Samsung Galaxy SIII Mini Is Not a ‘Real’ Galaxy SIII

By Stan | Published on October 15, 2012

This past Wednesday, Samsung announced that they were to release a device called the Samsung Galaxy S III Mini. Presumably this meant that the phones would be exactly the same except, of course, for the size. My first thoughts on the device were yes, yes, and yes! I love just about everything about the Galaxy S III, save for the large size, and a mini version is just the solution I was looking for. However, on Thursday, Samsung introduced a completely different device that had me thinking no, no, a thousand times, no.

The Samsung Galaxy S III Mini may carry the same design as its predecessor, but it’s far from having the same internal specs. The Mini will have a 4-inch display, possibly to have a product that will compare in size to Apple’s iPhone 5. The screen resolution of the device will be 800 x 480 pixels, which is quite a dip from the original Galaxy S III’s 1280 x 720 pixel display. The screen display is just a first in many disappointments to follow about Samsung’s new flagship device.

Cameras are a very important function to many when it comes to smartphones, myself included. Unfortunately, the Samsung Galaxy S III Mini’s camera will not be one of its finer selling points as it only has a 5 megapixel camera on the back, and a VGA camera on the front. Comparing that to the Samsung Galaxy S III’s 8 megapixel camera on the back and 1.9 on the front, the message is already becoming clear that these two devices share nothing more than the same name.

If things weren’t already abysmal enough, let’s take a look at the processors. The Samsung Galaxy S III (U.S. version) runs fast and smooth with a 1.5GHz dual-core Qualcomm Snapdragon CPU. Coming up in the rear is the Samsung Galaxy S III Mini, running so-so with a 1GHz dual-core chipset from an unannounced manufacturer. I feel like I’m comparing apples and bananas (or Samsungs) at this point…

Independent journalism still matters.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Give once Give monthly Support another way