[Galaxy S III General] Hunt3r.j2:
I can put my points in bold font and bright colors to look more convincing too.

That's great to know that you like to run your phone with enough light to burn retinas in the dark, if that's what you like then run S-LCD2 and you'll get all the brightness you can ever want. Color perception can be subjective, but if colors are calibrated properly then at least we can talk about differences in perception instead of how Samsung likes to put horrible color calibration on their screens. The conversation matters even if you like to stay ignorant to it. The discussion isn't on larger LCD TVs, it's about general screen technology.

Sure, people aren't measuring instruments, but it's obvious to see that something is wildly oversaturated when you actually see the image in reality, or compare to a calibrated display. How am I handcuffed by technical knowledge? Because I can tell you that usually a certain brightness is needed to be visible outdoors, because I can tell you that the colors look wrong, because I can tell you that the battery drain is worse, I'm the one who's handcuffed? Stop trying to defend Samsung, they don't need it, they're the biggest OEM in Android, and they certainly don't care about what anyone thinks as long as their strategy works.

Then great. Get the GS3. Why are you still in this thread trying to justify your decision?

That's great. Go on and buy the GS3 and enjoy it. Some people prefer to have something that they feel looks well designed, even if you don't. I know that in some ways, HTC still is holding out over Samsung, and ultimately that's why I'm so disappointed. The CPU/GPU is not genuinely faster in a visible way, the screen is a massive disappointment, the design is uninspired and looks like a cheap copy of the GS2, and the software still has the same tired aesthetic from their featurephones.

I wanted to see Samsung's ability to design a phone that was genuinely better than HTC's best. I didn't see it. Instead I saw complacency and a company that obviously did not care what it's customers thought, and was more focused on simply winning spec wars.

Color and look can be very objective as soon as you actually see what something looks like, or actually compare to a calibrated screen like the iPhones and the Droid 1/2. Oh, and this still fails to address the massive issue of SAMOLED HD sucking enormous amounts of battery in white-heavy scenarios, the burn-in issues, and generally crap outdoor visibility.

Great, then get the GS3. Why are you so focused on justifying your choice if you're getting exactly what you wanted?

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

"My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

That's what everyone else is reading when you say that screens are personal preference. It's great that you like the oversaturated settings that Samsung sets, but given that color accuracy, battery consumption, outdoor visibility, and general resolution are relatively high in priority for many, I'd say that S-LCD2 is the better choice compared to SAMOLED HD.

Sure, thanks for conceding that the objective evidence given shows S-LCD2 to be better. Unfortunately, there is a reason why Anandtech tests displays the way they do, and that's because those are the things that really matter, and are the most valid ways to compare displays. I gladly conceded back in the day that the original S-LCD wasn't as good as SAMOLED by far, and that for all of it's flaws, SAMOLED was a better choice. S-LCD2 changed everything and raised the bar for what a display should be.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

If you care about CPU/GPU performance no matter what, and you want replaceable battery no matter what, go with the SGS3. Maybe next year HTC will fix the issues that you don't like, but if you have to buy one now, then go with the one you know will fulfill your needs.