Samsung Galaxy S III "Mini"

[Ry]

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 exec confirms Galaxy S3 'mini' is on the way

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?

 

[smooth4lyfe]

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!

 

[Ry]

http://forums.androidcentral.com/showthread.php?t=211010

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

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[xKrNMBoYx]

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)

 

[Ry]

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.

 

[smooth4lyfe]

http://forums.androidcentral.com/showthread.php?t=211010

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

 

[The Hustleman]

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 s III MINI because it's not

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[smooth4lyfe]

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

 

[rjlramos]

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.

 

[runer112]

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.

 

[zondajag]

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.

 

[Ry]

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

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[dmmarck]

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

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

I agree.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

 

[georgek1029]

Excellent.

 

[georgek1029]

Re: Samsung Galaxy S3 "Mini"

Galaxy SIII Mini is not all that mini

The Galaxy SIII 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 (Video - Samsung Galaxy S3 Mini hands on review in english - Ann Arbor Gadgets | Examiner.com) 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 SIII 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 SIII does not appear to be all that 'mini'.

Galaxy SIII mini is not all that mini - Ann Arbor Gadgets | Examiner.com

 

[Chriss Bennett]

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?

 

[dailybargainshop]

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.

 

[DrBit2011]

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

 

[ash786ii]

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