Home / News / Mobile Phone News / Metal Samsung Galaxy S5 doesn’t exist, suggests Samsung CEO

Metal Samsung Galaxy S5 doesn’t exist, suggests Samsung CEO

Sam Loveridge


Samsung Galaxy S5 back

The existence of the rumoured metal Samsung Galaxy S5 has been denied by none other than the Samsung CEO.

Since the Samsung Galaxy S5 was unveiled at MWC last month with a plastic but waterproof body, ruours have circulated that Samsung is working on a metal version of the device.

It was tipped to be called the Samsung Galaxy F or even the Samsung Galaxy S5 Premium, but we sincerely doubt Samsung would ever have called it that officially.

According a Korean media report, Samsung CEO JK Shin has denied the existence of any metal Galaxy S5 or Galaxy F smartphone. He said there was “no such thing” as a premium build Galaxy S5 and any article that suggested otherwise “is wrong”.

Shin did say there would be a brand new Samsung Galaxy Note smartphone arriving during 2014, but seeing as the Note line is one of the most successful, this doesn’t come as much of a shock.

So it seems the metal Galaxy S5 was nothing more than a product of rumour and perhaps a sprinkling of wishful thinking.

Samsung Galaxy S5 Features

Despite the rumours the Samsung Galaxy S5 was launched with a 5.1-inch full 1080p HD super AMOLED display surrounded by a plastic body featuring water- and dust-resistant qualities.

To differentiate it from the Samsung Galaxy S4 design though, Samsung added a “perforated” effect to the rear back panel.

It runs on a 2.5GHz quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor with 2GB of RAM and either 16GB or 32GB of internal storage. There’s also microSD card support up to 64GB.

Similar to the Touch ID sensor in the home button of the iPhone 5S, the Galaxy S5 features a fingerprint scanner that recognises a swiped fingerprint.

The Galaxy S5 also has a heart rate monitor fitted under the rear camera, which works with the new Samsung S Health app.

Read more: Samsung Galaxy S5 vs Galaxy S4

Via: GforGames

Tim Sutton

March 14, 2014, 7:13 pm

I'm really not sure about that back.


March 14, 2014, 8:02 pm

Other than feverish journos in need of something to write about, who actually wants a metal Galaxy? And what exactly is it about metal that could make anybody imagine that it is a better material than polycarbonate from which to make a phone's body?


March 16, 2014, 2:22 pm

Despite the futuristic sounding name, polycarbonate actually means plastic, which is usually associated with cheap, low quality squeaking pieces. Althoough there are high quality palstics and it can be invested in a quality build to reduce squeaking plastic is plastic an it does not have place in a flagship product.


March 16, 2014, 2:23 pm

haha, good one


March 17, 2014, 11:49 am

I am indebted to you for pointing out that polycarbonate is a type of plastic. Had I only known that I might have made the association with cheap and nasty plastic junk - so obvious in retrospect - and not made the mistake of thinking that polycarbonate was in any way a suitable engineering material. You had better also alert the people who designed the F-22 Raptor cockpit canopy who seem to have made the same dreadful mistake I did, before lives are lost.


March 17, 2014, 12:29 pm

>> made the same dreadful mistake

Yes, I assume @everlat66 must have totally forget that an F-22 Raptor cockpit make a fantastic mobile phone.

Anyway, not understanding why somebody would like a metal based S5 instead of plastic is the really interesting part of your comment. I like metal based, but I can understand why some would like plastic, maybe I'm more unique than I thought, and the ability to see somebody's else's POV is very rare ability.


March 17, 2014, 1:48 pm

Of course you are quite correct, there is room for a variety of preferences. Did I actually say I could "not understand why somebody would like a metal based S5 instead of plastic"? If so, mea culpa.

I thought I had reacted in my first post to the author arguing that there is no such thing as a premium S5 simply because there is no metal S5, that metal is defacto "better" than polycarbonate in this application. And I certainly got off on one when the Everlast stated that plastic is usually (by implication 'usually' means 'in this case') associated with "cheap low quality" and therefore has no place in a flagship product.

As to the Raptor canopy, hey, it is mobile, and I'm confident it is of the necessary quality.


March 17, 2014, 2:08 pm



March 17, 2014, 2:19 pm

Polycarbonate doesn't look as ugly after a drop as a metal phone does - my iphone's edges are hideous :( - and I haven't really heard any complaints about Samsung's flagship being plastic other then the look and the feel of it, and of course the whole "other flagships are metal so why isn't Samsung's?" argument, but I do think it would probably improve their sales if they just gave into the demand for it and released a phone with a metal body - thus making many think it's a true 'premium' device.

That being said, I have no idea what that would mean for their margins, and I can only assume as Samsung is one of the biggest smartphone manufacturer's in the world that they have a justified reason to leave the body plastic (at least for now).


March 17, 2014, 10:05 pm

So a metal S5 is a certainty then. Me thinks he doth protest too loudly.


March 18, 2014, 6:26 pm

Agreed. I've had metal phones and plastic ones, and you know what, who cares. It makes no difference as to whether it makes calls or displays websites or plays games. Anyone who thinks it's something Samsung "should do" would have to be a "material snob". In all likelihood a moronic one as you can bet they sheath their beloved phone to protect it this ruining their view of what must be an exquisite lump of grey or silver or whatever


March 18, 2014, 6:36 pm

the complaints you mention are only reviewers. They usually list iphones as their inspiration for thinking it looks cheap. we all know what that means. Personally I reckon metal bodies transmit shock better which is why most people I know with iphones live with cracked screens from about a month after they get them. Perhaps this is Samsung's inspiration.
I would disagree with your assertion that it's to do with margins. They didn't become the top mobile player by being cheap. I would suggest the money they saved went on the hardware that went inside. That and to some people who don't want to be throwing their phone away as soon as the battery goes sour (or earlier) an easily removed cover is important. All the phones I've had with interchangeable batteries have had polycarbonate backs. Co-incidence?? Probably not


March 19, 2014, 2:04 pm

Not too sure why people are defending this phone, its all very well saying its a great phone I'm sure it is but surely thats missing the point, they barely changed anything from the s4, didn't even bother to push the battery capacity to 3000. Just stick an s5 badge on it and it will still sell tens if millions sure why would u bother maybe I'm the one missing the point.


March 19, 2014, 3:03 pm

Sorry i think i worded it a bit backwards, when i said they have a justified reason to leave it plastic i didn't mean it had anything to do with margins, that was a separate statement and just me speculating if it would have an impact at all on their margins.

That's a good point you've made, i didn't think about the shock transmittance of plastic vs. metal and how it could effect the screen...

Kurt Crafton

March 29, 2014, 6:42 am

Personally I could give two hoots about it being metal. I just want that 2k screen and 64bit cpu they promised. Then I'll be satisfied. Until then I'm not buying another phone.

comments powered by Disqus