backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by robinthakur.. on Oct 16 at 8:26 AM

The new Galaxy S III Mini might be smaller, but it also compromises a lot for a svelte form-factor

We first reported on Samsung's upcoming Galaxy S III Mini yesterday, and as promised, the device was officially announced today. The smartphone is aimed at Apple's new iPhone 5, which also uses a 4" display, instead of the monstrous 4.8" unit found in the standard Galaxy S III.
 
As previously reported, the Galaxy S III Mini packs in a 1GHz dual-core processor, 4" WVGA Super AMOLED display, a 5MP rear-facing camera (VGA front-facing camera for video conferencing), and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. The smartphone will come with a 1,500 mAh battery and includes FM radio support. One big omission, however, is LTE connectivity.
 
Compared to the powerhouse Galaxy S III, its little brother is definitely not quite up to par.
 
“The GALAXY S III introduced a new concept of smartphone that has proven hugely popular around the world. We’re now delighted to bring its revolutionary design, intuitive usability and intelligence to the GALAXY S III mini in a more compact form,” said JK Shin, President and Head of IT & Mobile Communications Division at Samsung Electronics. “We continue to make every effort to provide extraordinary mobile experiences to meet a wide variety of user needs.”
 
The Galaxy S III Mini measures 4.78" x 2.48" x 0.38" and weighs 3.93 ounces.
 
There is no word yet on pricing or availability for the Galaxy S III Mini.

Source: Samsung



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Aimed
By othercents on 10/11/2012 1:45:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And yet you're ok with Apple coming out with a mini-ipad to compete with all the smaller existing tablets.


Absolutely OK, as long as the mini-iPad is just as powerful as the current iPad. If they are going to use the original iPad processor in the mini-iPad and call it just as good, then they would be making a significant mistake.

If the Galaxy S III Mini was just as powerful as it's big brother with the same features (except the smaller screen), then for those who like the smaller platform this would be a good option, but since they stripped it down my recommendation to friends will be the full size version and not the Mini.

Other


RE: Aimed
By Alexstarfire on 10/11/2012 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
I own a GS3, a US version, and even I have to agree with what you say. Granted they haven't put out a price for this and if it's like $50 or free, on contract, then it might be justified. If they ask for more than that then they are crazy. It's not really a competitor in my eyes given its specs. Of course, that depends on how you determine a "competitor." If you're just looking how well it runs, especially given that's how Apple views things, then it certainly could be. Rather hard to say, in that case, without a review of the product.


RE: Aimed
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2012 2:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
The only one's saying this is a competitor to the iPhone are Daily Tech writers.

Once again we see Androids biggest strengths, options and choice, construed into somehow being negatives.


RE: Aimed
By ritualm on 10/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: Aimed
By retrospooty on 10/11/2012 6:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I read the article... It doesnt mention the iPhone, it just says "“The GALAXY S III introduced a new concept of smartphone that has proven hugely popular around the world. We’re now delighted to bring its revolutionary design, intuitive usability and intelligence to the GALAXY S III mini in a more compact form,” "

In other words, here is a smaller low end phone for those that dont care to pay high end prices for a high end Phone. the price tag agrees. Its NOT an iPhone competitor. Its like saying a Honda Accord is a competitor to a BMW 5 series. No, its not. Honda has the Acura TL that more directly competes. Samsumg has the GS3 that competes with the iPhone, the mini is just a cheap alternative like the Accord.


RE: Aimed
By retrospooty on 10/11/2012 6:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I read the article... It doesnt mention the iPhone, it just says "“The GALAXY S III introduced a new concept of smartphone that has proven hugely popular around the world. We’re now delighted to bring its revolutionary design, intuitive usability and intelligence to the GALAXY S III mini in a more compact form,” "

In other words, here is a smaller low end phone for those that dont care to pay high end prices for a high end Phone. the price tag agrees. Its NOT an iPhone competitor. Its like saying a Honda Accord is a competitor to a BMW 5 series. No, its not. Honda has the Acura TL that more directly competes. Samsumg has the GS3 that competes with the iPhone, the mini is just a cheap alternative like the Accord.


RE: Aimed
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2012 2:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the Galaxy S III Mini was just as powerful as it's big brother with the same features (except the smaller screen), then for those who like the smaller platform this would be a good option


That would be a huge mistake if you thought about it. The full sized GS3 needs to remain the 'flagship' phone it is. If they packed all the power into a smaller form factor, it would marginalize existing GS3's while at the same time having nearly the same cost, alienating those who wanted a smaller cheaper Jelly Bean solution in a "Galaxy" phone.


RE: Aimed
By RufusM on 10/11/2012 4:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with the Mini is the Galaxy S3 brand. They are diluting the brand with a slower and inferior product. At the store customers will see the GS3 and the GS3 Mini and think it's the same thing but smaller, which it's not.


RE: Aimed
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2012 4:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see it as "diluting" the brand so much as adding to it. Where is it written in stone the Galaxy line must NOT have a lower end option?


RE: Aimed
By Anonymous Blowhard on 10/11/2012 4:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's "diluting the brand" in that people will see "Galaxy S III", buy the crippled Mini, have a lousy experience, and declare to their friends that the "GS3 suxx, Imma get an iPhone."

Though to be fair, Android's had this problem for a while with low-end phones clouding the image of the better ones.

"Android sucks, man, I'm getting an iPhone."
"What phone do you have?"
some terrible bargain-bin 480x320 Android device
"Dude, you can't really compare a $100 prepaid Android to a $600 iPhone."
"I'm getting the one with more GBs!"


RE: Aimed
By Reclaimer77 on 10/11/2012 5:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well you guys are building an argument around consumer ignorance. Not sure that's a good position personally. If people spend their money carelessly without understanding their purchase, it's hard for me to sympathize with them.

But lousy experience? If Jelly Bean is silky smooth on an old Nexus, I doubt the experience will be lousy just because the hardware isn't equal to an iPhone.

Samsung can do no wrong at this point. Even the Note, which people called a joke, has been a pretty respectable seller. So we'll just have to see if the 'mini' proves to be worth it.


RE: Aimed
By Xplorer4x4 on 10/11/2012 10:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well you guys are building an argument around consumer ignorance. Not sure that's a good position personally. If people spend their money carelessly without understanding their purchase, it's hard for me to sympathize with them.

It's not about sympathizing with the ignorant customer, it's the customer experience that dictates future mobile os preference and unjustly hurts, in this case, the Android brand. this device may not fall in to that group. Time will tell but my first Android was a Motorola Backflip that launched with 1.5 Doughnut and had a clock speed of 500Mhz. It was a very sad experience. The stock motoblur experience was notoriously plagued with the inability to slide to answer at least 90% of the time. I am not entirely sure if this was hardware or software related, but if memory serves me right Moto had to patch this with an Answer and Decline button. An experience like this could quickly change an Apple customers mind if they made the jump. The problem is they were ignorant and they blame Android so Google has lost a customer for life.


RE: Aimed
By SlyNine on 10/12/2012 6:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your point?


RE: Aimed
By robinthakur on 10/16/2012 8:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
As a fairly clued-up consumer who was curious about Android, actually the biggest thing which led to me dumping the Galaxy 3 and going to get an iPhone 5 is that it seemed like a trade off whereby you could either get a stock Android device, a Nexus, where you got regular updates, or you went with a phone where Samsung/HTC add extra features to the stock OS, some of which are worth having, most of which are not. The ability to use the phone as a mass storage device was good, until it came to putting music on it whereby drag and dropping loads of music files onto it into separate folders quickly became annoying after the ease of use of iTunes over many years.

Samsung would have a better consumer experience if their devices were better built, eschewing the use of cheap materials and if the screens were better. I'm all in favour of a big screen, but not one which is fuzzy and greeny/blue tinted. Camera is similarly hobbled:Able to take pictures really fast (almost instantly) but with quality which does not stand upto scrutiny.

I don't blame Android here, I really like the OS itself, I just think that there are parts which really do need to be polished up a bit if they really want to tempt more people away from iPhone, which does still excel at user friendliness. I use the Nexus 7 and like it for certain use cases (e.g. cached maps for travelling) though Apps choice are still very lacking compared to iOS.

The G3 in this article is simply a continuation of the Galaxy Ace et al. which are the cost proposition line, and it has to be thicker because it doesn't have such a large surface area to put the battery in. I'm sure there will be plenty of Android devices which will be worse than this, and the worst that could really happen is Samsung's brand is hurt, not Android's


RE: Aimed
By jiffylube1024 on 10/12/2012 1:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
I wholeheartedly agree that the GS3 mini blasphemes the entire Galaxy S series. It's a joke to release this cut down phone as a cousin to the big Galaxy S3. It even looks like it uses a pentile display (notice no plus in the name), meaning its 800x480 4" screen is basically the same thing that was in the Galaxy S1. Remember: pentile is not a massive issue at 720p, but it's pretty noticeable at 480p on a ~4" display.


RE: Aimed
By Rukkian on 10/12/2012 11:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, but feel it is not much different than the providers still advertising Galaxy S1 Aviators (us cellular around here). It really hurts people that may not know better, as they get a crippled phone that is not that usable.

At least this is Jelly Bean and should be a much better experience, and will hopefully get the providers to quick selling the 2 year old phones.


RE: Aimed
By xsilver on 10/14/2012 2:02:50 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=3725...

not sure what all the fuss is - there is 2 previous generations of this phone. Its not meant to be a flagship phone.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki