Jump to content

The Wall

  • entries
    402
  • comments
    6,082
  • views
    4,750,495

Contributors to this blog

Is this Samsung's Highly Anticipated Galaxy S-III (GT-i9300)?

JustAGeekHere

4,922 views

blog-0430961001332448911.jpg

Danny Bullard

Sprint 4G Rollout Updates

Thursday, March 22, 2012 - 2:45 PM MDT

 

I'm sure you've seen some of the latest leaks of the Galaxy S-III. Some are obviously fake and already proven so, but might this leak be the real deal? The good folks over at PhoneArena received were tipped with a picture of a button-less Samsung device running Google's Ice Cream Sandwich. By looking at the picture, the screen looks big, 4.6" big like some of the latest GS-III rumors have suggested.

 

Another interesting thing is that the Samsung logo has moved underneath the screen. While this shouldn't really mean anything, this makes it different from the rest of the Galaxy S line. PhoneArena suggests this may be the Galaxy B. So only time will tell.

 

If this is the Galaxy S3, would you be first in line for one? Sound off in the comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo courtesy of PhoneArena.

 

Source: PhoneArena



5 Comments


Recommended Comments

Samsung is at the bottom of the Epic 4G...

 

And if the spec are true, then yes, I'll be there.

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

After finding out that Samsung (and possibly LG ) made the retina display on the new Ipad- I am definitely a Samsung fan!

I have faith in them and after owning an Epic Touch it will only get better!

Samsung definitely has a grasp on Android !

I will definitely be in line for the Sprint Galaxy S3 !

Share this comment


Link to comment

If thats it, then some of the GS3 fanboys I'd expect will be a little disappointed...

 

Screen doesn't stretch near as far as all of the renderings show...So either smaller screen than thought or the phone itself is massively big...

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment

If thats it, then some of the GS3 fanboys I'd expect will be a little disappointed...Screen doesn't stretch near as far as all of the renderings show...So either smaller screen than thought or the phone itself is massively big...

 

Yeah SGT, that is not nearly as impressive looking as the rumors would lead you to picture. I'm not convinced that this is a GSIII

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

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.
×