The Galaxy S6 represents a reinvention of one of the phones that made Android so popular. This upgrade, in particular, is very meaningful because after being severely criticized for the plastic they used in their flagship phones Samsung has finally used premium materials like metal and glass, which resulted in a better design overall. The price of this device does not come cheap, with the least expensive version with 32 GB of storage costing about $649 with some carriers or around $700 from Samsung itself.
Black Friday 2017 Deals: Find Great Deals on Android Smartphones, TV’s, Smart Speakers, Chromebooks and More.
Now, it might seem a little pricey, but here’s a story to question if saving some bucks is actually worth it: A Reddit user saw a Craigslist listing about an unlocked Galaxy S6 that cost $500 because it was incompatible with CDMA networks since the model was the SM-G920i. Both men set up a meeting and the buyer inserted his AT&T SIM card to check it was indeed an unlocked model. Everything seemed to work and the hardware seemed to actually have the build quality that many reviews, including ours, have praised, even the box looked like the real thing.
When he got home, he noticed that the oleophobic coating on the glass that covers front and back of the device “looked terrible”, the home button was “a little squishy”, the USB port was upside down and the microphone port was on the wrong side. But when he turned the device on it was more than evident he had been scammed, the lock screen looks a little different and while it was supposedly running Android 5.0.2 Lollipop, the easter egg belonged to the previous version, Android KitKat. Running a benchmark test showed that it was powered by a quad-core MediaTek MT6582 processor with 1GB RAM, opposed to the powerful octa-core Exynos 7420 processor and 3 GB that the original Galaxy S6 has. The screen had the very poor resolution of 1280 x 720 which is four times lower than the resolution of the Galaxy S6. While it does seem like a very good copy of the device, the user should have paid more attention, not only to all of these details, but he also stated that the seller refused to give his phone number explaining that he used a temporary number only. So, beware, because some of the clones can look quite convincing.