I feel compelled to point out that HTC does give us a choice of 32 gb of storage. ATT decided to gimp that. It is a minor difference but assign the blame where it should go.
I think the article from the VERGE said my feelings best. Towards the article the writer summed it up by saying this...
"I get it, most people think the future of mobile devices is in developing new software solutions, but even if I could keep straight all the S-branded extras Samsung enumerated at its Galaxy S III launch, I wouldn't be able to tell you what difference they're going to make to your life. Not to say that they're all terrible, Smart Stay eye tracking is an interesting idea, but none feel epochally significant. And while hardware is growing less and less important, industrial design still counts, and the Galaxy S III falls below the necessary threshold of a high-quality device (Pentile displays belong in the past), while also failing to maintain the Galaxy S tradition of offering a unique hardware selling point or two.
At best, Samsung matched the HTC One X. At worst, it indulged in a two-month delay of an MWC-worthy device, stoked a frenzy of anticipation that was unjustified by the eventual product, and jeopardized the still fragile growth of its brand reputation among smartphone enthusiasts. I'll leave you to decide which extreme I'm gravitating toward."