Jump to content

Contributors to this blog

RUMOR ALERT: Samsung Galaxy S III may be just weeks away

S4GRU

2,406 views

by Scott Johnson
Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 - 6:09 PM MST

 

Could the newest Samsung flagship, the highly anticipated Galaxy S III, be weeks away from being announced? That is the claim of Eldar Murtazin, the Russian tech blogger. Murtazin tweeted “HD resolution, 12 mpx camera, sw tweaks, android 4 - i like my new phone. Eager to see official announcement in Barcelona.”

By official announcement in Barcelona, he means it will be announced at the MWC in Barcelona in February and if it follows the timeline of the Galaxy S II (which was also announced at the MWC), it could hit shelves by April.

No speculation on when the US will see the device, but it was nearly 5 months from the European release to when the Galaxy S II hit US shores. This is one of the more credible rumors that have come out about the device as Murtazin is well connected and seems to frequently find a way to get phones prior to release. Some skepticism can be expected as he has been wrong before (see "Google phone rumor was started by Apple") and the specs he quotes are general expectations of what the phone is assumed to have on board.

Murtazin didn't come out and say anything specific about the processor, but hinted at a quad core in the 1.5-1.6 GHz range. A lot of speculation was confirmed with his tweet. A HD resolution screen would follow the progression of phone displays, as would the advancement to a 12 megapixel camera. SW tweaks and Android 4 is most likely referring to Ice Cream Sandwich with a Touchwiz skin. He later said that the phone was "fast" and had good battery life.

Murtazin finished breaking news by claiming Nokia would release the Lumia 900 in Europe as the Lumia 910 with a higher megapixel camera in May, but would be too late to compete with the Galaxy S III.

 



0 Comments


Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • The Wall Articles

  • Wall Comments

    • to me rural coverage matters most....because i like being able to make phone calls and send texts in remote areas of the country ...i dont care about speeds i just care about per square mile coverage and over all usability and reliability
    • Tell us how you really feel @MrZorbatron!

      I think that most cellular players exaggerate their coverage. Yes, I suspected a long time ago that T-Mobile was one of the most egregious. Now according to the merger presentation, they will end up with 85,000 macro sites. That will be enough to match the coverage of pretty much everybody.

      Like you, I appreciate not having dropped calls or undelivered texts. In my area on my T-Mobile MVNO, I don't get any but can't say it won't happen elsewhere. Once Charter offers service via their Verizon MVNO, I think I will move my 4 personal lines there. My business line will stay on Sprint/T-Mobile, well, because I can't control that.
    • I do not welcome any part of this.  I don't think T-Mobile really cares about doing anything they say they care about.  I have seen how truly bad their network is in the ways that matter for essential communication, and I want nothing to do with it.  Say what you want about Verizon, but the one thing they have in common with Sprint is that they have historically built out a solid network before trying to make it extremely fast.  I don't care about 50 Mbps to my phone.  I care about calls that don't get disconnected constantly.  I care about that stock trade getting through when I send it, even if carried by EVDO, because EVDO still gets it through. Sprint's "Outdoor coverage" maps might seem exaggerated to some, but T-Mobile's maps are a complete joke.  Maybe Michigan is a bubble, the only state where this is true, but it really is very true here.  T-Mobile is the network of dropped and undelivered calls, mysterious disconnection, and "call failed" error messages. If this goes through, look for me at the nearest Verizon store because price to me is absolutely irrelevant.  I see two things happening if this merger goes through:  1:  Sprint spectrum is used to bolster capacity at T-Mobile sites, and 2:  As much of the current Sprint network as possible goes away, even if it means losing sites that would provide valuable fill-in density.  I saw the latter happen with Sprint and Nextel, after they insisted that all Nextel sites that could serve to increase Sprint coverage would be used.  Similarly, there were locations T-Mobile could have used MetroPCS locations to improve their own coverage but didn't, even where it left holes in their network.
    • Not when Verizon just bought 1GHz of mmwave spectrum. Those were the policies of the past. If it does not get approved, it would the loss of jobs and the fact that it might not be good for consumers. Although when I look at the table on this page, comparing unlimited plans, it is already evident that the other three are not really competing and Sprint's lower prices are not working since they did not manage to steal anybody from the other other three. To me it is evident that were Sprint to remain independent they need massive investment in their network since competing on price is not enough anymore and low prices just deprive their network of investment.
    • And I would definitely say that merger probably or probably not won't be approved. If not I would have to say it would be on the grounds of cellular asset divestiture.
×