There's flogging a dead horse, and then there's the new Samsung Galaxy Core Advance. It looks like last year's S3, but it's not out until next year -- when the S5 will be imminent -- and it's not even as good as the 18-month old flagship phone.
The Core Advance is more like the old S2, going by the specs, with the addition of a couple of buttons on the front. It has a pathetic dual-core 1.2GHz processor, a mediocre 1GB of RAM and 8GB of expandable storage, no 4G, and the ageing Android 4.2 Jelly Bean.
Worst of all is its screen. At 4.7 inches across, it has a woeful 800x480-pixel resolution. That's a lamentable 199 pixels per inch -- worse than the original Galaxy S from 2010.
Samsung hasn't said how much it's going to charge for this scraped-together bit of old tat, but "UK availability will be announced in due course", with blue and white options on offer. I wouldn't expect it to be gob-smackingly bargainous -- its other mid-range phones are usually more expensive than rivals from other companies.
The S Advance, which has the same dismal resolution on a smaller 4-inch screen, is about £160 SIM-free, for example. That's a good £30 more than the new Motorola Moto G, which has a gorgeous HD screen and a much faster quad-core chip, and it runs on a newer version of Android.
Other recent Samsung phones looking to cash in on the Galaxy name and short-change punters on specs include the merely adequate £210 Galaxy Ace 3 and the horribly sluggish £110 Galaxy Fame. Then there's the S4 Mini, which goes for around £380, and is not merely a smaller S4 as the name suggests, but packs a weaker processor and poorer screen.
Is Samsung confusing phone buyers with so many different mobiles? Should it charge much less for one- and two-year old tech? Leave your verdict in the comments below, or over on our high-value Facebook page.