Samsung’s Latest Galaxy A Moves: Updates, New Budget Phones,

Samsung’s Latest Galaxy A Moves: Updates, New Budget Phones, Same Old Limits

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

I’ve been daily‑driving mid-range Android phones on and off for years, and Samsung’s A-series is usually where I end up when I want dependable over flashy. The Galaxy A53 was one of those safe picks: not exciting, but easy to recommend. Seeing it finally pick up Android 14 while Samsung drops new budget A-series hardware should be a win. Instead, it feels like Samsung is coasting on software promises while the hardware story barely moves.

Android 14 Lands on Galaxy A53 and A14 – With a Catch

Samsung’s Android 14 rollout continues, and this round hits two key budget and mid-range devices: the Galaxy A53 and the Galaxy A14.

The Galaxy A14, a $199 phone launched in January 2023, is getting Android 14 with One UI 6 slightly ahead of schedule. On paper, that’s impressive: Samsung promised two major Android updates and four years of security patches on a sub-$200 phone. That kind of support window at this price used to be fantasy.

But there’s a hard ceiling here. Android 14 is only step one. Android 15 will be the last major OS update for the Galaxy A14, and then you’re stuck. For a phone bought in 2023, that means your big feature updates are effectively done after the next one.

The Galaxy A53, Samsung’s 2022 mid-range crowd-pleaser, is also getting Android 14. The update is currently rolling out in the UK and should expand to other regions soon. It follows the Galaxy A54, which grabbed One UI 6 earlier.

On the plus side, this shows Samsung is still serious about keeping the A-series relevant beyond launch day. The downside: the software story is outpacing how much the hardware is actually evolving year over year.

Galaxy A15 and A25 Hit the US: Solid Specs, Familiar Corners Cut

Alongside the Android 14 rollout, Samsung has officially launched the Galaxy A15 and Galaxy A25 in the United States. These aren’t new devices globally; they debuted internationally late last year. The US versions stick closely to those specs, which is a polite way of saying there are no nice surprises here.

The Galaxy A15 lands at $199. For that price you get:

  • MediaTek MT6835V processor
  • 8GB RAM
  • 128GB storage
  • 5,000 mAh battery
  • 6.5-inch FHD+ 90Hz AMOLED display

On paper, this is exactly the sort of spec sheet that makes budget phones feel far less compromised than they used to. A 90Hz AMOLED at 1080p on a $199 device is the headline here, and 8GB of RAM plus 128GB storage should keep basic multitasking and app installs from feeling cramped.

The Galaxy A25 bumps the price to $299 and swaps in:

  • Exynos 1280 chipset
  • 8GB RAM
  • 128GB storage
  • 5,000 mAh battery
  • 6.5-inch FHD+ 120Hz display
  • 50MP main camera + 8MP ultrawide + 2MP macro

Versus the A15, you gain a higher refresh rate (120Hz vs 90Hz) and a more capable camera setup with the 8MP ultrawide. The A15 only gets a 5MP ultrawide, plus a 2MP macro that, let’s be honest, exists mostly so Samsung can print “triple camera” on marketing slides. No one is buying this for that 2MP sensor.

The problem is that for all the numbers, there’s nothing here that shifts the mid-range needle. The chip choices (MediaTek MT6835V and Exynos 1280) are fine for everyday use, but they’re hardly exciting, especially when you’re pushing 120Hz on the A25. You’re not buying these to game hard or future‑proof performance.

Design-wise, both phones use Samsung’s new “Key Island” layout, with the buttons sitting on a raised section of the side frame. It’s distinctive, sure, but it’s also pure cosmetic fluff. It doesn’t solve any real problem; it just makes the phones look newer in photos.

US Availability: Better Than Before, Still Weirdly Limited

Samsung is at least trying to get these into people’s hands. The Galaxy A15 is available in “Blue Black” and “Light Blue,” sold unlocked and through major US carriers including T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, and US Cellular. At $199, with carrier promos and trade‑ins (up to $100 on Samsung.com), this is going to show up in a lot of pockets.

The A25, though, is oddly restricted. It’s only available in “Blue Black” and only through US Cellular in the carrier channel, plus unlocked. That’s a strange move for a $299 phone that should, in theory, be Samsung’s mainstream mid-range option.

Samsung is offering up to $200 trade‑in credit toward the A25 on its own site, which helps, but the distribution signals where Samsung thinks the real volume is: the ultra‑budget tier, not the $300 sweet spot.

Both phones are shipping immediately, so this isn’t a paper launch situation. But if you’re on a major carrier and want the A25 specifically, your options are basically: buy it unlocked, or don’t bother.

Indonesia: Galaxy A57 and A37 Are Coming, But Details Are Thin

While the US is getting the A15 and A25, Samsung is lining up its next round of mid-range 5G phones for Indonesia: the Galaxy A57 and Galaxy A37.

Both devices have appeared in Indonesia’s TKDN certification database under codes SM-A576B (A57) and SM-A376B (A37), each with a 39.60 percent TKDN score. That beats the 35 percent minimum required for official sale, which means Samsung has cleared a major administrative step for launch.

These are 5G phones targeting the mid-range bracket, and they’re expected to hit the market around late February to March 2026. The A57 is tipped to bring improvements in chipset, camera, and design compared to its predecessor. It’s also expected to keep a slim body around 6.9 mm with a more premium mid-range aesthetic.

The Galaxy A37 sits below it as the more affordable option, still promising 5G and a balanced mix of performance, camera, and pricing for the mid-tier crowd.

The frustrating part is that we’re talking about yet another cycle of “incremental upgrades” with almost no concrete specs shared yet. Better chipset, better camera, nicer design – the usual mid-range script. Until Samsung starts pushing the envelope on long-term support or genuinely higher-end features filtering down, these will likely be safe but unexciting buys.

Samsung’s Mid-Range Strategy: Safe, Predictable, and a Bit Boring

Put this all together and a pattern emerges.

  • The Galaxy A14 gets Android 14 and will stop at Android 15 for major updates.
  • The Galaxy A53 and A54 keep getting pushed up the software ladder, which is great – but hardly generous when you look at how long people keep phones now.
  • The Galaxy A15 and A25 arrive in the US with competent specs, nice displays, and big batteries, but predictable compromises in chip performance and cameras.
  • The upcoming A57 and A37 in Indonesia are setting up as yet another “slightly better mid-range 5G” duo.

Samsung isn’t doing anything wrong here for the average buyer. But for enthusiasts and anyone paying attention, it’s tough not to see this as minimum‑effort iteration. The software story is strong for $199 hardware, yet capped just enough to nudge you toward upgrading sooner than you might want. The hardware story is good enough to look modern but not ambitious enough to stand out.

If you just need a reliable phone and don’t chase specs, the Galaxy A15 and A25 will likely do the job. If you already own an A53 or A14, Android 14 makes them feel fresher for a while longer. But if you were hoping Samsung’s mid-range lineup was about to get more aggressive on performance, camera quality, or software lifespan, this latest batch suggests you’ll be waiting a bit longer.

Stay tuned to IntoDroid for more Android updates.

AI.com: The $70M Domain Bet That Looks More Like Hype

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

If you’re wondering why everyone suddenly cares about a two-letter domain, AI.com just became the latest symbol of how wild – and frankly directionless – the current AI gold rush can get.

Crypto.com’s CEO, Kris Marszalek, dropped around 70 million USD on AI.com, turned down a reported 500 million USD offer immediately after, and is now positioning it as the front door to an ambitious AI agent platform. On paper, it sounds huge. In reality, the story so far is more about branding, speculation, and strain than actual value for users.

A $70M Domain in a Hype-Drunk Market

Start with the number: 70 million USD for a domain name.

AI.com is now in the same conversation as some of the most expensive domains ever sold. Previous high-profile deals like CarInsurance.com (49.7 million USD in 2010) and Cars.com (valued at 872.3 million USD as an intangible asset in 2014) were tied directly to clear, established businesses. Those domains anchored mature, money-making verticals.

Here, AI.com is being pitched as a launchpad for a new AI agents company. No long-standing user base. No proven products. Just a massive price tag, a hype wave around AI, and a Super Bowl ad.

This isn’t a careful, incremental product play. It’s a very expensive billboard.

From a Kid’s $100 Gamble to a Trillion Jackpot

The backstory is actually the most grounded part of this whole saga.

In 1993, a 10-year-old Malaysian kid, Arsyan Ismail, quietly bought AI.com for around 100 USD, using his mother’s credit card without permission. At the time, AI wasn’t a buzzword; he just liked it because it matched his initials, “A.I.”

For decades, the domain sat in the background while the rest of the internet exploded. Fast-forward to the AI boom: Arsyan sold AI.com for roughly 70 million USD to Marszalek. That’s a jump from around 100 USD in the early 90s to about 70 million USD today.

If you want a clean lesson from this story, it’s this: the only clear winner so far is the guy who registered the domain in 1993.

OpenAI, Musk, and the Tug-of-War Over Two Letters

Before Crypto.com’s acquisition went public, AI.com was already a quiet battleground.

In early 2023, typing AI.com in your browser would send you to ChatGPT, tying the domain to OpenAI’s flagship product. Then it switched to redirecting to x.ai, Elon Musk’s AI company. That wasn’t random; it reflects aggressive behind-the-scenes negotiations over one of the most obviously valuable keyword domains on the internet.

Those redirects were almost certainly part of leasing or negotiation strategies while Arsyan still held control. Multiple major AI players clearly wanted AI.com, yet none of them locked it down until Marszalek showed up with 70 million USD.

Now, instead of pointing to the models and tools that are actually shaping the current AI landscape, AI.com is tied to a new, still-unproven platform.

Crypto.com’s CEO Says No to $500M – But Why?

Here’s where the story moves from impressive to questionable.

Marszalek says that right after he closed the AI.com deal, “the other side” approached him with an offer of over 500 million USD – for the domain. He claims he refused outright, saying even that number wouldn’t be enough to get him to pick up the phone.

On a spreadsheet, that’s an instant ~7x return.

Refusing that kind of flip only makes sense if you believe AI.com will become the core of something much bigger – or if you’re more focused on the optics of being the guy who owns AI.com in an AI-obsessed cycle. From a user perspective, though, none of this guarantees a better product. It just proves the domain has become a speculative asset with more value as a status symbol than as a gateway to real utility.

What AI.com Actually Wants to Be: Agents, Everywhere

So what is Marszalek planning to do with this insanely expensive URL?

AI.com is being built as a separate entity from Crypto.com. While Crypto.com stays in its lane as a crypto exchange, AI.com is pitched as a platform for AI agents – autonomous software agents that don’t just reply to prompts but can act on your behalf.

The promised capabilities cover a ton of real-world tasks:

  • Managing tasks and workflows across apps
  • Sending messages
  • Running cross-application workflows
  • Building projects
  • Handling stock trading and other transactions
  • Even updating your online dating profile

In theory, you’d get personal AI agents that talk to services, execute complex actions, and automate parts of your digital life.

Yes, that sounds powerful. It also sounds like every broad AI pitch of the last two years condensed into a single sentence. There’s no detail yet on specific integrations, latency, reliability, or how much control users actually keep. It’s all ambition, zero benchmarks.

Security Promises vs. Zero Proof

On the security and privacy front, the pitch is equally grand.

Marszalek says AI.com’s agents will run in an “encrypted, user-key-based” system, protecting user data and privacy more strongly. Conceptually, that would mean your keys, your control, your encrypted interactions.

That’s reassuring language, especially if this thing is going to trade stocks for you, touch your communications, and mess with your personal profiles. But right now, these are just claims. There’s no technical whitepaper here, no architecture diagrams, no granular explanation of how keys are managed, stored, or rotated – especially critical if you’re bridging AI agents with financial and personal data.

If you’ve watched this industry long enough, you’ve seen how often “strong encryption” gets name-dropped long before the boring, hard details are hammered out.

AGI Teasers, Super Bowl Ads, and a Crashed Site

Instead of launching with stable infrastructure and clear documentation, AI.com launched with a Super Bowl ad and a crash.

The commercial showed floating balls of light forming the phrase “AGI is coming soon,” and invited viewers to lock in a username in the format ai.com/yourname. That’s a pure hype play: tease AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), offer cool usernames, and count on fear of missing out.

The result? The site buckled under traffic immediately after the ad.

Marszalek later admitted he’s rolling out access in stages because “hundreds of thousands” of people are queued up, and they don’t want the site going down again. That’s a classic scaling problem, sure, but when you’ve just spent 70 million USD on a domain and bought a Super Bowl ad slot, not having infrastructure ready doesn’t exactly scream “prepared.” It screams “marketing first, product later.”

AGI Dreams, Zero Grounding

The messaging around AI.com doesn’t stop at agents. Marszalek’s vision is a decentralized network of billions of AI agents that share capability improvements with each other, accelerating AI development toward AGI.

In theory:

  • AI agents run globally
  • They share improvements and knowledge
  • Overall capability ramps up quickly
  • This accelerates the arrival of AGI

On a conceptual level, fine. AGI is the theoretical form of AI that can perform at or beyond human levels across many domains, learning and solving new problems without explicit training.

The issue is the gap between that vision and the current product reality. Right now, AI.com is:

  • A domain with a huge price tag
  • A platform that has barely launched
  • A service that already crashed from traffic

Talking about “billions of agents” and AGI in this context feels less like a roadmap and more like trying to ride the biggest possible buzzword wave. For developers and power users who care about real capability, the question is simple: what can it do today, and how well?

So far, we don’t have that answer.

Free Access, Paid Tiers, and the Usual Monetization Playbook

AI.com is supposed to be free to the public, with paid subscription tiers planned for:

  • Higher input limits
  • Advanced capabilities
  • Extra features

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It mirrors how most AI platforms are monetized right now: free core, paid power user features.

The disappointment comes from the fact that beyond that standard freemium structure, there’s no clear differentiation. Other than the domain name and some ambitious rhetoric, we don’t have a reason yet to believe AI.com will do AI agents better than existing ecosystems.

The Harsh Contrast: User Value vs. Vanity Asset

If you strip away the brand drama, what remains is a simple question: does any of this materially improve your life as a user, developer, or enthusiast?

Right now, AI.com looks like this:

  • An incredibly valuable domain acquired at the height of AI mania
  • A rejected 500 million USD offer that would’ve been a massive profit
  • A vague agents platform with sweeping promises and little proof
  • A high-profile Super Bowl teaser that crashed the site

Meanwhile, actual AI progress – the stuff that matters to Android power users, devs, and everyday people – is happening in models, tooling, hardware acceleration, and real integrations. None of that depends on owning AI.com.

AI.com could become a strong AI agent hub. It might even grow into something meaningfully integrated with finance, productivity, and communication. But based on what’s public today, this feels more like a domain flex and hype engine than a thoughtful product launch.

Check back soon as this story develops.

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Android Ultras: Power, Color Hype, and

iPhone 17 Pro Max vs Android Ultras: Power, Color Hype, and Missed Chances

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

The iPhone 17 Pro Max is the most powerful iPhone Apple has ever shipped, but stack it against Android heavyweights like the Xiaomi 15 Ultra or Galaxy S25 Ultra and the story gets a lot less flattering. Apple’s 2025 flagship looks more like a safe, slightly confused response to the competition than the bar-setting device its price suggests.

Design Shift: Lighter, Weaker, and Weirdly Less Premium

Apple’s big physical change this year is controversial: the iPhone 17 Pro Max switches to aluminum, supposedly to rein in weight and help sustained performance with a new cooling system. On paper, that makes sense. In practice, you end up with a phone that’s more prone to scratches and just doesn’t feel as premium as the previous Pro Max generations.

The back mixes glass and metal with new color options, but instead of coming off as refined, the whole package is being remembered as one of the less likable iPhone designs in recent years. The design direction is questionable enough that older Pro Max models are still being treated as the “real” premium option by people who care about craftsmanship more than owning the latest SKU.

Meanwhile, Android rivals at this price tier are leaning into bold materials, distinctive camera housings, and refined finishes that don’t feel like a step down from last year. When a $1,000-plus phone from Apple starts to feel like a design regression, that’s a problem.

Display and Camera: Familiar Hardware, Limited Excitement

The display on the 17 Pro Max adds an anti-glare finish, which is genuinely useful. But the massive cutout is the same old distraction, and the supposed brightness upgrade doesn’t quite live up to the marketing. It’s still a very good screen, just not a meaningful leap for 2025.

Camera upgrades are similarly modest. Selfie and zoom quality do see improvements, and most people will be happy with the results. The issue is expectations versus delivery: with the hardware and Apple’s processing pipeline, this phone should be pushing the envelope, not just nudging it.

In stills, Apple is now trailing the Chinese “Ultra” crowd. Xiaomi and others are squeezing more dynamic range, flexibility, and low-light performance out of their cameras. The 17 Pro Max can absolutely produce very good to great images, but in this price bracket and this year, “very good” isn’t exactly a flex.

Video: Apple Still Owns This One

Where Apple continues to earn its reputation is video. The iPhone 17 Pro Max basically aces every scenario: any camera, any format, any lighting. Whether you’re a casual user or doing something more serious, you get consistent, reliable footage without juggling confusing settings.

The camera app remains one of the few in the industry that caters properly to both mainstream and pro users. No Android brand has fully matched that balance yet. If video is your top priority, the 17 Pro Max still makes a strong case for itself despite the rest of the compromises.

Performance, A19 Pro, and the Android Chip War

On the silicon side, the upcoming A19 Pro shows where Apple wants to stay ahead: raw CPU muscle. Leaked Geekbench 6 numbers suggest single-core scores north of 4,000 and multi-core above 10,000 for the 17 Pro and Pro Max. Compared to the A18 Pro in the 16 Pro Max, that’s roughly a 15% bump in single-core and 17% in multi-core performance.

The A19 Pro is reportedly built on TSMC’s N3P process. That’s the same node expected for the Snapdragon 8 Elite 2 and MediaTek Dimensity 9500, both landing the same month. On paper, we’re heading into a three-way fight where Android flagships won’t be as far behind on efficiency and thermals as before.

The irony is that while Apple pushes performance forward, the new cooling system in the 17 Pro Max isn’t particularly impressive, and iOS 26 is described as unpolished. Extra power on a platform that feels behind the feature curve doesn’t exactly scream value, especially when Android flagships are using their silicon gains to drive more aggressive camera and display tricks.

High-Refresh Displays for All, but Not All Equal

All four iPhone 17 models are rumored to finally get high refresh rate screens. That’s something Android users have had even in mid-range devices for years. However, the base iPhone 17 allegedly still misses out on LTPO, meaning no variable refresh.

So while the Pro models get the fully modern implementation, the vanilla 17 is more of a checkbox solution. It’s better than the old 60 Hz experience, but it’s not as power-efficient or flexible as what we’ve seen on premium Android phones for multiple generations.

Color Hype and the China Comeback

In China, Apple’s rebound has almost nothing to do with AI or deep technical upgrades. The iPhone 17 series has driven a sharp 38% year-on-year revenue jump in Q4 2025, hitting $26 billion, and the biggest catalyst isn’t performance or features. It’s color.

The “Cosmic Orange” iPhone 17 went viral on Chinese social media, picked up the nickname “Hermès Orange,” and became a status symbol. People liked that you could instantly recognize it as the latest model in public. There’s also a cultural angle: in Mandarin, the word for orange (chéng) sounds like the word for success, spawning the slogan “May all your wishes turn orange.”

Subsidies helped too. The base iPhone 17 qualifies for up to 500 yuan in government support, pulling it into a more accessible price zone for China’s middle class.

But even this win comes with strings attached. Early buyers complained about the durability of the orange coating on the titanium frame, especially around ports and buttons, and some say the real-life color looks duller and cheaper than Apple’s own renders. When your biggest growth lever is a paint job, you can’t afford that kind of mismatch.

iPhone 17e: The ‘Cheap’ Model That’s Quietly Smarter

While the 17 Pro Max tries to justify its price with incremental gains, the upcoming iPhone 17e rumors make it look like Apple understands value a lot better at the low end.

The 17e is expected around February 2026 via a low-key press release, just like the 16e. Price is rumored to stay at $599 for 128 GB, the same launch price as the 16e, but with four meaningful upgrades:

  • MagSafe support with up to 25W wireless charging and access to the full accessory ecosystem.
  • The newer A19 chip, matching the regular iPhone 17 instead of lagging a generation.
  • A new Apple C1X cellular modem.
  • An N1 connectivity chip handling Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and Thread in-house.

On the flip side, the design is reportedly unchanged from the 16e: notch up front, single rear camera, no move to Dynamic Island. It’s a very Apple move—major internal refresh, familiar external shell.

Still, keeping the same price while bumping silicon, connectivity, and MagSafe support is exactly the kind of value play consumers actually notice. That’s especially true in developing markets and enterprise deployments, both of which Apple reportedly plans to target more aggressively with the 17e.

Apple’s 2025 Problem: Power Without Direction

Put it all together and the iPhone 17 lineup looks technically competent but strategically confused. The 17 Pro Max is the most capable iPhone yet, but its aluminum build feels cheaper, the new design language is divisive, the camera is no longer clearly ahead, and iOS 26 isn’t in great shape.

Meanwhile, Apple is leaning on color trends and subsidies in China for growth and saving its most consumer-friendly value proposition for the supposedly “budget” 17e. Android flagships are pushing harder on cameras, displays, and form factors, while Apple’s hero phone is being carried by video quality and battery life.

If you’re deep in the iOS ecosystem and care about video, the 17 Pro Max still makes sense. But if you’re platform-agnostic or just tired of paying more for smaller jumps, devices like the Xiaomi 15 Ultra, Galaxy S25 Ultra, Google Pixel 10 Pro XL, or even foldables like the Honor Magic V5 are making Apple’s incrementalism look tired.

Check back soon as this story develops.

Antutu’s January 2026 Rankings: Fastest Android Phones You Shouldn’t Buy

Nadia Malik Leave a comment

Contradiction: Fastest Doesn’t Mean Best

Every year, we anticipate lists of the fastest smartphones, but it’s time to question whether speed should be our only priority. Antutu’s January 2026 rankings reveal the fastest Android phones, but does that necessarily mean these devices are the best choices for consumers? In a landscape crowded with options, speed often overshadows other critical factors like battery life, software experience, and overall value.

Antutu’s Flagship Rankings

The standout in Antutu’s flagship category is the Nubia Red Magic 11 Pro Plus, scoring an impressive 4,104,271 points thanks to its Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 chipset and 24 GB of RAM. While this phone may brag the title of the fastest, it raises questions about its real-world usability. Is a gaming-focused phone with a 1 TB storage option really what consumers need when most daily tasks don’t require such raw power?

Vivo and Realme: Close Contenders

Following closely, we have the Vivo X300 Pro Satellite Edition and the Realme GT8 Pro, both powered by high-end chipsets. The Vivo X300, with its Dimensity 9500 chip, managed to score 4,090,624 points. Meanwhile, the Realme GT8 Pro, also equipped with the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5, landed at 4,075,525 points. These scores highlight that manufacturers are pushing the boundaries of performance, yet many users might find such speeds unnecessary.

Mid-Range Surprises

In the mid-range category, the competition is more varied with devices using different chipsets like Dimensity 8400 Ultra and Snapdragon 7+ Gen 3. However, the issue remains: while these phones offer respectable performance, they often compromise on features that matter more to the average consumer. Things like camera quality, software support, and build quality are frequently overlooked in favor of raw benchmark numbers.

Marketing Over Substance

It’s hard to ignore the marketing strategies behind these rankings. Companies often tout their high Antutu scores as a primary selling point, overshadowing essential aspects of smartphone ownership. For instance, a phone with a high performance score may still come with a poorly optimized user interface or lack timely updates. This disconnect between marketing hype and user experience is something every potential buyer should consider.

What Consumers Really Want

ultimately, most users seek a smartphone that meets their daily needs without breaking the bank. Features like battery longevity, camera quality, and software experience often take precedence over sheer speed. As we evaluate these rankings, it’s crucial to ask whether these fast devices genuinely offer value for money or if they’re just flashy specs meant to lure consumers.

Final Thoughts

Antutu’s January 2026 rankings give us insight into the fastest Android phones available, but speed isn’t everything. Consumers should remain skeptical and consider all aspects of a phone before making a purchase. As the market continues to evolve, it’s essential to keep an eye on devices that balance performance with practical usability.

Stay tuned to IntoDroid for more Android updates.