32 5G for free, or an A52 5G for $99.99, but only
> if you port in a number as a new customer, it's not for existing
> customers apparently.

This is good to know for most people as this thread _was_ for a person in
Capitola who knew I get phones at a good price:performance point.

She's not mobile so she will sit in her house and barely use the phone.
The only thing she really wanted was more than 16GB, which, I'm guessing, is
'cuz she takes copious pictures of her grandchildren (which I would do too).

Thanks to Steve, he found out the coverage in Capitola is just fine for her.

> A Metro customer could always port out to a carrier like Cricket, buy
> the A52 5G for $234.99, and pay $30/month for 5GB of data. After 180
> days they can get the A52 5G unlocked and go back to Metro if they
> desire (or go to another MVNO), though it's hard to imagine a reason why
> someone would choose Metro over Cricket, other than for the fact Metro
> has bigger discounts on new phones for new customers.

I'm thankful Steve found those better plans, but for this one old lady, it's
not in the least likely she can handle the details.

She almost went crazy with the details when she first told me she was on
T-Mobile and then I told her about the free phones but then she said that
Metro was what she was on (and she blamed me for the complexity).

That's normal for people who ask for simple answers so I'm fine with that.
I can certainly handle complexity more than can most people so I appreciate
Steve's research for how to get the cheapest phone in the Santa Cruz area.

> Bottom line, there's no good reason to burden someone with a low-end
> phone like an A32 5G when they can get a much better phone for not that
> much more money.

Actually, given her price when I asked was $200, I suggested the Moto G
Power 2022, which is about $190 last I checked.

The Samsung Galaxy A32-5G was $275 which is one third over her asking price.

BTW, I received a handful of those A32-5G phones for free last April
and I'm happy with them. No problems whatsoever other than I screwed up the
charging port hardware (through no fault of the phone), where T-Mobile
replaced it for free under warranty (even though it's a Samsung phone).

The funny thing was T-Mobile customer support first told me to call Samsung
but then I said "hey, I'm your customer!" so they took care of it for me.
They even gave me an advanced 20 dollar credit because the stores all charge
20 if you do anything with them (and it had to be traded in at the store).

Is it _normal_ for the carrier to do the warranty or the carrier for you?

On 24 Jan 2022, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
comp.mobile.android:

> While I'm not a fan of carrier-provided, locked, phones, this
> thread is ample evidence that _sometimes_ it makes sense to take
> advantage of phone discounts in exchange for being locked to a
> carrier for six months to a year.

I would avoid locked phones, I have bought them in the past when it was
just too good a deal to pass up. I'm a Tracfone devotee - their
paradigm fits me well. I mostly use my phone as a wi-fi device, don't
do a lot of voice or texting, and while I get a limited amount of
mobile data with my annual re-up, I can buy more as I go if I need it,
and I get to keep all unused service when I renew. Tracfone offers a
few decent locked phones, sometimes at very good promotional prices.
Since I have no immediate plan to leave Tracfone, I might get one of
theirs if the price was compelling (the dreaded Samsung A32 5G was an
example of that) but I would prefer go for a third-party unlocked
phone.

> Bottom line, there's no good reason to burden someone with a
> low-end phone like an A32 5G when they can get a much better phone
> for not that much more money.

I've come to agree with that for myself. It took me many years to
realize that I use the thing enough that I should treat myself to at
least a midrange phone and not cheap out. I'm still not willing to pay
premium prices for a premium machine that will always be near-obsolete
within a couple of years.

For me the Samsung A32 would have been very adequate for the price I
paid if it didn't severely malfunction for me personally and for so
many other documented users.