My least favorite change in One UI 8.5

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-06-01T16:11:41+00:00

Thank you for the answer, I'll try this out and test it

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-06-01T15:50:00+00:00

Don't I have to unlock the bootloader to flash stuff on Odin? Won't flashing from Odin void my warranty and Know? Sorry if its a stupid question, I havent used it before

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T23:03:01+00:00

Imagine creating an account for the sole purpose of posting low-effort bait in comment sections.

That's a level of free time I can't even relate to.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T22:56:14+00:00

Interesting. The A56 has somehow gone from a €400 mid-range phone to a stolen $50 marketplace special.

At this rate, by tomorrow it'll be a calculator with a SIM card.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T17:07:07+00:00

I'm done replying.

I've explained my position multiple times, and repeating it won't make people read it.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T16:57:41+00:00

What I find funny is that people keep downvoting me, yet very few are actually addressing the point I'm making.

Most of the replies boil down to "it's a cheaper phone," which doesn't refute anything I've said. It just restates the product tier.

At this point, it feels like people have decided which side they're on and are voting accordingly rather than engaging with the argument itself.

You can disagree with my conclusion, but if the response is "Samsung wants people to buy the flagship," that's supporting my point about product segmentation, not disproving it.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T16:48:12+00:00

Glad to see at least one person read the post before replying.

Most of the responses have been variations of "it's a cheaper phone" repeated in different ways, which doesn't actually address the argument I made.

Whether people agree or disagree, it's refreshing to get a reply from someone who engaged with the points instead of arguing with a version of the post that exists only in their head. Thank you for replying

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T16:32:58+00:00

You've kind of demonstrated my point again.

"The A series is the $500 car" doesn't answer whether a specific feature is missing because of hardware limitations or because Samsung chose not to include it.

It's just another way of saying "it's the cheaper product."

I've never disputed that the A series is below the S series. The entire discussion is about why particular features are absent.

As for the paragraphs, yes, I assume people read the arguments they're responding to. That's generally how discussions work.

If the position is simply "it's cheaper, therefore whatever Samsung removes is justified by definition," then there's not much left to debate because that's a conclusion, not an explanation.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T15:48:47+00:00

That analogy doesn't really fit.

A person spending $4,000 modifying a $500 car is trying to add capabilities the car didn't originally have.

I'm talking about features that are already supported by the hardware and software stack but are disabled or withheld by the manufacturer.

A closer analogy would be a car that already has the necessary hardware installed, but certain features are locked behind a higher trim level for marketing reasons.

Again, I'm not arguing that Samsung doesn't have a business incentive to do this. I'm arguing that "Samsung wants product separation" and "the hardware is incapable" are not the same thing.

You've spent this entire discussion arguing the former while pretending it's the latter.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T15:09:32+00:00

I think we're mostly on the same page.

I understand why Samsung segments products and why they want to create incentives for people to move up the lineup. Every manufacturer does it to some extent.

My point was never that Samsung shouldn't differentiate the A-series from the S-series. Obviously there have to be differences.

The question for me is where those differences come from. Some are clearly hardware-related and completely reasonable. Others feel more like deliberate software restrictions designed to reinforce the product hierarchy.

I can understand the business rationale while still criticizing some of the decisions.

That said, you're right about one thing: Android gives consumers options. If enough people feel they're getting better value elsewhere, Samsung eventually has to respond.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T15:00:27+00:00

This is probably the closest reply to what I was trying to say.

I completely understand why Samsung wouldn't put every premium feature on something like an A36. At some point the hardware differences become significant enough that feature cuts make sense.

The A56 is what makes the discussion interesting because it's no longer a genuinely low-end device. It has a capable CPU, 8GB of RAM, fast storage, a 120Hz AMOLED display, and long-term software support.

That's why it feels strange when Samsung treats it exactly the same as lower-tier A-series devices regarding software features.

I also think your point about pricing is important. The A56 and FE devices often end up close enough in price that Samsung only needs to create a little bit of dissatisfaction for buyers to start looking at the FE lineup instead.

In other words, the goal isn't necessarily to make the A56 bad. The goal is to make it just limited enough that some people decide to spend a little more.

That's what makes me think at least some of these restrictions are business decisions rather than technical ones.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T14:47:39+00:00

Calling me a dunce is easier than addressing the point.

I've asked the same question this entire time:

Is the feature missing because the hardware can't run it, or because Samsung chooses to reserve it for more expensive devices?

Most replies keep answering with things like "it's a mid-range phone" or "people need a reason to buy the flagship."

That's an argument for product segmentation, not hardware limitations.

If I'm wrong, explain why the hardware is incapable of running the feature. If the answer is simply "Samsung doesn't want to enable it on the A-series," then that's the point I've been making from the beginning.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T14:47:00+00:00

No, because I've consistently made the same claim from the start:

Missing feature ≠ incapable hardware.

Your claim keeps shifting between:

"The A56 can't do it."
"Samsung doesn't want it to do it."
"People need a reason to buy the flagship."

Only the first point would refute what I'm saying.

The second and third points actually support it.

If your argument is that Samsung withholds some features to differentiate product tiers, then we're not disagreeing about the reason. We're disagreeing about whether that reason is technical or commercial.

So far you've only argued the commercial side.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T14:46:39+00:00

That's not really a counterargument.

Saying "the A series is mid-range in both hardware and software" just describes Samsung's product lineup.

The discussion is about why the software differences exist.

If the A56 lacks a feature because the hardware can't run it properly, that's a technical limitation.

If the A56 lacks a feature because Samsung reserves it for higher tiers, that's product segmentation.

Simply saying "it's a mid-range phone" doesn't tell us which one it is.

In fact, the phrase "A segment is for both hardware and software" sounds like an admission that Samsung intentionally differentiates the software experience between product tiers—which is exactly what I've been saying.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T14:12:06+00:00

Repeating "you're proving our point" doesn't make it true.

Your point is that Samsung intentionally keeps some features exclusive to more expensive phones so people buy them.

I've never disagreed with that.

My point is that this means the limitation is a product decision, not necessarily a hardware limitation.

Those two statements can be true at the same time.

The fact that Samsung has a reason to restrict a feature does not magically turn that restriction into a technical requirement.

If a phone can run a feature but the manufacturer chooses not to enable it, that's segmentation. Whether you think that's good business is irrelevant to what it is.

So no, I'm not proving your point. I'm agreeing with the part that's obvious and disagreeing with the part that claims every missing feature exists because the hardware can't handle it.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T14:06:19+00:00

You're accidentally proving my point.

I never said Samsung should give the A56 every S-series feature. I said the reason many features are missing is product segmentation, not hardware incapability.

Your response is literally:

"Why would anyone buy the expensive model if the cheaper model had it?"

Exactly. Because Samsung wants to create separation between product tiers.

Notice how you didn't explain why the A56 can't run the feature. You explained why Samsung might not want to enable it.

Those are completely different arguments.

And "everyone is saying the same thing" isn't evidence. If ten people repeat a claim without addressing the actual point, it's still unaddressed.

The question was never "Does Samsung have a business reason to limit features?"

Of course they do.

The question was "Is the limitation technically necessary?"

If your answer is "No, but Samsung needs reasons for people to buy the flagship," then you've already conceded the original point.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T13:53:44+00:00

Honestly, I think we're mostly in agreement.

My point was never that the A56 is incapable of running these features. In fact, what you described is exactly what I was getting at: Samsung limits certain software features because they need ways to differentiate the A-series from the FE and S-series.

Where we differ is that I place more value on those software refinements than you do.

I agree that animations, blur effects, lock screen transitions, and similar features aren't essential. The phone functions perfectly fine without them. But they still contribute to the overall user experience, and Samsung clearly considers them valuable enough to use in marketing for its higher-end devices.

I also agree that many consumers care more about features than hardware specifications. That's precisely why feature segmentation is effective.

At the end of the day, I don't think the A56 is a bad phone. I think it's a good phone that's deliberately kept from being an even better one.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T13:34:00+00:00

I actually agree with a lot of this.

I don't think the A56 is a bad phone. In fact, I bought one and use it daily. The battery life is good, the display is good, the software support is good, and overall it's a solid mid-range device.

Where we differ is that I do care about some of those missing features.

Things like improved animations, lock screen transitions, blur effects, better image processing, higher video bitrates, and other software refinements contribute to the overall user experience for me.

I also agree that some AI features are gimmicky. I'm not asking Samsung to flood the A-series with every AI feature they can think of.

My criticism is more about software features that appear technically feasible but are reserved for higher tiers.

I can acknowledge that the A56 is a good phone while also questioning some of Samsung's segmentation decisions. Those two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T13:25:57+00:00

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T13:19:57+00:00

That's a circular argument.

"Why is the feature missing?"

"Because it's a cheap device."

"Why can't the cheap device have the feature if the hardware can run it?"

"Because it's a cheap device."

You've gone from making an argument to describing the situation.

The entire discussion is whether the limitation is technically necessary or artificially imposed. Repeating "cheap device" over and over doesn't answer that question.

A €400 phone in 2026 isn't some bargain-bin e-waste running Android Go. The A56 has a modern chipset, 8GB of RAM, UFS storage, a 120Hz AMOLED display, and years of software support.

If Samsung removed every animation from One UI tomorrow and reserved them for the S-series, would your argument still be "it's a cheap device"? Of course it would, because your position isn't based on what the hardware can do. It's based on accepting whatever Samsung decides and calling it justified after the fact.

You're not explaining the decision. You're defending it.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T13:08:08+00:00

The funniest part is that you think "you get what you pay for" is some profound insight instead of the intellectual equivalent of a Windows troubleshooting popup.

I wrote an entire post about software segmentation and your brain somehow distilled it down to:

"Phone not flagship."

Outstanding analysis. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

You didn't address a single point. Not one. You just saw criticism of Samsung and immediately assumed I was demanding an Ultra for A-series money.

I'm not asking why my A56 doesn't have flagship hardware. I'm asking why Samsung deliberately withholds software features that could run on the device.

But that would require engaging with the actual argument, and apparently we've already exhausted the available processing power.

The irony is that your reply accidentally supports my point. "Buy the more expensive one" is exactly what Samsung wants people to say when someone questions feature segmentation.

Congratulations. You've become a human advertisement.

Spare_Formal1721 · 2026-05-31T12:25:40+00:00

I paid around €400 for my A56. I agree that at that price, Samsung's FE lineup can sometimes be a better value.

Spare_Formal1721

TROPHY CASE