Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree7Likes
  • 2 Post By smooth4lyfe
  • 1 Post By Ry
  • 1 Post By Ry
  • 2 Post By The Hustleman
  • 1 Post By rjlramos
  1. Thread Author  Thread Author    #1  
    Ry
    Ry is online now
    Ry's Avatar

    Posts
    7,190 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,197 Global Posts

    Default Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    4-inch Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini comes to Germany Oct. 11

    Samsung Mobile head JK Shin has announced the 4-inch Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini will be available in Germany on October 11. As the smaller cousin to the 4.8-inch Galaxy S3, don't call the Mini entry-level, as Shin says it will be "full form factor". There was no word about the internals, but we're hoping Samsung has found a way to cram everything we see in the full size version into the 4-inch form factor.

    Shin says the demand for a 4-inch class device is high in Europe, and we can't help but think many in North America would also appreciate a slightly smaller version. We'll keep our eyes and ears open for more on that front as it unfolds.
    Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini render leaks ahead of announcement

    Samsung Galaxy S III "Mini"-samsung-galaxy-s3-mini.jpg




    According to German technology site MobileGeeks, meanwhile, the mini smartphone will have a screen resolution of 800x480 pixels, along with a rear 5-megapixel camera. It is believed that a 1GHz dual-core STE U8420 chip will power the Galaxy S3 mini and feature 16GB of flash memory with an expandable MicroSD card. The battery is understood to be, at 1,500 mAh, a lower specification than that of the larger model, but is offset by the smaller processor and less battery-intensive display. The German technology site also claimed that the smaller Samsung smartphone will include the latest version (4.1) of Android, nicknamed Jelly Bean.

    Is it still a rumor if it gets confirmed?
    a.k.a. RyZR from HoFo
    Motorola Moto X (164.55.2.ghost_verizon.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola Moto G (173.44.20.falcon_cdma.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola DROID Bionic (98.72.22.XT865.Verizon.en.US, Jelly Bean 4.1.2)
    Google Nexus 7 2012 (KOT49H, KitKat 4.4.2)
    What other devices have I had? Here's my phone timeline.
    Support your favorite Android app and game developers. Pay for apps! And don't block ads!

    Community Rules & Guidelines - Mobile Nations Forums
  2. #2  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    I don't see why people are mad at the specs... I see it as they have a choice for the higher grade one or lower grade one with decent specs... As long as it still has the same features I don't see a problem... I mean it's a Mini version

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 Boyyyyyy!
    - Using the Galaxy S5! -
    April920 and georgek1029 like this.
  3. Thread Author  Thread Author    #3  
    Ry
    Ry is online now
    Ry's Avatar

    Posts
    7,190 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,197 Global Posts

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Why can't we get top specs in a normal Size???

    There are people that don't want to compromise performance for a smaller phone.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    a.k.a. RyZR from HoFo
    Motorola Moto X (164.55.2.ghost_verizon.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola Moto G (173.44.20.falcon_cdma.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola DROID Bionic (98.72.22.XT865.Verizon.en.US, Jelly Bean 4.1.2)
    Google Nexus 7 2012 (KOT49H, KitKat 4.4.2)
    What other devices have I had? Here's my phone timeline.
    Support your favorite Android app and game developers. Pay for apps! And don't block ads!

    Community Rules & Guidelines - Mobile Nations Forums
    georgek1029 likes this.
  4. #4  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    It's probably because the SIII Mini is not a flagship phone. It wouldn't sell enough to make them money like the SIII so they aren't putting a higher clocked dual core or even a quad core.

    That thread you linked to starts off at the wrong foot with the word "normal Size." There is no normal size unless you want to talk about the original size of a smartphone which is then 3.5".

    There are people who don't want to compromise performance for a smaller phone, and then there is life where it is hard to put the internals of a larger device into a smaller one without having heat problems, weight problems, cost, and time. I'm sure Samsung could put the quad-core, 2GB of ram, 32/64gb, and a hd screen into a 4" sized phone, but there is no way you would get it at a decent price.

    Think about it. 5" phone internals into a 4" phone. Need of new customized components, time to research, improved cooling tech, newer screens to manufacture when they already have 4.5"+ already made. That is a lot of money to put into a phone, and then how much would they sell it for? More then the orginal SIII. If you and the group who want a hardcore 4" want to pay a significant amount more then the SIII then go ahead and try to convince these OEM manufacturers. The worse that can happen is they deny your plea or not even reply.

    If you're really in need of a smaller phone with good internals why not just buy a kirf? I'm sure China makes copies of current smartphones at smaller sizes (but the quality is 0% and you'd still be paying $200)
  5. Thread Author  Thread Author    #5  
    Ry
    Ry is online now
    Ry's Avatar

    Posts
    7,190 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,197 Global Posts

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Quote Originally Posted by xKrNMBoYx View Post
    It's probably because the SIII Mini is not a flagship phone. It wouldn't sell enough to make them money like the SIII so they aren't putting a higher clocked dual core or even a quad core.

    That thread you linked to starts off at the wrong foot with the word "normal Size." There is no normal size unless you want to talk about the original size of a smartphone which is then 3.5".

    There are people who don't want to compromise performance for a smaller phone, and then there is life where it is hard to put the internals of a larger device into a smaller one without having heat problems, weight problems, cost, and time. I'm sure Samsung could put the quad-core, 2GB of ram, 32/64gb, and a hd screen into a 4" sized phone, but there is no way you would get it at a decent price.

    Think about it. 5" phone internals into a 4" phone. Need of new customized components, time to research, improved cooling tech, newer screens to manufacture when they already have 4.5"+ already made. That is a lot of money to put into a phone, and then how much would they sell it for? More then the orginal SIII. If you and the group who want a hardcore 4" want to pay a significant amount more then the SIII then go ahead and try to convince these OEM manufacturers. The worse that can happen is they deny your plea or not even reply.

    If you're really in need of a smaller phone with good internals why not just buy a kirf? I'm sure China makes copies of current smartphones at smaller sizes (but the quality is 0% and you'd still be paying $200)
    Motorola put basically everything but the 1.3 mp camera (vs. VGA), 16 GB internal memory (vs 8 GB), and micro HDMI port (but M has MHL/micro USB) in the DROID RAZR M compared to the DROID RAZR HD.

    It can be done. Battery size and screen size/resolution should be the only differences.
    a.k.a. RyZR from HoFo
    Motorola Moto X (164.55.2.ghost_verizon.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola Moto G (173.44.20.falcon_cdma.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola DROID Bionic (98.72.22.XT865.Verizon.en.US, Jelly Bean 4.1.2)
    Google Nexus 7 2012 (KOT49H, KitKat 4.4.2)
    What other devices have I had? Here's my phone timeline.
    Support your favorite Android app and game developers. Pay for apps! And don't block ads!

    Community Rules & Guidelines - Mobile Nations Forums
    georgek1029 likes this.
  6. #6  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ry View Post
    Why can't we get top specs in a normal Size???

    There are people that don't want to compromise performance for a smaller phone.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    The specs are not that bad, its stilla dual core phone, I dont think many phones are dual core yet, and also not many people are tech heads...some people will buy the phone because the name and dont care much about the specs...I dont think its such a bad idea
  7. #7  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    The phone really should have been the same as the regular.

    There is a HUGE untapped market segment of people who don't want big phones.

    Why should they have to compromise specs/performance to get a small enough phone?

    Shouldn't have called it Galaxy S3 MINI because it's not

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    Thanked by 2:
    malimalRy 
    Ry and smooth4lyfe like this.
  8. #8  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Well when you put it like that...then I guess ur right lol
  9. #9  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    I agree that the device should've gone by some other name if it's going to be considerably different specs-wise. Apart from the scaled-down look, this Mini doesn't really compare very well to the S III. It's more like what the Galaxy Ace was to the SGS II.
    Thanked by:
    Ry 
    Ry likes this.
  10. #10  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    The s3 mini is not a flagship device so I think that the is fair. I like the galaxy s3 design and I like the design of the mini device even more. Choosing between iPhone 5 and galaxy s3 mini I will choose the s3 mini.
  11. #11  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    It's looks decently spec'd for a "Mini" type of phone. The design isn't good, it seemed like Samsung got it right with the GS3 but when they started to make these "Look-a-likes" they flopped miserably.
  12. #12  
    zondajag's Avatar

    Posts
    13 Posts
    Global Posts
    17 Global Posts
    ROM
    Cyanogenmod

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    I'm sorry but surely they should have just rebranded the Galaxy S II instead of releasing this half baked piece of tech. The Galaxy S II is the right size in terms of smartphones in my eyes. Anything with a larger screen is just sacrificing portability and battery life. They should have just rebadged the S II and stuck a quad core in it. To me that in my eyes would be an S3 mini.

    In fact anyone thinking about getting the S3 mini, stop right there. Just buy the S II instead. You will be getting better specs at a better price in all likelihood.
  13. Thread Author  Thread Author    #13  
    Ry
    Ry is online now
    Ry's Avatar

    Posts
    7,190 Posts
    Global Posts
    7,197 Global Posts

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    I think there would be less grumbling about this phone if it wasn't called a Galaxy S3.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    a.k.a. RyZR from HoFo
    Motorola Moto X (164.55.2.ghost_verizon.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola Moto G (173.44.20.falcon_cdma.Verizon.en.US, KitKat 4.4.2)
    Motorola DROID Bionic (98.72.22.XT865.Verizon.en.US, Jelly Bean 4.1.2)
    Google Nexus 7 2012 (KOT49H, KitKat 4.4.2)
    What other devices have I had? Here's my phone timeline.
    Support your favorite Android app and game developers. Pay for apps! And don't block ads!

    Community Rules & Guidelines - Mobile Nations Forums
  14. #14  
    dmmarck's Avatar
    Retired Moderator

    Posts
    10,930 Posts
    ROM
    What do you think?

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ry View Post
    I think there would be less grumbling about this phone if it wasn't called a Galaxy S3.

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums
    I agree.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2
  15. #15  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Excellent.
  16. #16  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Galaxy S3 Mini is not all that mini

    The Galaxy S3 Mini was revealed in Germany just on October 11th. A search of the Samsung website and the PR (see the first link) did not reveal much in the way of physical details. (Very) few have commented or reported on the actual physical size of the 'Mini’ - perhaps this is due to their excitement over the PR and the 'new product'. Technically, it really is a new product though some have compared it to the Fascinate and the iPhone 3GS (we compared it to the Galaxy S variants - see the photo).

    The physical size of the 'Mini' does not appear to be all that "mini". It seems closer to the physical size of an S variant - but it is still smaller than the SIII. However, one can argue that it is still larger than an iPhone. The current 'Mini specifications' (Samsung announces Galaxy S3 Mini | Android Central) given are about 4.8" x 2.5" by 0.39". The current iPhone 5 dimensions are given as about 4.9" x 2.3" x 0.30" - still thinner and less wide by comparison with the Mini. However, the Mini does about match the iPhone 5 in weight/mass: 3.93 ounces vs. 3.95 ounces (not enough to really notice in the hand). The display size now matches at 4.0" - if that's good enough.

    We did not notice a claim to NFC (Near Field Communication) in the release but have scraped that up from other sources. Did Apple miss out on NFC? - We believe they did. Still Nokia was talking about NFC back in 2007. The release does make mention that Mini runs the latest Android Platform - Jelly Bean. The display is their 'standard' AMOLED display but with lower resolution. Those switching back and forth from an iPhone may notice that. However, the sidebar video () does show a fluid, glossy and rather mobile display. But, how many lines of icons will it hold?

    Samsung currently lists 30 versions of smartphones on their products website - the Galaxy S3 Mini does not yet appear on this list. Nor does it yet appear on Amazon.com or eBay - yet fans obviously have claimed to pre-order the device. Did we miss that on the Samsung Product website? Perhaps a live chat with customer service was needed. By comparison this miniature version of the Galaxy S3 does not appear to be all that 'mini'.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Samsung Galaxy S III "Mini"-basic-comparison-galaxy-siii-mini-others.jpg  
  17. #17  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    I have a mini...works ok on att. Radios are weak though and art coverage stinks. Put in my Verizon 4g LTE sim and could not get the phone to work. I know its not 4g but shouldn't I get somethingg. Can I use it on Verizon?
  18. #18  

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Yeah, Samsung galaxy have awesome functionality as compare to other android phones. I used it and it's my personal experience.
  19. #19  
    DrBit2011's Avatar

    Posts
    3 Posts
    Global Posts
    97 Global Posts

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    so far to me its a great device, big enought to see a movie, and small for one hand use. Maybe dont have a fancy quad core cpu or a bigger screen, but good for a mobile expetiencie.

    Send from my Galaxy S3 mini
  20. #20  
    ash786ii's Avatar

    Posts
    1 Posts
    Global Posts
    2 Global Posts

    Default Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

    Hi, ive looked around and need some help. Ive downloaded 4.1.2 update for my s3 mini but it doesn't have premium suite. Anyone know if it comes in the 4.1.2 or is it seperate??

    Thanks in advance

Similar Threads

  1. Samsung Galaxy S3
    By blitz118 in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 04-15-2012, 11:02 AM
  2. Samsung Galaxy S3
    By SSHGuru in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-01-2012, 11:50 PM
  3. Samsung Galaxy S3: 5.25" Display in a Galaxy S II Case?
    By milominderbinder in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 09:25 AM
  4. Samsung Galaxy S3 gets fan teaser to stir up rumors
    By Preach2k in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-24-2011, 10:27 PM
  5. Samsung Galaxy S3
    By Drummerboy1975 in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 07:08 PM

Posting Permissions

B