Samsung Gravity Q Review
Interface and Functionality
Seriously, it feels like we’re in a time warp checking out the Samsung Gravity Q, mainly because its software harkens back to the good old days before smartphones. It really reminds us of the early days of TouchWiz, when it mainly consisted of being given access to widgets that could be placed on the homescreen. On one hand, it’s relatively simple to operate, but it’s just so sluggish navigating around. Furthermore, you won’t find as much diversity here, as it lacks any sort of apps ecosystem.
Crazy to say, there’s a basic email client in tow here, which works decently, but don’t expect anything serious like the Gmail experience with Android. For a device aimed for a younger audience, it’s rather perplexing to know that there are no social networking apps – making it a strict messaging-only device.
Processor and Memory
It obviously doesn’t matter what’s ticking inside of this, just because it performs very slowly – even with some basic stuff! Anyway, the Gravity Q is powered by a 416MHz single-core processor with 128MB of RAM, hardware that’s hardly imposing to say the least.
Armed with 256MB of ROM, the capacity can be supplemented by its microSD slot, which accepts cards up to 32GB in size.
Ugh! You’ll want to stay far away from accessing the handset’s web browser, mainly due to the fact that it’s pointless to use with complex sites. First, it takes forever to load them. Secondly, navigational controls are so delayed that the experience simply becomes a test in futility.
Sorry folks, this GSM based handset only boasts 3G connectivity. Beyond that, its connectivity features consists of only aGPS and Bluetooth 2.1 with EDR.
1. wicpromd (Posts: 266; Member since: 20 Aug 2013)
why PA why???
it should have scored -2
2. Kurai (unregistered)
That's too generous . . . it should have scored -10 at least . . .
5. veer.d (Posts: 88; Member since: 12 Jul 2013)
its nice to see they start giving actual rating samsung poorly designed phone
3. veer.d (Posts: 88; Member since: 12 Jul 2013)
first time they rated the samsung product very low
4. sriuslywtf (Posts: 278; Member since: 09 Jul 2013)
"the Gravity Q is powered by a 416MHz single-core processor with 128GB of RAM".
Page 2 "Interface and Functionality".
Is this real? holy crap. Galaxy Note 3 is in shame in terms or ram!
7. Just.Saying (Posts: 132; Member since: 04 Apr 2013)
lol, Come on, This phone is cheaper than a fake protective case for the Note 3. Its worth the price
9. superwan (Posts: 1; Member since: 10 Sep 2013)
Most high end phones have 32GB RAM, but his little beast has 128GB of RAM. Worth the money. Extend it with 32GB SD card and you got 160GB. Not even Iphones can match that storage capacity.
13. Nathan_ingx (Posts: 3024; Member since: 07 Mar 2012)
You just went ahead of John in the insanity metre.
Do you even know what RAM is?? I\'m seriously starting to doubt some of the people here.
17. Kishin (Posts: 647; Member since: 30 May 2013)
Hey thats the lowest Ram i ever seen
This phone is not even close to reach 1GB RAM you need 1000MB to reach 1GB Ram
But the storage capacity is the only thing i actury like about it
6. Just.Saying (Posts: 132; Member since: 04 Apr 2013)
i'm so getting this for my 9 year old niece. it's perfect for her. Easy to use and cheap. You can't seriously compare this phone to the fladships of today. Its aimed at a different target market.
10. boosook (Posts: 1089; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)
9 year old kids are not dumb, nowadays... for the same price or just some bucks more you can get an android phone and your kid will be able to install at least some games!
12. HASHTAG (unregistered)
Are you trying to punish your niece? ;)
21. anglosaxonengland (Posts: 17; Member since: 11 Sep 2013)
Problem is; With all the scroll and type lag on that 412MHz CPU the phone is practically useless.
8. SonyPS4 (Posts: 261; Member since: 21 May 2013)
First time in years i saw Samsung phone that is not galaxy series
11. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 2866; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)
128GB of RAM amazing. What 128 GB!!!
15. aditya.k (Posts: 482; Member since: 10 Mar 2013)
It should have been 416 GHz processor with 128 GB RAM. Must be able to run all the games available, even for PC! :P
18. Kishin (Posts: 647; Member since: 30 May 2013)
They made a mistake its 128MB of RAM not GB
19. DukeX (Posts: 327; Member since: 28 Aug 2013)
Phonearena just put up this review to try and trick people into thinking they aren\'t completely samsung lovers. They know damn well users on this site won\'t buy a phone like this.
22. Jkennedy (Posts: 9; Member since: 29 Dec 2013)
Regardless of whether or not there was a typo regarding the RAM, it takes a special kind of ignorance to think something like this could have 64 times the amount of ANYTHING as the company's flagship.